General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
|
![]() |
#1 |
|
Ok this thread is about films you watched but you felt they sucked due to the picture quality not being worthy of having a HD label.
For me recently it was on HD-DVD Bourne Identity,Bourne Supremacy,Bourne Ultimatum and mulholland drive. I enjoyed all films but the image quality for me was crap to the point at which i may just have watched the bog standard SD dvds. |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
Bizarre, I've been watching The Bourne Ultimatum tonight on Sky HD (1080i) and it's great quality. It's probably a similar case to 300. It looks absolutely stunning on Blu-ray, and totally represents the way the film is meant to look, but a lot of people complained about the heavy grain used in the film. I'm all for artisitc intent in these cases. |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
I wasn't aware you'd been to my house Lenny? You should have looked harder for my missus' dirty underwear to sniff, as when you were going through the drawers you would have seen that the boxes on my Bourne Trilogy are red and the discs play in my 360 HD-DVD drive. Don't have to be a knob about it. Jeez. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
Eh? I'm sure that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are the same in picture quality. I mean, all HD is, is increased resolution. Anyhow my point is void since you guys have it on HD-DVD and say it's fine. |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
Eh? I'm sure that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are the same in picture quality. I mean, all HD is, is increased resolution. SD- [surrender] HD- ![]() "HD" looks like crap. They had movies that were encoded differently between the two formats in both bitrate and compression method used. As you can see above, it matters. edit: For movies that suck I believe the quality of Gattaca looks extremely poor and noisy, but I've yet to really watch it. |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
I don't like the Bourne movies so they didn't matter much in HD or DVD. Anyway, olders movies remade into HD isn't worth it but if the movie is good it's preferable in my opinion. [yes] MMm, I rhink you have your facts muddled up, most post 60's films were infact shot at a higher res than 1920x1080 so infact, they're higher than the highest quality that we have in the home today... any old film can look incredible... I mean, just check Bladerunner... 25+ years old and the final cut is benchmark demo material on HD-DVD and Blu Ray... it's the encode and codec that's used and the quality of the master tape it's taken from that dictates the quality... anything form the past 40 years should be if filmed correctly fantastic... 2001 is another example, watch this and be amazed. VC1 encodes are the standard now, although early Blurays were appalling... As for Bourne series, I have all three on HD-DVD and they're not the best examples at all... certainly better than DVD BUT not a patch on the best HD examples... If youw ant some demo material... watch some of these and be astounded... if you don't see the difference between DVD and HD then your'e either blind or your TV isn't calibrated correctly. Here's some demo material and what format I've got them on: Bladerunner Final Cut HD-DVD, King Kong HD-DVD, Transformers HD-DVD, WalleE Blu Ray, Planet Earth Boxset HD-DVD (sensational, probably No.1 for PQ), Dead Silence HD-DVD, Pans Labyrinth HD-DVD, Batman Begins HD-DVD, Dark Knight Blu Ray, Hot Fuzz HD-DVD, Ratatoullie Blu Ray. Out the 70+ HD films I own, these are probably the ones I'd use to demo my stuff... |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
Tha'ts quite a good example Dibrom. But more to do with original image resolution rather than bit rate. I'd be shocked if some films were just cheaply upscaled DVD formats onto a HD-DVD disk. (which is one reason why MS Paint has always sucked) ![]() Same source, same basic algorithm, different bit rate. |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|