First Blu-ray Disc Reviews Posted Online 235
An anonymous reader writes "With the first Blu-ray player and discs officially making their market debuts tomorrow, High-Def DVD Digest has posted the first reviews of three of the first Blu-ray discs -- The Fifth Element, 50 First Dates, and xXx. So what's the verdict? So far, in terms of video quality, the results seem to be mixed: standard DVD fave 'Fifth Element' underwhelmed ('just
not the best HD I've seen'); likewise, 'xXx,' was a disappointment ('up close just looks like a messed-up bunch of dots'). Somewhat surprisingly, it's '50 First Dates' that ranked highest of the three in video quality ('holds
its own with the best high-definition transfers out there')."
and this is going to catch on how? (Score:5, Insightful)
So exactly how are HD videos (blu-ray, or HD) going to capture the hearts and imaginations of the buying public with this kind of debut? Ostensibly (you would think) the best and brightest would be selected for their ability to shine and put the best face on an already murky new format battle.
It's an interesting task, convincing Mom and Dad, friends, etc., this is the latest and greatest thing... "no, no, just wait, you'll SEE the difference in the next scene... just let me pause it on this one frame, THERE!... see how clear the pattern is on Drew Barrymore's shirt!"
I've seen HD from comcast. I've seen HD demo'ed in Circuit City (when they FINALLY got some source). My experience and subjective opinion is that what is being delivered is being delivered with unacceptable compromise, whether it be to rush to market, or just shoddy quality, it doesn't matter. I've seen compression artifacts, I've seen jittery playback. I'm not "getting" it.
This kind of rollout will underwhelm the public, especially at the rollout prices. The only thing keeping this from dying on the vine is the digital mandate to convert to digital, and the tide of HDTVs only requiring customers to buy in.
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:5, Funny)
And even then, I don't think that would be worth the outlay of cash for the hardware.
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
It depends on if it's just Drew's, or if this new disc technology is reach-out-and-touch-some-boobs delicious for all movies.
Although, even JUST Drew... ;)
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
You give me hardware which allows me to feel up the ladies on screen, and I'd be willing to pay a lot of money for that.
Heck, I bet the porn industry would be all over that; and we all know how the porn industry are such a great indicator of the likely success/failure of new technology.
I mean, grope-o-vision is the
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:3, Funny)
sorry...
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, TNTHD upconvertes and stretches (!) normal SD content for most of the day and calls it "HD".
I've noticed that the most important part of HDTV is the source, and this is evident just through simple channel surfing. Shows that I assume can afford better cameras because they need less of them, and less mobile ones, such as Jay Leno/David Letterman, SNL, etc, have absolutely amazing quality. Watching it on a 1080p 50 inch Sony SXRD is phenomenal, with no artifacts, or lack of detail. The colors, contrast, and image quality is so good that it appears your looking through a window.
Anyone who has seen this TV displaying true HD content at my apartment is immediately excited. And almost everyone says "oh oh! put in a DVD so we can see how that looks", unaware that DVDs are of a much lower resolution.
So I put one in, usually something fun like The Matrix or what have you, with a warning that it's going to look much worse then what they just saw. I have a pretty good upconverting DVD playing that puts out 1080i/60 over HDMI. Looks better than a normal DVD player but considerably worse than the HD content. Everyone so far has been disappointed with DVD quality (except my mom, but she's
Point is, there *IS* a difference, a huge difference, and those of us with good TVs are begging for a way to watch our movies in the same detail we watch our TV...other than HBOHD.
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:3, Interesting)
This goes for all video. Period. If you visit a digital video enthusiast forum like Doom9 you'll see that statement over and over and over in threads. As the first post said, move along nothing to see here.
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
This furor over current sample quality is similar to that of those who decried CDs because crappy masters dubbed onto CD still sounded like shit.
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:3, Informative)
DDD labelling (Score:2)
Though I've never seen DAD, I did release a tape that was DDA.
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
Just
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
They somehow manage to mess up the audio on HD shows as well. I've noticed several shows, like Law & Order, have the audio pitch reduced significantly, so everyone's voice sounds deeper. It is very unnatural and distracting.
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
Why Digital Isn't Better Than Analog (Score:3, Informative)
The title of this reply, for those who may have skipped over it, is "Why Digital Isn't Better Than Analog".
Usually that starts into a discussion about how much better analog is at reproduction and why vinyl rocks. That's not where I'm g
Re:Why Digital Isn't Better Than Analog (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why Digital Isn't Better Than Analog (Score:2)
1. They are free to tune in.
2. FOX and ABC have their prime-time shows in beautiful 720p. That covers House and Lost (the best two shows running) right there.
