van der graaf

RocShemp

It's not bad in theory. It's the excecution that still leaves quite a bit to be desired.

It exists because 24fps is simply money-saving solution for film production (and video as well, if you need to render CGI). In an ideal world, we'd have enough frames per second shot that judder would be barely noticeable if not completely gone. Since it's too expensive to do that (Fox freaked out when Cameron asked if he could shoot Avatar at 48fps), motionflow was created as a potential solution.

It's great in theory but still not quite there in excecution. As for the DNR'ed look you see in stores, DNR is activated by default in store display models. It's not motion flow that's causing that.

Solid Snake

Yeah...it's the execution that irks me.

Where'd you hear that about Fox? I don't doubt you but that's an interesting bit of trivia for sure about Avatar. Maybe it was here and I missed it.

RocShemp

I believe it was in one of the Avatar threads over at Blu-Ray.com that someone posted the link to that interview with Cameron. Or it could have been here. Sorry, I don't recall. I just remember that it was from an interview with Cameron where he expressed his desire to shoot at 48fps but Fox wouldn't let him because that would double the amount of CGI they'd have to pay to have rendered.

Egon's Ghost

Anyway, Predator was shot on film and has fucking grain. Loads of it. THAT is how Predator should look. The screenshots from the new DVD look like a video game.

SuckaMC

Hmmmm. to me its a trade off. As I watched this BR, I noticed that a LOT of scenes (most, in fact) looked fantastic. The film seems to be very uneven as far as visual quality goes. So, you either get a great looking movie with random scenes of really heavy grain, or you get a great looking movie with random scenes of strangely smooth scenes.

Both to me can be distracting.

Also, for every "worst case scenario" screen shot you see here, there are a dozen "wow" scenes.

TheMovieman

Yeah and I also don't like that the reviews are sometimes just for the movie rather than the product as a whole. If I wanted just a review of the movie or show, I would go to IMDb and read it... I know that's not Amazon's fault but their system could be better. They could do ratings similar to that of DVD Talk and other sites asking people to rate the movie, audio, video and features.

Egon's Ghost

I know just what you guys are talking about. I once got into a little comment tiff with a person when I reviewed a CD remaster, heavily criticizing the remaster but not the actual material and rated it accordingly. This apparently raised the ire of a sensitive fanboy.

Yavin

I think that the combination of your screen size and the distance you are from the screen would make it hard to make an effective comparison ...

Plus, didn't the original release have lossless audio as well? Not really an advantage for the new one.

d2cheer

bunkaroo

I don't think critical viewing can be done on a monitor that size at that viewing distance regardless of vision.

I'm sure at 9ft from my 61" display the differences will be significant.

Solid Snake

Son of a bitch! Wha...ughhhhhhh!

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UPw-3e_pzqU&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UPw-3e_pzqU&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Josh Z

I don't know very many people who sit 10 feet away from their computer monitors.

Drexl

It's not so much the size of the screen, but the relationship between size and distance. We're sitting a lot closer to our monitors. Try doing a comparison from 4-5 feet back to see what that shows. You may think it's meaningless for you because you don't sit that close, but maybe you'll at least see what we've complained about.

bunkaroo

I'm sure it's easy for you to lump everyone together, but I never claimed in my post the transfer can be critically evaluated on the PC monitor. I do think screenshots tend to show where there's smoke, there's fire. But ultimately, a screening under conditions suitable for critical viewing should help one decide how good the quality is.

In my particular case, the screenshots plus the commentary from several individuals across multiple sites whose judgment has proven accurate in the past are enough to cast considerable doubt on the quality of this disc. Therefore, I don't feel the need to even evaluate it on my system.

bunkaroo

BTW, it took me about 5 seconds to come up with this link on Google:

http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3213

A great read, even for those with superhuman vision.

Supermallet

Lemmy, that doesn't make one goddamned lick of sense.

Yavin

As refreshing as the lead singer of a band pouring water from his mouth into your mouth?

RocShemp

My PC monitor is a 52" LCD screen and I sit about 6.7' from it. I doubt I'm the only one.

Am I...?

Supermallet

My monitor is a 42" plasma TV and I sit about 5.5' from it.

islandclaws

Ok, can someone point me towards the thread where this occured? I must've been out of town and, of course, I need to be in on the joke as well.

riotinmyskull

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/other-talk/...e-my-wife.html

islandclaws

Many thanks, riot.

Quack

Has anyone picked this up?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...=pe_thx_sims_3

Was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on it.

canaryfarmer

Looks like a simple re-pack to me.