No longer taking any advise from HD-Digest.

[Derb]

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/888/seaoflove.html

They rate a film based on content. Nothing more.

[Wirehed]

What are you talking about? They go into quite a bit of detail about the film transfer quality and sound. What are you reffering too?

[dugpa]

While Kenneth Brown's reviews should always be taken with a grain of salt since he often doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't really see what your complaint is. In most of the reviews it starts off with a section on what the reviewer thinks of the film, then follows with how the disc fares technically. I don't see any thing different about that there.

[Taxi]

"Regardless of your opinion of the film itself, the poor video transfer and lackluster audio mix on this HD DVD should make for an extremely tough sell."



Are you saying that they rated it too low?

[ganthc]

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/alienvspredator.html

This movie got a 2.5 star rating, yet the audio/video quality is rated highly. How are you able to say that it's only about content?

[Derb]

The film is 18 years old!

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by dugpa

While Kenneth Brown's reviews should always be taken with a grain of salt since he often doesn't know what he's talking about...

I agree.

40 Year Old Virgin HD DVD Video Review:

...The transfer on the original DVD was plagued by mosquito noise, haloing, and terrible bouts of edge enhancement. By comparison, this HD DVD edition boasts a clean image, sharp resolution, and impressive fine object detail that kept me relatively happy as a fan of the film....

For Chrissake man, this HD DVD represents some of the worst EE I've never seen. Almost rivaling Fox's Die Hard with a Vengeance DVD.

Don't even get me started on Bracke's 4 Star rating for the Traffic DVD Upcon...I mean HD DVD.

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

Don't even get me started on Bracke's 4 Star rating for the Traffic DVD Upcon...I mean HD DVD.

The Traffic HD-DVD is not SD upconverted. In fact, there's nothing wrong with the disc that I can see. That's how the film is supposed to look. That's how it looked in the theater, and unless someone fucks with it a lot and changes the filmmaker's intent, that's the way it's always going to look. But I've given up trying to explain to people that there are different styles of cinematography in the world that don't always result in crystal clear HD football quality images.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by dugpa

The Traffic HD-DVD is not SD upconverted. In fact, there's nothing wrong with the disc that I can see. That's how the film is supposed to look. That's how it looked in the theater, and unless someone fucks with it a lot and changes the filmmaker's intent, that's the way it's always going to look.

You cannot tell me it's not an upconvert or this is "how film is supposed to look."

Criterion 480i DVD:



Universal "1080p" HD DVD:



720p Broadcast HD:



If the director's intention was to make the film a blurry, edge enhanced mess that looks worse than the DVD, Congrats to Mr. Soderbergh.

More comparison shots at AVS.

The 720p MPEG-2 version is undeniably superior.

[Pirate]

While I don’t agree with the detractors in this thread, I do find some of HDD’s reviews frustrating. For example, Bracke gave 300 a 4/5. Not because there was anything wrong with the video presentation, but because he didn’t like the style of the film and states that it "doesn’t lend itself to HD." I don’t mind him sharing his opinion, but to knock a star off because a film doesn’t have that 3D "pop" makes the review useless in my opinion. I mean, what is HD for if not to preserve the theatrical experience? If the director wants to smear the lens with mayonnaise and the HD DVD/Blu-ray perfectly preserves that, then that transfer deserves a top score.

I’m getting really tired of this HD for HD’s sake nonsense. If you want nothing but popping, three-dimensional images… go outside.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

While I don’t agree with the detractors in this thread.

This is why no one can be trusted to give an accurate assessment of quality.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

This is why no one can be trusted to give an accurate assessment of quality.

Notice that, except for my joke 300 review, I've stopped commenting in the "Last HD Movie Watched" thread.

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

I don’t mind him sharing his opinion, but to knock a star off because a film doesn’t have that 3D "pop" makes the review useless in my opinion.

Is the difference between a four star and five star review enough to keep you from purchasing said disc? If not, does it really matter? It's not like it's the difference between one star and five stars, right?

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

This is why no one can be trusted to give an accurate assessment of quality.

Except me of course. You can always trust me. Would I lie to you?

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Taxi

Is the difference between a four star and five star review enough to keep you from purchasing said disc? If not, does it really matter? It's not like it's the difference between one star and five stars, right?

Not for me, because I read the whole review and realized why he gave it 4 instead of 5 stars. Also, I was going to buy 300 no matter what. However, I do think the star review should be about the transfer and not the reviewer’s opinion on the style of the film.