3. NBC and CBS have their prime-time shows in also-good 1080i.
4. PBS has a signal that is 24/7 1080i (although they just use it to re-broadcast the a Cringely TV special on how great HDTV is, a documentary on covered bridges of Iowa, and historical reality sho
Re:and this is going to catch on how? (Score:2)
xxx (Score:5, Funny)
you gotta wonder how many porn filters will block that third link...
Re:xxx (Score:2)
Re:xxx (Score:2)
Re:xxx (Score:2)
My friends and I came up with a theory as to why they named the movie "XXX" -- so that users searching for it on Kazaa would come up with nothing but porn. Note: since there's no way in hell I would even waste downstream on that movie, I haven't seen it, so maybe they came up with some flimsy background for the naming. *Shrug*
How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:5, Insightful)
And to agree with the earlier poster: Whoever's greenlighting chick films like "50 first dates" and "Phantom of the Opera" for testdriving a new medium needs a new job, preferably selling hot dogs on a street corner, to get an idea of what a market actually asks for.
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:2)
ET was a poor sales alien (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:2)
I can't explain the chick flick and substandard action movie. Rich chicks and rich dicks?
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:2)
Though I think Sony would have done well to have picked some action films/cult classics that were shot in digital HD from the start. No one cares about the quality of the video in a drama or com
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:5, Funny)
A relevant Penny Arcade comic to answer your question:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/19 [penny-arcade.com]
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I actually watched Phantom of the Opera at the movies on the big screen, and I think that they're aiming for the Opera and Cinema buffs with that one - a lot of early HDTV adopters are into opera for some reason, have the sound systems to appreciate it, and might want to get it in a higher resolution format.
It won a number of awards for cinematography, with good reason.
Plus, the blood, burns, and mask are just plain cool.
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:2)
What does HDTV appealing to opera lovers have to do with the Blu-Ray release of a shitty Andrew Lloyd Weber musical?
Film should be fine as a source (Score:5, Interesting)
35mm has plenty of resolution for a good HD, it just takes doing a good digital transfer. If you want to see an example, get the T2 Extreme Edition DVD and watch it on a modern computer running Windows. The 2nd disc has a HD transfer in WMV9 (VC1) format. They chose an intermediary resolution that's not part of the ATSC spec, 1440 horizontal (the verticle is cropped to fit the aspect ratio of the film). Because the bitrate is only that of DVD, it gets a bit blocky during action sequences but for all that the detail is superb. It is clearly head and shoulders about the DVD version, despite being sourced from film, and an old one at that.
While pure digital movies certianly are easier to get good copies of, since there's no transfer just resampling, it's not that film lacks the rez, it is just that they don't want to invest the time and money in to a good transfer.
Re:Film should be fine as a source (Score:2)
Having an HDTV and high def content, I can attest that much of the HD content from remastered film sources can be beautiful.
The catch is that when a film's scene is cropped pretty hard you can see the grain in the film.
Chick flicks sell well (Score:2)
By serving up chick flicks first, the blokes get to have a more effective line of attack: "Honey, I love you so much I've been thinking of buying **you** a new BRay system to watch chick flicks. Just imagine, you'll be able to read the clothing labels & see the individual tears running down Drew's f
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:2)
Re:How many of these were shot on digital? (Score:2)
Although I was under the impression that the film used in movies is still of a far higher quality than 1080i (a trip to a cinema should confirm that). So the key is how well the digital recording (is it called 'mastering') is done.
Shoot me (Score:2)
Bang. (was:Shoot me) (Score:2)
Re:Bang. (was:Shoot me) (Score:2)
Dammit! I left the webcam on again while changing underwear!
Re:Shoot me (Score:2)
Uh... (Score:4, Funny)
Well... that's sort of what it is, yes? :-\
Interesting Choices for First Releases (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes Hollywood think I'm going to want them now, just because they are high def?
Re:Interesting Choices for First Releases (Score:5, Funny)
Disney Rep: How can we get "Ice Diver" to see 50 First Dates?
Sony Pictures Rep: I have an idea! We'll invent a new high definition DVD format and release only 50 First Dates.
Disney Rep: Great idea! If that won't get him to see it, nothing will!
Warning: reviewer does not understand technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Warning: reviewer does not understand technolog (Score:3, Informative)
Therefore, there can not be any quality difference inherent to the formats
Well, maybe not in the formats, but there is a quality difference in the current players. The first Bluray players are supposed to be able to output the disc's native 1080p at 24fps (film is natively 24fps), while the HD-DVD players released so will show a picture converted to 1080i at 30fps. If you had a reallly good TV, you could theoretically get a better result with BluRay, at least until HD-DVD starts releasing 1080p players.
