|
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
This thread is 500 weeks old.
|
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
Originally Posted by Dan
(Post 13101802)
This thread is 500 weeks old.
It's coming close to it's 10 year anniversary, in October of this year. |
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 13101781)
For one, I showed how the PAL DVD had less contrast and sharpening than the NTSC DVD.
|
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 13101866)
I used to own that PAL DVD. Then I got the NTSC DVD when it was released a few months later. I compared them both when I reviewed them for DVDFile back in the day.... DVDBeaver is well known to have had many problems taking accurate screencaps.
|
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
Interesting part of Josh Z's review of the PAL DVD:
http://web.archive.org/web/200310030...dayslater.html Video: How Does The Disc Look? Shot rather inexpensively on digital video, the movie has a deliberately grungy style that works to increase the sense of tension. The DVD very much has that distinctive video-to-film-back-to-video appearance, meaning that it does not have the artificially sharp and vivid appearance of something transferred directly from a video camera source, nor does it look anything like film. It is an intentionally processed image, with colors and other picture attributes manipulated digitally when necessary. It looks neither "realistic", nor does it look like a glossy film production. It is its own thing, and for what it is, the 1.85:1 anamorphically-enhanced picture on the DVD is transferred accurately. My only possible complaint is the presence of some edge enhancement, visible as halos ringing around objects. However, I am honestly not sure whether this is the fault of the video transfer or if the artifact was introduced by the DV cameras used. I suppose if I got off my butt to see this in the theater while I still have the chance, I might be able to tell whether the problem is present in the theatrical prints. In the meantime, I will just note it. But, along with some jaggies and other video-source defects, the edge enhancement is not necessarily out of place in such a deliberately artificial-looking image. |
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 13101911)
If you can provide better screencaps, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, I'm going to take those images over your over-a-decade old recollection.
Originally Posted by Jay G.
(Post 13101922)
Interesting part of Josh Z's review of the PAL DVD:
http://web.archive.org/web/200310030...dayslater.html "It is an intentionally processed image, with colors and other picture attributes manipulated digitally when necessary." After writing that review of the import, I did see the movie in a theater. The edge enhancement was clear there too. Not a video transfer issue. |
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 13101933)
Selective reading on your part. No surprise you ignored this sentence.
"It is an intentionally processed image, with colors and other picture attributes manipulated digitally when necessary."
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 13101933)
After writing that review of the import, I did see the movie in a theater. The edge enhancement was clear there too. Not a video transfer issue.
Edit, from your NTSC R1 DVD review: http://web.archive.org/web/200310020...dayslater.html My only possible complaint is the presence of some edge enhancement, visible as halos ringing around objects. However, this is not the fault of the video transfer; the artifact was introduced by the DV cameras used and was present in the theatrical prints was well. However, along with some jaggies and other video-source defects, the edge enhancement is not necessarily out of place in such a deliberately artificial-looking image. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.