Warner cannot release the Looney Tunes Golden Sets soon enough. I'd pay through the nose for them in HD.

I agree the Looney Toons sets cant come soon enough. Animation films are going to just be simply breathtaking. Even the upconverted picture on Toy Story and The Icredibles is unbelievable. I cant even imagine what the true HD versions will look like. I am expecting alot from the entire genre of animation on HD.

PS...

I bought House of Wax and Troy yesterday at BB. I only played a few minutes of House of Wax. I remember in the theater it had a greenish tint/hazy style to it, so it appears to be intentional as the HD is the same. Everything was super sharp, but I'm not sure this is the kind of film for video reference. The soundtrack, however, was aggressive, as is the case with most horror movies.

I switched back and forth between Troy's DD+ and True HD track and I can't tell a difference. Same can be said for Perfect Storm. I've read alot of people at AVS can't tell much of a difference either.

Reading this thread has me really concerned. I watch a movie to suspend reality and enjoy the story, not to drop out of the movie experience to notice a bunch of "effects". Are you all just a bit excited about the new toys and still in demo mode, or perhaps having connection or calibration issues?

First I dont know what you mean by concerned after reading this thread. Concerned with what? As for the first comment, I think its safe to assume that every single person in this forum watches movies to enjoy the story and as you put it suspend belief. Do you honestly think that we are spending this much money on equipment so we can have a fancy slideshow of moving images? Thats basically what a movie is to someone who has no care for story.

I guess I am just really confused on the whole point of your post and not sure what you mean by stuck in demo mode.Maybe if you clarified just what you are trying to say here you might get a more informative awnser.

As for the part about being excited about the new toys, Absolutly. I havent had this much fun watching movies since DVD players were first introduced thus replacing my piece of crap VHS machine. HD-DVD is everything I expected it to be and more. The IME is 10 times better than I would have ever expected it to be.

PS...

Just watched this tonight and while I agree there was a little bit of dirt, although nothing that bothered me, the amount of grain was completely on par with the previous transfers & also normal for any film shot with the Super-35 process. From reading the reviews from the first 50 or so HD-DVD movies released so far I have come to the conclusion that alot of people just dont understand how to judge a HD transfer especially when referring to grain. Its the grain remark that I have seen time and time again and its a little troubling that people just dont understand that the grain in a lot of these transfers has absolutely nothing to do with the transfer and everything to do with the process and film used for that particular film.

I wont get into a long description of Super-35 but for those that are not familiar with this format, Its a process that uses 35mm film much differently than the conventional processes. When shooting in 2.35:1 you use less negative space than in a standard anamorphic print. You also require intermediate transfers to get it to the standard 4 perf system used by theaters. The fact that you have to have intermediate prints made makes the actual process of making those intermediate prints very very important and the results will very greatly depending on what development studio you use and what processes they use to make the print.

Bottom line is that Super 35 does not have the same quality that standard anamorphic does and you will always see an increase in grain with basically any film shot with this process. Depending on what studio actually makes your intermediate prints, it can be quite a bit of additional grain which actually can be a desired effect by the director.

The thing that people really need to understand is that the objective of a HD transfer is not to get the cleanest print possible with little or no grain. It is to get the best possible transfer from the source film as possible while retaining the initial characteristics of that film. You would actually be changing the artistic vision of the director if you started changing the actual quality of the prints. Imagine what Sleepy Hollow would look like if the guy making the HD transfer tried getting rid of as much grain as possible and changed the contrast and color scheme from the cross processing to get the cleanest image he could. It would have completely ruined the film.

Backdraft is a somewhat grainy film and if your bothered by the grain then its the Super-35 process that you should be critiquing and not the HD transfer. The HD transfer is a great transfer imo, Besides the couple times I saw some dirt I have no real complaints. The colors are vivid, skin-tones are natural and the areas where detail is meant to be seen, its seen. People really need to start looking at the original prints of these films before critiquing the HD transfer. People need to understand the processes used to make that particular film. Without that knowledge your critique just isn't accurate.

Another film shot using Super-35 is due out this next week and that is Terminator3 and as with this film there will be visible grain. This again has nothing to do with the HD Transfer but the fact that it was shot on Super-35. So hopefully the people that review that movie for the HD-DVD release will take that into account and not place blame on the transfer.

PS...