[Ruined]

Ken Brown is especially incompetent IMO. I'd just ignore his reviews.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

While I don’t agree with the detractors in this thread, I do find some of HDD’s reviews frustrating. For example, Bracke gave 300 a 4/5. Not because there was anything wrong with the video presentation, but because he didn’t like the style of the film and states that it "doesn’t lend itself to HD." I don’t mind him sharing his opinion, but to knock a star off because a film doesn’t have that 3D "pop" makes the review useless in my opinion. I mean, what is HD for if not to preserve the theatrical experience? If the director wants to smear the lens with mayonnaise and the HD DVD/Blu-ray perfectly preserves that, then that transfer deserves a top score.

I’m getting really tired of this HD for HD’s sake nonsense. If you want nothing but popping, three-dimensional images… go outside.

He admits that his star rating was objective:

All things considered, I still found watching '300' an often less-than thrilling experience on a purely subjective level of wanting to enjoy a good-looking, awe-inspiring high-def image. But as a representation of the film's style, there's no debating that this Blu-ray edition of '300' delivers -- so much so that even for high-def purist like myself, it's possible to ignore the film's intentionally degraded visual design and just enjoy the ride.

But obviously he needs a way to distinguish "reference" (I know you love that word) video from video that may not be as demo-worthy. Otherwise, we'd all have 5 star ratings for every HD presentation, because even though the image looks like crap, hey! it's true to the cinematic intent. The star rating for video isn't only about capturing the essence of the director's intent, but to improve the image to be impressive in high def. Otherwise, why do have HD? DVD is fine for displaying cruddy images that the director wanted us to see.

I disagree that the star rating shouldn't take the demoworthiness of the film into account somewhat, if not for the sole purpose of distinguishing a demo disc from just a nice presentation.

[Wirehed]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

I’m getting really tired of this HD for HD’s sake nonsense. If you want nothing but popping, three-dimensional images… go outside.

[sub780lime]

Maybe he graded it down, but he did admit:

this is a very accurate reproduction of the theatrical experience of '300' (at least the one I saw projected digitally at a flagship theater here in Los Angeles).

and if you read the review, like you did, you know he admits this and admits that "this is how the film should look".

The thing that seems to be the crux for you is the stars. He only gave it for. If you are only looking at a set of stars to make your judgments and you are not reading any of the reviews, you are a poorly informed person anyway. I could careless what the scores are he gave, I am going to read to find out why and that still leaves me in a position to make an informed decision for myself.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Ken Brown is especially incompetent IMO. I'd just ignore his reviews.

To fanboys, EVERY hd-dvd movie is a 5/5 zomgwtfwow reference disc.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

He admits that his star rating was objective:

It shouldn't be. That's my point. The star rating should only be about the transfer (i.e., are there any problems, print damage, noise, etc.). And, as far as demo material goes, that is what he should comment on in the review itself, not in the star rating.

The only concern when judging HD should be whether or not it is source accurate. If you don’t like the way a film was shot, fine, but that should not factor into the actual rating,.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by sub780lime

I could careless what the scores are he gave, I am going to read to find out why and that still leaves me in a position to make an informed decision for myself.

You're missing my point. I don't care if he wants to comment on the film looking "flat" or "overly processed," but to give a transfer a lower score because you didn't like the look of it is bad reviewing. Bracke admits that he saw 300 theatrically, yet he gives it a lower score on HD. Why? Did he expect them to change the style of the film between the cinema and home video?

[Derb]

I should point out there is also nothing wrong with Traffic. It looked like utter shit in the theater. Mann's intended look =

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by ganthc

He admits that his star rating was objective

Did you mean "subjective"?

For reviews to be truly helpful, they should be objective, because then the reviewer's bias is not applied.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Taxi

For reviews to be truly helpful, they should be objective, because then the reviewer's bias is not applied.

From HDD's own "review methodology" article

when it comes to our reviews, we make pains to not detract from a disc's rating simply because a filmmaker's stylistic choices may not "look good" to our eyes.

So, it seems they're not even following their own rules.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

I should point out there is also nothing wrong with Traffic. It looked like utter shit in the theater. Mann's intended look =

I think the hoopla over Traffic is because there was a 720p broadcast in the UK that appeared to have more detail than the 1080p HD DVD when scenes were compared to each other. Implying that there was a higher resolution master somewhere that Universal did not have access to.

Of course, that could simply mean that the UK version is missing an intentional post-filter that Mann applied to the film, but this is something we obviously dont know the answer to.