**Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

[JohnnytheSkin]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

I actually thought 300 looked great too... Who am I though.

Yup, and the Matrix movies look great to my eyes as well.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

Man, I wish you had posted this before I plunked down the coin for the Ultimate Matrix Collection. I foolishly trusted the reviewer at HDD who boasted of its "********* five-star video rating," but next time I'll wait for the true test of an image's quality - The Blzer 32" Test.

Yup, and the Matrix movies look great to my eyes as well.

Yes, we need to wait for

"Blzer's Best Buy Kiosk Reviews"

LOL!

[Blzer]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

Man, I wish you had posted this before I plunked down the coin for the Ultimate Matrix Collection. I foolishly trusted the reviewer at HDD who boasted of its "********* five-star video rating," but next time I'll wait for the true test of an image's quality - The Blzer 32" Test.

I didn't say they didn't look great, but they added more unnecessary green filter to the first one, and the other ones just dwindle from having the outdated look that the HD-DVD versions had.

Again, not that they looked bad, or not that it looks bad. I think you guys are confusing what I'm saying from what looks bad with what could look better.

As for 300, I don't recall my pre-screening (saw a pre-screening, not... err... post-screening I guess you would call it) being touched up so much where the grain was so disturbing, the blacks would bleed and there was an abundance of overcontrast with unbarable reds. That said, I don't know if what I saw was an untouched version of the theatrical version and Warner messed this up for the Blu-ray, or if Snyder included these filters for the theatrical version and the transfer was direct. If the transfer was direct, then I can't say Warner messed it up, and it would be reference. But I don't believe this is the case.

As for the Ocean's series, the only visual beefs I have are with Ocean's Thirteen (same issues as with 300 plus some inconsistencies), and the other big problem I have is they are all Dolby Digital tracks, not Dolby TrueHD or Linear PCM.


Again, just like the McDonald's thread, people are missing my point. Did I say I felt like I wasted my money? No! Anyting in high-definition above standard definition is well worth the extra $15 alone. But, just like next-gen games, there comes a time that we expect so much that, when there are other titles in the same generation to compare it to, we seem to have to nitpick, as much as we still love it. The Matrix Blu-ray looks beautiful, but in comparison to what it could have been is a whole different story (though sound is unprecedented I must say). 300 only looks okay, I must say however that the DVD I'm sure is far inferior. But once again, what it could have been is a whole different story.

I also like how the people that are accusing me of plagiarizing are also saying that I have a blind left eye, a system set to default settings, and think I'm watching Scooby Doo when talking about The Dark Knight.


What do most professional Blu-ray reviews do? They don't compare it to DVD's. Normally, they'll either compare it to other Blu-rays or to their theatrical counterpart. Any alterations to destroy the original image, while still in glorious 1080p HD, is not only not reference, but is a mark down on their grade (well, at least mine). Of course it's going to look beautiful, and I love my movies that I own or have seen. However, there are some that I think are the best they can be, and there are some that I think they should have touched less for the BD release, The Dark Knight included. That does not say anything about how beautiful the picture is.




The Best Buy joke just gets funnier every time, too. Ha. Ha.

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

What receiver do you have again, because I still don't think you're getting True HD or uncompressed audio anyway.

[Blzer]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

What receiver do you have again, because I still don't think you're getting True HD or uncompressed audio anyway.

Here are some specs for it:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=18185

Read the last paragraph in the first post:

The AS720 can also support the pass through of Dolby True HD and DTS HD and has a built in Dolby Digital Plus decoder allowing consumers to experience their favorite movies with clear, full-bodied sound. The design and performance of the AS720 has also been perfectly matched with Samsung's new Blu-ray players as well as with their award-winning HDTVs. While the performance of these products are impressive, they will impress even when not turned on

I did my homework and found that one of the PS3 firmware updates was to allow these kinds of receivers to enable the passthrough feature. And I've compared the regular 5.1 track in its uncompressed counterpart, and there is a vast difference.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

What do most professional Blu-ray reviews do? They don't compare it to DVD's. Normally, they'll either compare it to other Blu-rays or to their theatrical counterpart.

Ok Blzer, this is one area where I think that you are completely making assumptions without knowing the facts. At times, reviewers only have the choice of the Blu-ray film or DVD to review. They are not given both, unless you are a huge site like DVD Talk. So comparing both is not an option.

Why wouldn't you compare Blu-ray to Blu-ray on a technical standpoint? Movies on DVD are compressed, so with them having lower quality in picture and audio, that is an unfair comparison.

[Blzer]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

Ok Blzer, this is one area where I think that you are completely making assumptions without knowing the facts. At times, reviewers only have the choice of the Blu-ray film or DVD to review. They are not given both, unless you are a huge site like DVD Talk. So comparing both is not an option.

Why wouldn't you compare Blu-ray to Blu-ray on a technical standpoint? Movies on DVD are compressed, so with them having lower quality in picture and audio, that is an unfair comparison.