PornoStar - I guess I should have been more specific. Backdraft has some shots that have MORE grain that other parts of the overall film. I certainly realize the difference between grain from the movie stock and grain caused by a bad transfer. Backdraft isn't a bad transfer, but it's nowhere near a "reference quality" one.

On the OTHER hand, I was hard-pressed to find ANY such grain on T3. It IS a reference quality transfer, and one of the best I've seen so far on HD-DVD.

So to summarize:

Backdraft = Grain
Terminator 3 = No Grain.

;)

First of all every film will have sections that show more grain than others as the amount of grain visible changes with each individual scene and can vary greatly from light to dark scenes. As for grain from a bad film transfer, there isnt any in the HD version of Backdraft. The variations your noticing are completly normal variations and have nothing to do with the HD transfer. Backdraft is a great transfer that matches the original look of the film beautifully and again there is no bad transfer grain present.

As for this being a reference quality transfer, I never said it was. I said it was an excellent transfer. No Super35 film not shot by Cameron is going to be reference quality especially when the reference your refering to is a crystal sharp image with absolutly no film grain or transfer like Aeon Flux. It all depends on just what kind of transfer your using as your reference point. This film was never trying to be the kind of film that Aeon Flux is and was never trying to achieve that kind of flawless picture. Anyone who was trying to get that flawless picture style would never use Super35 over standard anamorphic.

As for the Terminator 3 transfer, I have not seen it yet but I have never witnessed in the entire history of cinema, a film shot with Super35 that showed no film grain period. James Cameron was the master of Super35 and nobody else in the industry comes close to getting what he can with that setup and even his show a small hint of grain. Since I have not personally seen the T3 film yet I cannot personally testify to if there is or isnt but again it would be the first film in history that defied the Super35 characteristics.

Since I havent seen it yet I tried looking for other reviews to back up what your saying and this review on Hi-Def Digest explains just what I have been saying.

"Also note that 'T3' was shot using the Super35 process, which allows for greater flexibility in aspect ratio when it comes to transferring a film to home video, but the trade-off is that the photographic processes required tend to make grain a bit more apparent. As such, there is thin, slight veneer of visible film grain throughout 'T3,' particularly in the darker scenes."

The Full review can be found here

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/terminator3.html

Super35 has film grain and as I said before the amount of grain can vary greatly depedning on which director shoots it, which film stock is used and which development studio makes the Intermediate prints. As I stated above James Cameron is the best Super35 shooter in hollywood and nobody has achieved the success that he has when shooting with this format. That being said even those films have a visable grain presence even tho it is much less than anyone else has has been able to achieve due to the rigorous testing he does before shooting and the development studios handling of the film.

Your critique is against the Super35 format and not against this transfer as there is no grain present from poor transfer processes. I for one do not look at grain as a defect of the photographic process and absolutly love the look it can give to a film. Without grain everything would look like it was shot through a camcorder. The fact that film grain is present is not necessarily a bad thing and this is certainly one of those cases.

To Sum this up

1 - Backdraft has Grain.

2 - This Grain is not a result of the transfer but instead a result from processes described above.

3 - All films shot with Super-35 have grain and the amount of grain varys from not only picture to picture but also scene to scene.

4. Terminator3 has grain as its a Super-35 film.

5. HD Transfers cannot be judged by how close they get to looking like the Aeon Flux Transfer. Not every movie tries for a crystal clear picture.

PS..

Here's my take on Backdraft:

Video - Backdraft arrives from Universal in a 1080p 2:35:1 Widescreen Aspect Ratio. For a film of some age (15 years), Backdraft looks mighty impressive. After doing a bit of investigating, I discovered the reason in the film’s transfer being taken from its’ D-VHS release a few years back.

A film of this nature with big, bright, burning fires sounds like it would look colorful right? Well, colors are nearly perfect here as numerous scenes of various colors are shown in a terrific manner. Speaking of the darker scenes, I did notice a tad bit of grain here and there but nothing to really hamper the image. The biggest positive here is that the brighter scenery (try 14:10 in the film) looks fabulous. Edge enhancement is all to absent resulting in that Chicago locale coming alive in a fine manner.

Detail is another huge positive here. Little things like hairs blowing in the wind, water ripples, and beads of little sweat running down the firefighters’ faces bring that HD picture to a new level of realism. As Director Ron Howard informed us in the introduction to this HD-DVD, the film was made before CGI became huge. This resulted in many of the fire sequences having to be really shot. All this did was make a film like this, a film of everyday nature, look even more natural. Chalk up another numerous victory for Universal here.

