More studio support for BD, yet..

[Derb]

http://forums.dvdfile.com/showthread...613#post777613

As of this post, both formats have 285 titles released. I bet a lot of you (me included) would have guessed a year ago BD would have crushed HD DVD with actual titles released by now huh?

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Derb

http://forums.dvdfile.com/showthread...613#post777613

As of this post, both formats have 285 titles released. I bet a lot of you (me included) would have guessed a year ago BD would have crushed HD DVD with actual titles released by now huh?

Well considering a bunch of those are subpar Universal catalog titles, not really that surprising.

It certainly doesn't explain why hd-dvd as of last week is losing 3:1 to blu-ray in disc sales.

[urbanlegend]

Not sure if this is the best place to mention this but here in Canada BD is $5 cheaper than HD .. probably another reason why BD is winning Dont know why they say that HD is cheaper than BD .. in Canada its not.

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Well considering a bunch of those are subpar Universal catalog titles, not really that surprising.

Just how many of those catalog titles are really "subpar?" Maybe five at most.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by dugpa

Just how many of those catalog titles are really "subpar?" Maybe five at most.

The Game
In Good Company
American Me
The Wedding Date
Liar Liar
Daylight
The Jerk
Norbit
Mallrats
Army of Darkness
Mystery Men
Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
Sneakers
Bruce Almighty


To name some...

[dugpa]

What's wrong with Mallrats? Looked as expected to me, except for a small bit of edge enhancement here and there. Smith's dp isn't exactly the most competent thus most of "issues" you're probably seeing are the fault of the original film, not the transfer. Nothing majorly wrong with The Game either. Do I have to start lecturing on cinematography and film stocks again?

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by dugpa

What's wrong with Mallrats? Looked as expected to me, except for a small bit of edge enhancement here and there. Smith's dp isn't exactly the most competent thus most of "issues" you're probably seeing are the fault of the original film, not the transfer. Nothing majorly wrong with The Game either. Do I have to start lecturing on cinematography and film stocks again?

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/mallrats.html
Mallrats:
I also caught several glaring examples of edge enhancement, random print scratches, surfaces that lack convincing texture, and average shadow delineation.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/game.html
The Game:
Unfortunately, as I finally sat down to watch it, my excitement turned to dismay when I slowly realized that this HD DVD transfer offers only a minute upgrade over the standard DVD. With many shots, side by side comparisons left me shaking my head in disbelief -- most of the time I just couldn't tell the difference between the high and low definition versions of the film in these shots.


As picky as you are, I'm surprised you are defending titles that barely merit an improvement from standard def, or has scratch marks and contrast issues.

[Ruined]

Those reviews are by Ken Brown who has proven to be unreliable IMO. He also blew it when reviewing Hustle and Flow and the Frighteners. I don't think he understands how the filming process works.

Originally Posted by DVDTalk

This 1.85:1 high-def presentation of Mallrats has been culled from the same master as the 2005 DVD re-release, but it's a marked improvement in just about every conceivable way. The bright pastels of the Eden Prairie Mall are more vivid, and the image overall is considerably crisper and more detailed. This is particularly noticeable whenever the camera closes in, and the sunny opening with T.S. and Brandi that sets the stage for the rest of the flick really stands out. The compression hiccups from the DVD are all wiped away with this VC-1 encode. The shots of the blueprint as Jay runs through how Silent Bob is going to take down La Fours with a sockful of quarters always looked kinda blocky and unstable on DVD, f'r instance, but there's nothing like that on this high-def release.

Admittedly, Mallrats doesn't have the glossy sparkle of an $80 million flick -- wider shots in the mall are a bit on the soft side, and the film stock is fairly grainy -- but that's not exactly unexpected. The film elements are in good shape too, with wear limited to a handful of small specks. The only real problem is a mildly oversharpened appearance that occasionally results in some haloing around edges. It's noticeable but didn't strike me as overly intrusive, and the edge enhancement seems dialed down from the previous DVD.

Not perfect, no, but this HD DVD of Mallrats is a definite step up from the DVD, and it's one of the better looking releases from Universal's last couple waves of catalog titles.

Mallrats looks outstanding considering the budget of the film, and a huge upgrade from the DVD. I haven't watched The Game, so I can't comment on that ATM.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Those reviews are by Ken Brown who has proven to be unreliable IMO. He also blew it when reviewing Hustle and Flow and the Frighteners. I don't think he understands how the filming process works.

Mallrats looks outstanding considering the budget of the film, and a huge upgrade from the DVD. I haven't watched The Game, so I can't comment on that ATM.

Did he "blow it" or was it just that he wouldn't give these movies higher ratings for flaws he thought should have been corrected. My statement was merely that Dugpa, as our resident a/v perfectionist, seemed extremely forgiving of these titles when he has been very picky with others. If there is a hint of a compression artifact, he drops it to an 8/10. Yet he'll say that "The Game" was not subpar?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Did he "blow it" or was it just that he wouldn't give these movies higher ratings for flaws he thought should have been corrected. My statement was merely that Dugpa, as our resident a/v perfectionist, seemed extremely forgiving of these titles when he has been very picky with others. If there is a hint of a compression artifact, he drops it to an 8/10. Yet he'll say that "The Game" was not subpar?