I don't think you read my post correctly. I just said that they don't compare it to DVD's, and instead they compare it to other Blu-rays or their theatrical counterpart.

The way you guys seem to be stating your impressions with these movies, you seem to just be simply fascinated that they are in HD and they give you the best version of this movie that you are able to own. What you seem to neglect are the things done to the transfer that deteriorate an even better potential version. I've stated those things that Warner has done to their titles.

To say that these Blu-ray movies look bad is outlandish, insulting, and flat out wrong. I think that's what you guys think I am saying. However, to say that they don't hold up to what I have seen other Blu-rays offer, what its theatrical counterpart offered, and what I know Blu-ray is capable of in general is not only completely valid, but it's the truth. The edge-enhancement in the non-IMAX shots of The Dark Knight are painful to my eyes, especially in long shots, or especially after an IMAX sequence. The Lamborghini chase is an excellent example, how you see some serious depth and tone in the IMAX shots, and the other shots give a processed, flat look with halos from the dark jackets to the glowing light backgrounds due to the lower-angled shots referencing the sky in the background. To say there isn't detail in this shot or it doesn't look glorious is absurd, but to say that they could have laid off the EE knob and made an even better looking picture shouldn't warrant tons of hate toward me IMO.

I don't know what you see in your image, and maybe my TV is so small that the rings are more apparent, I don't know (after all, it's only 23"). But I know that I'm not watching this thing at Best Buy in shop mode with sharpness at 50, backlight and dynamic contrast full, and edge-enhancement on.

Oh, and the sound is terrific. Whoever says otherwise or think I said otherwise may need to revert back to what I first said about the sound, because I've noticed that my point is normally dodged around here (even in the McDonald's thread). I've been given infractions at times for being misinterpreted, and I dearly hope that I do not go down that road again. I'd love to state what I see just like everybody else is, but I don't see any substance in anyone else's posts. I know the movie looks great, but there are defects that would make me want to double-dip if given a re-release with finer adjustments to the 35 mm shots.

[SuperBowlNachos]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

How much do those calibration discs run you?

I see this one recommended a lot, think it was a few pages back as well

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Video-...d_bxgy_d_img_b

[sportdan30]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

Has anyone watched Tropic Thunder on Blu-Ray? I watched it last night and was very disappointed with the the quality. I've watched several Blu-Ray movies in the past, and I was really surprised that this movie what with all the jungle scenes looked very average. It was still better than DVD quality, but didn't set itself as eye popping.

Then again, maybe I'm just bitter that the movie sucked!

[Blzer]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

Has anyone watched Tropic Thunder on Blu-Ray? I watched it last night and was very disappointed with the the quality. I've watched several Blu-Ray movies in the past, and I was really surprised that this movie what with all the jungle scenes looked very average. It was still better than DVD quality, but didn't set itself as eye popping.

Then again, maybe I'm just bitter that the movie sucked!

The movie wasn't great at all (that scene in the middle with Tom Cruise was my favorite part I'd have to say), but I also haven't seen the Blu-ray version either. I don't think I won't be in the near future...

[goh]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

TDK could've been the best if it was all the IMAX shots but it's pretty good as is,as long as you change some settings on your TV or else everyone looks like a tomato or carrot for some reason but it's the same with Batman Begins.

I thought Tropic Thunder was of decently good quality.

I was going to get The Matrix even though I have all that stuff on DVD but then I saw the trailer on that Qore thing that was free and was pretty dissapointed.

[TimmeH]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

Today I picked up Dark Knight for $27 at Shopko after the first Target and Walmart were both sold out. I never thought I'd see a Blu Ray disc sold out.

I also picked up Saw, Saw II, Crash, and Reservoir Dogs for $10 a piece at Walmart. Hopefully there $10 Blu Rays are just the start of us finally seeing some budget Blu Rays.

[DTX3]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

Today I picked up Dark Knight for $27 at Shopko after the first Target and Walmart were both sold out. I never thought I'd see a Blu Ray disc sold out.

I also picked up Saw, Saw II, Crash, and Reservoir Dogs for $10 a piece at Walmart. Hopefully there $10 Blu Rays are just the start of us finally seeing some budget Blu Rays.

Really? might be time to start collecting the series then. Going to check my Wal Mart out, thanks.

[Blzer]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

Today I picked up Dark Knight for $27 at Shopko after the first Target and Walmart were both sold out. I never thought I'd see a Blu Ray disc sold out.

I also picked up Saw, Saw II, Crash, and Reservoir Dogs for $10 a piece at Walmart. Hopefully there $10 Blu Rays are just the start of us finally seeing some budget Blu Rays.

If you can find Saw III anywhere in stores, let me know. I've searched every store in town, and can't for the life of me find it.

[DTX3]

Re: **Official Blu-Ray & HD-DVD Thread Part II**

My Circuit City has it, why not get it online? You could get it for $15 brand new at Half.com