Audio - Presented in the standard Dolby Digital Plus 5.1, Backdraft sounds equally as impressive as it looks. With numerous explosions and booming surrounds, this audio track really delivered on quite another level.

Starting off with something simple here in dialogue. For a film with as many explosions, I feared that the common problem of muted dialogue would cause my fingers to consistently have to raise the volume up and down. Fortunately for us, the volume was never touched as the mix presented here adapts itself seemingly raising itself in a few of the explosions scenes (try 24-25 minutes in) and then calming itself down in the quieter scenes.

Speaking of the booming explosions, surrounds were quite active during this film. Little things like people yelling in your left ear while glass breaks in your right ear certainly created the perfect experience. Dynamic range is also quite enveloping if I might say. As the fire engulfs the room in the film, the experience that you hear (I usually like to re-watch certain scenes with my eyes closed to create a new feeling) is almost realistic. Little swooshing type sounds are created resulting in quite the auditory sense.

While a Dolby TrueHD track would have made this experience even moe impressive than it already was, I didn’t really find any problem with the presented Plus 5.1 track here. Universal continues to knock balls out of the park and Backdraft sounds and looks fantastic.

PornoStar - we'll just have to agree to disagree about the quality of the T3 transfer compared to the quality of the Backdraft transfer, but I stand by my assessment of both. DVD Town, however, seems to agree with my opinions about the T3 transfer:

The full review can be found here:
http://www.dvdtown.com/review/termin...hd/19881/3956/

Rave reviews of Grand Prix

from DVDTown
and
Hi-Def Digest

woohoo! bring on more 65mm to HiDef transfers! :banana:

That's exactly how it felt watching in the theatre.

My take on Tokyo Drift:

Video - Tokyo Drift arrives courtesy of Universal Studios in a 1080p 2:35:1 Widescreen Aspect Ratio. I don’t even know where to begin with the transfer at hand as everything is completely impressive here. The transfer, like Ray, demands to be seen.

Due to this film boasting one of the newest transfers (in relevance to theater date-street date) on HD-DVD, the print is problem free. First off, colors are gorgeously crystal clear. The warm city lights of Tokyo are brought alive via lush darks and vivid bright yellows. The obvious attraction of the film, being the cars, are sparkling and, well for use of a better term here, tricked out. I sometimes worried that all the attention to detail on each and every car would result in some of the car’s looking overly shiny thus creating a poor image. No such thing is found here. The attention to detail on Universal’s part is immaculate here.

After watching the film for a second time, I could not detect one area where the film’s image wasn’t sharp. Little items like artifacts, grain, pixilation, and edge enhancement is nowhere to be found.

It has been said somewhere that Tokyo is on Toshiba’s demo truck running across the country showing everyone what HD-DVD is all about. What a perfect choice as even though every week it seems someone is writing that ‘X’ title is the newest reference title from Universal, this week I can easily write that Tokyo Drift is the new video reference title for HD-DVD. What an amazingly visual feast.

Audio - Presented to us in the standard Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 with either English, Francais, or Espanol options, Tokyo sounds almost as good as it looks.

Boom, zoom, bang, crash! First off, I will comment that this is the type of film, obviously, that cried for a Dolby TrueHD audio track. Universal told everyone it was going to include one on early specifications reports, but has opted in the end not to include this. I assume this is probably due to this film being released as a HD-DVD/DVD Combo. Oh well, I guess this will be an excuse for Universal to re-release this film down the road.

The dynamic range of the film is probably one of the more impressive efforts I’ve heard thus far on HD-DVD. When you pop this disc in for someone, the first scenes that everyone will want to see are the car race sequences or the various crashes. This is completely understandable as all the little sounds are shown off in excellent form. Surrounds are some of the best yet heard. The bigger car crashes cause a ringing effect creating a truly awesome experience. Even the little sounds like people cheering, crowds yelling and tires screeching are delivered in great form.

Dialogue, surprisingly I might add, was no real issue. I had feared that the overly loud audio track would require myself to consistently raise and lower the volume. Granted I use using the remote a lot, but that was more for the awesome Picture in Picture extra (more on that later though). One of my favorite demo scenes (which I rewound quite a bit) was the sequence (chapter 8 I believe) where Han and Sean are drifiting around the car in the middle of an intersection. Truly great stuff when it’s pumped up loud.

