Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Flying Fox wrote:Good, now I have a thread to put these AVS Forum links in so I don't have to keep them open in a tab (hate bookmarks).
PQ tier thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342
AQ tier thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1190265
Those are voted in by the nutjobs at AVS, so I suppose they do carry some weight around?
paulWTAMU wrote:I don't get all the hate for Predator on Blu-ray. It looks as it should: a 1980s, spherical lens film at 1.85:1 that was filmed in the jungle. It's way better than the DVD. Not everything is supposed to look like HD video.I thought I'd start a thread where we could post up which Blu-Rays had a good picture quality versus which ones were cheap, lazy cash ins (Predator, I'm looking at you!).
SNM wrote:What's wrong with Batman Begins?Bad:
Batman Begins
Flying Fox wrote:The Tier threads and rating system is worthless, because it sets an incorrect standard (i.e., everything on Blu-ray is supposed to look like Discovery HD).Good, now I have a thread to put these AVS Forum links in so I don't have to keep them open in a tab (hate bookmarks).
PQ tier thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342
AQ tier thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1190265
Those are voted in by the nutjobs at AVS, so I suppose they do carry some weight around?
Vrock wrote:Flying Fox wrote:The Tier threads and rating system is worthless, because it sets an incorrect standard (i.e., everything on Blu-ray is supposed to look like Discovery HD).Good, now I have a thread to put these AVS Forum links in so I don't have to keep them open in a tab (hate bookmarks).
PQ tier thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342
AQ tier thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1190265
Those are voted in by the nutjobs at AVS, so I suppose they do carry some weight around?
The purpose of any home video medium is to faithfully reproduce the source, not to make things look 'pretty'.
Flying Fox wrote:Why? I didn't spend thousands of dollars on my stuff to impress my friends and neighbors with pretty pictures. I bought that stuff because I enjoy movies, and I want to recreate the film experience in my home.Well, true, but everyone with a decent setup should have a few "samplers" just to show off the system.
Flying Fox wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "realism". If the Blu-ray faithfully represents the source audio/video, then it's a good quality Blu-ray. Granted, some sources just suck, and need restoration, but you can't fault the disc for that. You can fault the studio for not wanting to spend the money to get the source up to snuff, sure...but it's also kind of silly to get mad when your favorite low budget, cult indie film doesn't get a full blown restoration and/or digital 4K transfer.Also, my definition of "quality" also includes some degree of realism (although that may not always jive with the cinematography intended by the director). If I just want to watch a story and/or acting, then even SD VHS quality would be fine (namely reruns on TV).
Vrock wrote:SNM wrote:What's wrong with Batman Begins?Bad:
Batman Begins
tikrjee wrote:Film aficionados regard the Blu-ray transfer of Wizard of Oz to be near flawless.Wizard of Oz (same boat as Sleeping Beauty. sorry, Toto, no Hi-def Kansas for you)
SNM wrote:Eh, I forget things. How large of a screen are you using?Vrock wrote:SNM wrote:What's wrong with Batman Begins?Bad:
Batman Begins
We've talked about this before. But for whatever reason, it's encoded at a ridiculously low bitrate compared to most Blu-Ray discs and it manifests itself as a fairly blocky image (for a Blu-Ray). You may not notice it at 6 feet but I do at 16 inches, and that's how I watch my content.
tikrjee wrote:Jennifer's Body was bad but not a comedy
tikrjee wrote:Transformers, either of them (unless you just want to show off visuals and audio and absolutely don't care about things like substance)
Vrock wrote:Eh, I forget things. How large of a screen are you using?
SNM wrote:THX and SMPTE standards say you should be sitting about 3 to 3.5 feet away from the screen. Were you exaggerating when you said 16 inches or did you mean it?Vrock wrote:Eh, I forget things. How large of a screen are you using?
23.6" computer monitor from my computer chair. It's got 75%-100% of a movie theater's apparent size (depending on where in the theater).
TravelMug wrote:There's nothing wrong with VC1, provided its at high enough bitrates. There's been VC1 to AVC codec comparisons (Flags of our Fathers HD-DVD to Blu-ray IIRC) and there's no apparent difference. VC1 is a common codec, so that means there's a large number of Blu-rays that use this. That probably explains why so many of those movies that you think look bad are VC1.Also found that some movies really do not do justice to the setup and those are usually the VC1 encoded discs. Not sure why, but production companies seem to think it's a good idead but it clearly is not. From all the movies I have the trend is definitely there. VC1 encoding = Not stellar picture quality.