Re:Warning: reviewer does not understand technolog (Score:2)
Re:Warning: reviewer does not understand technolog (Score:3, Interesting)
Better in comparison to what? MPEG2 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 is still used for studio and satellite. The shows you see on HD sets were high data rate MPEG2 4:2:2 coming over the satellite and later downconverted to 4:2:0 for 8VSB transmission. HBO-HD is MPEG2 on C-Band. It seems to me given a high enough bitrate, MPEG2 will look the same, if not better, as MPEG4 AV
Re:Warning: reviewer does not understand technolog (Score:2)
And the first Blue-Ray DVD Disks online in.. (Score:2)
OK, seriously, I know this will take some time (I don't know of any PC Blue-Ray DVD readers even available yet), and no, I don't encourage downloading of movies/music online unless you own it blah, blah, blah (that said, I have to admit my own guilt for downloading a TV show that my Tivo missed or that iTunes wasn't selling, so call me a hypocrite if you must).
I'm still wondering what the HD to Standard Def (SD) ratio is. My wife and I have decided that 2 years from now is w
Yeah, I'll buy the Brooklyn Bridge too. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah, I'll buy the Brooklyn Bridge too. (Score:2)
TGI: Newest movie has best clarity! (Score:2, Funny)
Stay tuned for tomorrow, when we'll have the following headline:
"X3 has better picture quality than XMen and XMen2!"
Coming Soon... (Score:4, Funny)
We can expect Blu Ray releases of Istar and Gigli any day now. Actually, a quick Google shows that the real problem may be that the Sony movie catalog is almost completely dreck, Princess Bride excepted. If what Sony owns is crap, crap is what will be released first on Blu Ray.
This post seems biased (Score:2, Interesting)
Everytime I hear "Coming soon to Blu-ray"... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Get it now on DVD and PSP."
And we know how well that turned out (PS What?).
And why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And why? (Score:2)
*boggle*
Re:And why? (Score:5, Funny)
We heard: "Nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd. Nerd. Nerd?"
Re:And why? (Score:2)
T1 and T2 coming (Score:2)
Reviewers are Idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
So anyway, I guess the gauntlet is down and the proverbial "masses" will decide. Unfortunately they will probably end up doing it based on title availability, brand loyalty, price, and "picture quality" instead of technical merit. All it really means to me is that I have to wait to buy a player until: a) one camp gives in, b) someone makes a dual format player or c) companies start releasing *everything* in both formats.
Re:Reviewers are Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
The masses though can't get over the Beta vs VHS thing.. So the non-techies out there can't grasp that this time around the only difference is the discs themselves, and the markets being split for no reason better than competition for the sake of it.
I think HDDVD vs Blu Ray is a battle that everybody will ultimately lose.
I know severeal folks with fancy new HDTV plasmas, and most don't get why they should pay a few extra bucks for component video cables, when s-video or composite looks just as good to them... Frankly, unless you're a videophile, they're right.
If I'm just passively watching or playing a game, I can't see the difference between progressive scan and interlaced..
Maybe I'm just getting to old -- but most people are as old or older. I don't see the point.
I feel the same way about XBox 360, PS3 and Wii.. They aren't a "new generation", the whole thing seems to be the industry trying to force us to upgrade to something we don't want or need. The last generation was "good enough", and once the market got saturated, they conductor of the gravy train yelled "end of the line" and they freaked out..
What were we talking about anyways?
Re:Reviewers are Idiots (Score:2)
What freak out are you talking about too? Video game sales still make the big bucks, at least for companies that know how to sell them.
Re:Reviewers are Idiots (Score:2)
I can't think of anything the XBox 360 can do that the XBox c
Surprise! It's easy to render talking heads (Score:5, Insightful)
Not surprising, there's no action to speak of, not a lot of motion, etc.. Less movement means less to encode, which means less work to decode.
The Matrix was always the DVD stress-tester of choice, specifically the kung fu scene, because you would really notice the quality of the decoder during the more intense scenes, where every pixel on screen is changing with every frame.
So my question is, is this an issue with the encoding of the discs or an inherent design problem with the discs themselves, perhaps too low a bitrate, or just a cheap shit decoder in the playback device? My money is on the latter.
It would've been better if... (Score:2)
For all the talk, there's been precious little that we can SEE.
I've bought the Fifth Element three times! (Score:3, Funny)
At least most of hollywood's current movies don't outlast the media that they're released on. Gigli Blu-ray? I don't think so.
Re:I've bought the Fifth Element three times! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe film transfer to compressed HDTV won't work. (Score:5, Interesting)
There may be a big problem looming for Hollywood. If you transfer 35MM film to 1080p, the film grain often shows up. Compressing all that useless film grain noise, which has no frame to frame coherence, will use up a big fraction of the data capacity. It will also mess up the motion compression, which usually results in annoying jaggies. So it's probably necessary to filter out at least some of the film grain. But if you filter out the film grain, you lose resolution.
The reviews of the new Blu-ray disks ("the picture looks too soft and flat") indicates that there's probably too much filtering.