First of all you have ignored the entire point of the post and gone ahead and put words in my mouth. I never said anything about the T3 transfer except that it was filmed in Super35 and stated that if there wasnt any grain it would be the first time in the history of cinema that that was the case. I then went on to back that up as the reviewer stated that it had slight grain especially in the darker scenes. If you would have even bothered reading that review you would have seen that he said it was a great transfer that had some visibale grain due to the Super35 process.

If you would have read my post you would have read that I said the amount of grain can very greatly from picture to picture and from scene to scene depending on all the factors I discussed in my post. I never said Backdraft was a better transfer than T3. I openly admitted to not even seeing the T3 Transfer yet. I have since that post recieved my T3 copy and viewed it and there is absolutly grain visible especially in the darker scenes as I had originally said there would be. If you cannot see it then that either says something about your equipment or your own eyes. Like I said before the only films shot in Super35 that will not show any grain or have so little that you can barley see it are James Cameron films.

Its very clear to me that you either just dont understand the photographic processes that go into making movies and the characteristics to look for in those processes or you have just chosen to ignore 99% of my post and instead focus on things I never said. The fact that your trying to argue that a Super35 film, and a 2:35 transfer on top of it, doesnt have any grain is evidence enough of this fact. The Fact that you equate the presence of grain as a sign of a lesser quality HD transfer is another sign of that fact.

I apologize if this resoponce seems a bit harsh but I wrote a long responce explaing what I was talking about to try and help you understand and you reply by ignoring everything I said and instead state things that I not only didnt say but also go against everything that I was trying to explain in the first place. As I stated in the beginning of my initial post to you, it is very clear to me that there are a good number of people, not just on this site, that are trying to critique these HD transfers that just dont have the technical know how to do it properly. How can you critique the HD transfer if you dont even know what the source film is supposed to look like?

When all is said and done your critiquing the director's creative choices and not the transfers themselves. As soon as you understand that youll be on the road to a proper critique.

PS...

I havn't watched it yet but for those that are interested The Dirty Dozen also features a second bonus movie Dirty Dozen: The Next Mission as an extra. That was a surprise when I got it.

In SD, I presume.

By the way, Grand Prix looks mind blowingly good. This one should be a must buy.

Just saw Seabiscuit last night and all I can say is WOW, WOW, WOW!

Amen to Adam Tyner!!
 

Was just scanning through some recent reviews and came across the Adam Tyner review for Backdraft here on DVDtalk and all I can say is AMEN. With all of the terrible HD reviews out there in terms of transfers it was a breath of fresh air to see someone that understands how to critique a HD transfer properly. The fact that he is a DVDtalk reviewer is even more satisfying.

"Video: The 2.35:1 high definition video looks nice, although this 1991 film not surprisingly falls short of the best HD DVDs released to date. Universal has done a commendable job cleaning up the movie, though, leaving only a handful of specks scattered throughout, and the film's slightly grainy texture has been preserved.

Even if it's not quite in the same league as more recent theatrical releases, crispness and clarity offer a marked improvement over movies of a similar vintage in HD on cable and landed a notch or two above my expectations. The level of fine detail is inconsistent, though, often fading away in some of the longer shots. The quality varies from scene to scene but is a predominately solid effort, and I'd imagine these variations owe more to the state of the Super 35 process in 1991 than anything specific to this transfer. I was especially pleased with color reproduction, and as odd as I'm sure this sounds, I found myself more quietly wowed by some of the subtle gradations in fleshtones and clothing than any of the bombastic action sequences. I instinctively wince whenever I'm subjected to a scene teeming with fire in a high-definition movie on cable -- the image always seems to devolve into a noisy, blocky mess -- but no compression woes were spotted in this HD DVD of Backdraft.

No, it's not demo material, but Backdraft is still a strong effort from Universal"



I am convinced that a good percentage of people that review films for websites, especially the people that just do it for fun in the forums, really dont understand how to critique a good from a bad transfer and dont know what to expect from a given transfer being put into HD. Out of all of the Backdraft reviews I have read this one really nails this transfer. This statment in particular shuld be pointed out as this is where so many people are jumping ship

"Universal has done a commendable job cleaning up the movie, though, leaving only a handful of specks scattered throughout, and the film's slightly grainy texture has been preserved."

