flashburn

Looks like someone is getting high on the blu dust.

Adam Tyner

Yeah, this kind of post is frowned upon too.

matome

Yes, I did notice the "-- and this could well be indicative of the source material --" part...

flashburn

I know, I wanted to post an example, so we have both sides covered.

joshd2012

Adam, when was the last time you saw me even comment on a HD DVD review of a disc? The last one I can remember is Traffic when talking about the EE that was present (which was only used, IIRC, to prove a point that VC-1 wasn't the godsend that everyone here takes it to be). Before that, it was Troy, but I can't remember if it was on this forum or not.

Point is, I am not very critical about HD DVD. In fact, I hardly ever discuss it unless brought up by another forum member with regards to a Blu-Ray topic (and most likely in a Blu-Ray thread). And I'll tell you this, it wouldn't be difficult. There are plenty of bad HD DVD discs out there that I could ramble on about for days with how bad they are, but I won't, because it adds nothing to the conversation. I'm not going to buy these disc, so why even discuss them?

You should then ask yourself why HiFiLux even bothered to comment in a Blu-Ray thread? The answer should clue you into why such a comment is unwanted.

digitalfreaknyc

"perfect transfer" coming from someone who doesn't own the disc nor a player to play it on. Just the kind of experts BD needs!

joshd2012

Read what I wrote. Did I say it was a perfect transfer? Or did I say its being reviewed as a perfect transfer? Why don't you go find some more FUD to spread (ie pillarbox problem with the Samsung fixed months ago).

Adam Tyner

Then refute the point and leave it at that, or at least come up with a jab that's a little more sly like matome did.

A condescending "Enjoy nitpicking at (what is being reviewed as) a perfect transfer. Its all you have left." is more objectionable than someone making a possibly uninformed comment about a release he probably didn't have any interest in anyway.

I understand that you're frustrated that this forum leans so far away from your point of view, but posts like that benefit no one.

I don't think the two of you being able to see and reply to each other's posts is going to be workable.

HiFiLux

Noise is not the same thing as film grain.

Noise can be caused by a host of different factors.

When noise is described in relation to film grain, the reviewer usually means that the film grain was badly encoded which created noisy artifacting.

If you look at many HD DVD reviews, they say things like "films grain was tightly and perfectly controlled with no noise at all"

So BD50 Mpeg2 is the holy grail of BD and is supposed to be better than HD DVD VC1. The fact that the reviewer is describing "movement" and "noise" in Click, is NOT a very good sign, in my opinion...

We'll have to see more reviews to form a firm opinion, and other discs, too...

digitalfreaknyc

I can't. The only way i see it is if someone quotes him.

joshd2012

You don't understand.

This movie was shot in video, not film. Digital noise in video is the same as grain in film. You can contain it but you can never get rid of it completely.

RockStrongo

But, you cant be sure that the noise was on the original video so it does matter.

digitalfreaknyc

How do you know he can't?

joshd2012

True. You can't really know that about any movie, really. Was film grain intentially placed in a certain shot by a director overly compressed and thus the effect was lost in order to appease the viewer? Who knows? Possibly. Anything is possible.

RockStrongo

Its easier to justify that film grain was from the original source though....not digital noise. Thats my point.

Anyways, im anticipating the BHD reviews over this one. Im hoping that it is stellar. It would be my first BD purchase whenever I get a player (maybe next year some time). For now, its the ONLY BD release that im interested in.

PornoStar

The fact that so much fuss is being made over one film's transfer, a BD50 transfer at that which by all accounts and purposes should be near perfect when you have 50 Gigs to play with, just goes to show you how far from the tree the apple has really fallen for Blu Ray. While you can obviously look at this as the 2nd coming of Blu Ray, I instead see it a little differently. This just goes to show how much potential Blu Ray had all along and just how badly Sony has screwed the pooch. I have already been disenfranchised by BD and the only way ill be buying another BD movie is if HD-DVD goes under. Too bad Sony screwed some of us early adopters as it would still be a part of my entertainment system if it hadnt.

Anyways congrats to BD supporters as you finally have something to cheer about. As for the HD war, let the battles commence. Hopefully this war drives each side to become more and more creative and more & more impressive.

PS..

Spiky

From what I've seen of HD video, I would say most likely answer is this is in the original. When I read the review, the first thing I did was groan when I saw "'Click' was shot on high-def video, not film." This is exactly where digital (even HD) falls down, dynamic range and dark scene capability. I still remember the pain of SW II in Imax, that was a major waste of $11.

kvrdave

the 'Click' disc packs five times more data than most standard DVDs, twice as much as all previously released Blu-ray discs, and 66% more than all releases on rival format HD DVD.

I keep coming up with 60% more. 30/50. Anyone else show me the error of my math?

joshd2012

66% of 30 is 20. Therefore, 50 is 66% more than 30.

30 * 1.66 = 50

RockStrongo

Yeah, thats just spin. It makes it sound like Click has 66% more data than any HD-DVD release....it doesnt.

Also, I wonder how much data is ACTUALLY on the disc. I bet its not almost 50gb. I could be wrong, but if its 40 or 45 gb, then this is definately misleading.

Im not surprised that Sony does this though. They put out more BS than any other company IMO.

darkside

Actually its the opinion of many people. If they did use Mpeg2 at a high bitrate it could easily fill the disc. Glad they are using BD50, now if they just start putting movies I would actually buy on them we will have something.

HiFiLux

I think if this was shot on HD Video, then they cannot blame the observed noise on filmgrain..

So then one would assume there are even more question raised.

There is no noise at all in the majority of HD DVD releases. BD 50 is supposed to be better than HD DVD releases, yet Click is seeming to show some noise...

By the way - this is an HD discussion thread, not a Blu-ray only thread, as far as I can see.

Supermallet

RE: The digital noise argument...

Digital noise =/= Film grain as josh argues.

Pixels = Film Grain

Pixels make up a digital image. The problem with pixels is you can, at times, get pixelation. Film grain makes up an image on celluloid. The problem with film grain is that at times it can be too grainy for some people.

Digital noise is more like tape hiss, an error on the physical medium that is independent of the content on the medium. Whereas pixels and grain are intregal to creating the image being seen, digital noise and tape hiss are not.

For a more film to film type comparison, digital noise would be like a scratch on the negative of celluloid film. Yes, it's on the master, but it's an error.

DthRdrX

Someone on AVS posted this. They must have thrown it in a PC drive.


"The size of the MOVIE ONLY is 33.2 GB. That includes all of the audio tracks. (One PCM track, two Dolby 5.1 tracks, and one Dolby 2.0 track). The total size of the disc is about 42GB. The bitrate stays between 30-40 Mbps most of the time. I believe that bitrate includes the entire mux."

Supermallet

If he's pulling it off a PC then it's the full MUX.