Yes he did blow it. Brown was complaining about the quality of said transfers when in reality he just didn't like the filming style - therefore blowing the the review. The idea is of a review not to compare every movie to King Kong, but simply to review the quality of the encode and master while taking into account the filming style, stock used, and budget of said movie. Some movies simply will not benefit as much as others from HD.

Compression artifacts can now be avoided with a properly encoded VC-1/AVC video stream. It costs little to prevent compression artifacts in a movie, and the technology/knowledge is there to do it. Because of this, compression artifacts should be pointed out and the release taken to task if it is littered with them.

However, in terms of looking for pristine masters for every release... Well, a comprehensive film restoration is incredibly expensive and expecting that for all titles is unrealistic IMO. Further, some filming techniques simply may not benefit from HD. Some scenes may be slightly out of focus, some film stocks may have more grain, some movies may have some slight edge enhancement added in post (this is often done to compensate for cheap film stock, mediocre focus, or to make filmed sections look as sharp as CG sections of the movie) - but all of these things are embedded in the master and generally impossible to correct without a comprehensive restoration - not to mention that often they are intentional and hence shouldn't be corrected. Mallrats was just retransferred in 2005, so this is likely the best we will see the movie in a long time.

[videoworx]

Compression artifacts can now be avoided with a properly encoded VC-1/AVC video stream. It costs little to prevent compression artifacts in a movie, and the technology/knowledge is there to do it. Because of this, compression artifacts should be pointed out and the release taken to task if it is littered with them.

Like this one:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/ingoodcompany.html

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by ganthc

My statement was merely that Dugpa, as our resident a/v perfectionist, seemed extremely forgiving of these titles when he has been very picky with others. If there is a hint of a compression artifact, he drops it to an 8/10. Yet he'll say that "The Game" was not subpar?

There's a difference between compression artifacts, which are a result of the encoding process and not a part of the film, and other issues such as film grain, softness and other such things which are a result of how the film is shot. My bottom line is always, is this as close as possible to how the film originally looked. That may include soft focus, heavy grain, varying lighting styles and such.
Kenneth Brown's reviews I always take with a grain of salt. It's pretty clear he knows nothing about cinema.

[snipsnapsappy]

I find that Kenneth Brown gives all sides of reviews for people. He is letting people know that a certain title is not necessarily worth buying just because of its ability to look incredible.

When he says he does not like a title because the fleshtones are off or the colors are all out of whack, he is not saying the transfer is bad.

I enjoy his reviews and find that more often than not, I agree with him. Especially considering he has such a similar HDTV to myself. He is not viewing on a massive projection screen or a Rear Projection screen, but a 52" LCD 1080p HDTV.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by ganthc

It certainly doesn't explain why hd-dvd as of last week is losing 3:1 to blu-ray in disc sales.

Despite our discussion on the subpar-ness of the Universal catalog titles that have come out recently, I think that sales still show that studio support (IE, popular titles are on bd studio movie lineups) reflects the sales gap that exists between HD-DVD and blu-ray.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Army of Darkness

Best presentation on home video to date hands down. You also can't fault Universal for a lack of supplements on this one since the ones found on Anchor Bay's DVDs are AB's property.

Also Norbit is Paramount.

[plissken99]

You guys know I'm impartial, so lets not forget nearly every Fox release was subpar back when they were releasing titles.

[ganthc]

Yes, I hope Fox changes their tune when they get back in the game. They did start improving their transfers near the end of their bd run.

[Sehnzeleid]

I kinda hope Fox kicks their use of DTS-HD MA to the curb.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

I kinda hope Fox kicks their use of DTS-HD MA to the curb.

Yes, and no. If they used THD or PCM, I wouldn't complain, but I think that dts-hdma will catch up with technology. I guess I will have to hear it when it's available. I'm guessing that the patch for it for the ps3 will come out when the hd-xa2 gets their patch upgrade for it, or shortly after. I think Sony has positioned the ps3 to be a counter to that machine for a cheaper price point. But that's just a guess.

Even without the decoding, the core dts track sounds pretty good.

[dugpa]

We already get our first player that decodes DTS-MA, the Denon, by the end of this year. I'm sure more next generation players will support it as time goes on.

[supercutz]

Originally Posted by urbanlegend

Not sure if this is the best place to mention this but here in Canada BD is $5 cheaper than HD .. probably another reason why BD is winning Dont know why they say that HD is cheaper than BD .. in Canada its not.

It's pretty much the same for the U.S. as well.

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by supercutz

It's pretty much the same for the U.S. as well.

Depends on if it's a combo or not. Combo HD-DVD discs usually run about $5 higher than their BD counterparts, which only makes sense as you're getting a DVD as well. Otherwise, prices for companies that release in both formats are usually the same across both formats. Then there's Fox, who priced their titles ridiculously high even for catalog ones. I know somewhere in another thread here I did a nice price breakdown by studio by format a while back. It goes all over place, but averaged out it's pretty much a wash, no one format is overall cheaper than the other.