The fact that he stated that Universal preserved the grain quality shows that he is far ahead of the field in terms of his understanding of what a HD transfer should and should not do. To be honest I am still kind of baffled at how many reviewers out there really dont have this basic understanding and it has led to unfair reviews in terms of the transfer quality of more than a couple movies so far.

Overall one of the best reviews of a HD transfer to date and one that I agree with 100%. Good to see that some of the reviewers out there actually know thier business and dont just recycle words from review to review.

PS...

I think it's in SD but I havn't watched it yet.

I watched Robin Hood last night. A+ I'm going to watch the shorts tonight.

I'll check out Grand Prix maybe tommorow night.

Thanks! I really appreciate it.

Yeah, Robin Hood looked awesome. The chase sequences on horseback through Sherwood really came to life, you could see every leaf on every tree.

The Looney Tunes also look awesome. Best I've ever seen them, and I've seen them on every format except laserdisc, and that includes theatrical presentations. In fact, I saw both Rabbit Hood and The Adventures of Robin Hood both on film together. That was a treat, to say the least. :)

As do I appreciate a good reviewer when I can find them. A site like this is really only as good as its news and reviewers make it out to be. Keep up the great work!

PS...

Video - The Fast and The Furious arrives from Universal in a 1080p 2:35:1 Widescreen Aspect Ratio. While not as good as Tokyo Drift, this transfer is still quite impressive.

The best part of this transfer (director Cohen even thinks this too) is that a majority of the film takes place in a manner that is meant to show the day and night of L.A. The lush, bright day is brought alive in a fine manner, but I did notice a few scenes where edge enhancement was present. Nothing too annoying, but still there. The night scenes, while not as slightly problematic as the day scenes, did have a bit of grain, particularly around 48 minutes in where Dominic and Vince discover Brian looking into Tran’s business. Here one can detect a hint of grain before Dominic steps out of the light. Again, nothing too annoying, but still present.

Just like the film is suppose to do, the film’s main object of desire, the cars, look (similar to Tokyo) rather sparkly and beautiful. The level of detail is much more impressive here when comparing this side by side to the SD-DVD version. Take the scene where Brian has rescued Vince from the truck and his car is thrown to the side. Looking close up, one can detect little dirt particles if they look really close. While this may not amaze everyone, I found it great that the level of detail had been improved so much.

As Director Rob Cohen told us in the new HD-DVD extra, this film looks as good as good as it ever has. While there are a few tad negatives here and there, the level of detail in some sequences is excellent resulting in another solid, but not demo-worthy experience from Universal.

Audio - Presented in the standard Dolby Digital Plus 5.1 with either English, Francais or Espanol options, The Fast and The Furious, as one might expect, is a loud, robust, lively audio experience.

Dialogue is clear for the most part except when the Extended Viewing feature is turned on causing the dialogue to become mostly muted. Besides that (which I suppose is expected because Universal is expecting that anyone who is listening here has seen the film before), dialogue throughout the film experience is clear and easy to understand in even the more lively scenes. Take the sequence where Dominic and his team is trying to get that final truck. Lots of action, from shotguns blasts to engines reviving, result in a nice mix of pumped up audio and manageable dialogue.

Dynamic range, similar to Tokyo, is great. Every little effect, from tires screeching during the race with the Ferrari, to crowds cheering for Dominic in the beginning race, come alive bringing a new sense of ‘you’re there’ to the film. I’ve always been a fan of soundtracks that give a good balance of lows and highs. This track does that perfectly giving us a rocking good time.

I was pleasantly surprised that such an active soundtrack came off this good. Chalk up another great performance from Universal.

I have really been checking out the AVS forum for the first time and am even more thrown back now. The number of people over there who just dont understand what to look for and how to critique a HD transfer is staggering. I dont understand where the idea that every title should strive for a crystal clear image came from. I figured the hard core people from all of these kinds of forums would be much more educated in the different looks and quality that films can give. Do we really want all our films looking like the Sahara and Aeon Flux? Hell No!!

In one post where they are ranking every HD title against each other from everyones input is shocking. Its titled "The Tier System for HD DVD PQ". If anything out there shows just how unqualified most people are at rating transfers this is the thread to do it. Pitch Black & Sleepy Hollow are basically at the bottom of 60+ titles. Its actually so bad that it is somewhat comical.

You'll often find that people on home theater-centric forums are more in love with their gear than with their movies.