Somewhere in LA, there are probably members of SMTPE struggling with this, trying to figure out the right tradeoffs between resolution loss and compression overload when converting existing films.
its nothing like the jump from vhs - dvd (Score:5, Interesting)
In a period of 2 years DVD went from geek toy(97) to mass market adoption(99). Fueled by the features, quality, price, and convenience of the discs. The falling prices of the hardware players helped a lot too.
I'm a early adopter with an HD setup, but I have no interest in Blue-Ray or HD-DVD at the moment. I'm sure in a couple years I will pick one (probably when Netflix chooses a technology), but right now regular DVD's using an upconverting 1080i DVD player and an HDMI cable look and sound great for me. The upconverting setup was only $250 a year ago, and it makes my existing DVD's look great.
What is the motivation for these HD formats from a user perspective? Higher priced players, high priced discs, and limited selection. What is the consumer paying for? A little bit better pictured quality is not going to motivate people to switch.
There needs to be something more for the average consumer to consider using any of these formats. Looking at the audio world, there have been hi-def audio formats out for quite some time with little success. There needs to be something more besides a quality increase to get people to jump ship.
Re:its nothing like the jump from vhs - dvd (Score:2)
Re:its nothing like the jump from vhs - dvd (Score:2)
The funny thing, I know a lot of people that still have tape players in their cars because tapes are more durable than cd. Even though the quality is less they stick with tapes. So you may be on to something here but I think Blu-Ray places itself o
Re:its nothing like the jump from vhs - dvd (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, Netflix is already offering HD-DVD disks. All you have to do is set it up in your account settings.
Most people don't know this (Score:4, Informative)
Most people don't know this but the quality of current Blu-ray titles does not match the quality offered by HD-DVD's for a very simple reason. The couple of Blu-ray titles that have been released so far are all encoded using MPEG-2, while HD-DVD titles are using the more advanced MPEG-4 based VC1 codec.
What is even more frustrating is that Blu-ray titles could have been VC1 encoded. The Blu-ray and HD-DVD standards both support the same set of video codecs. But for some reason the Blu-ray camp decided to encode the first titles using MPEG-2. I don't follow closely enough the format war to know why such a decision has been taken, but I know this is a stupid decision because most non-technical people will have a bad first impression of Blu-ray. It is even more frustrating knowing that Blu-ray titles have the technical potential to look at least as good as HD-DVD titles.
Re:Most people don't know this (Score:2)
Re:Most people don't know this (Score:2)
VC1 = WMV9, not MPEG-4 (Score:2)
VC1 is also known as WMV9 (Windows Media Video 9 codec)
H.264 is also known as MPEG 4 AVC (MPEG 4, Part 10)
Two totally different codecs.
Whoa! (Score:2, Insightful)
While watching a hockey playoff game a month ago, my buddy paid extra to have HD broadcast straight from the Cable provider (Charter charges for this) and was all proud of his Samsung wide screen LCD/hybrid TV.
To be honest with you, it didn't change the game experience for me that much. Wide screen was nice (got to see a few more dirty hits off the "regular" camera angle)and it wasn't enough for me to justify paying an extra 100-200 dollars for HD ca
Re:Whoa! (Score:2)
Re:Whoa! (Score:2)
My latest TV is HD capable. I don't see me getting any HD playback device any time soon though. DVD quality is good enough.
Independent Review (Score:4, Informative)
Where's the torrent? (Score:2)
so you take low quality video and expand it? (Score:2)
For HD to make a good debut you can't take something that's been filmed digitally on a camera designed around the NTSC standard and then just enhance the video by making the resolution bigger. Unless you've done lots of research into image sharpening algorithms, this just CANNOT work. Try taking the slashdot banner and expanding it to print on a poster-size piece of paper... The printout will be disgusting. That's exactly what they're doing by taking old m
Re:so you take low quality video and expand it? (Score:2)
Stupid review (Score:3, Funny)
Right...
Re:I have to admit, I was tempted (Score:2)
Re:I have to admit, I was tempted (Score:2, Insightful)
This is quite surprising to me - I was one of the first people to buy an Apple II+, bought one of the first RCA VCR models (all my friends said buy Beta, but I was working shift
It's just that, as my son showed me this past week, the only thing that really seems to matter is Net speed. To explain, he had an iMac that I gave him when he was 7 - he's now 15 - and we had crammed RAM in but we finally couldn't upgrade any more, an
Re:I have to admit, I was tempted (Score:2)
Do I NEED to see something even higher resolution? Probably not. There's
Re:lame movies (Score:2)
I think you mean (Score:2, Funny)
Thou speaks too soon (was:$499 PS3 Here We Come) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The public deems this irrelevant (Score:2)
Re:Sums it up perfectly... (Score:2)