'300' - High-Def Digest review

[jed]

We've all been waiting for this one... Peter's review of '300' on Blu-ray is up. As predicted, he didn't love the film itself or its purposefully-degraded visual style, but still this Blu-ray earns high praise (and a 4.0 overall rating) from our prickly Mr Bracke.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/300.html

[D3lta]

Sounds good, can't wait to get it next week!

[Nicodimus22]

>a computer-generated "film grain" has been added to the mix, which gives
>the image a final coating of jumpiness, with obvious noise in every shot.



Sweet. I know I spent $2000 on a HDTV to have obvious noise in every
shot. I couldn't be more pleased with this news. Really. I mean, they had
a clear picture but they went the extra mile to ruin it, how cool is that?

P.S. Pre-emptive strike: intentional grain =/= art.

[hdaus]

All ofthe reviews I've read say it has an awesome '3D' effect, yet this review says its a very flat 2D look.

Go figure......

[bone crusher]

It still got a 4/5 for video which is really good. I find PQ opinions on many sites including this one sometimes to be as subjective as someone's opinion on the movie itself.

I'm glad I have this one pre-ordered on Amazon.

Also how did both the HD DVD and BD versions get the EXACT same score in each individual category but the HD DVD gets a 4.5 in overall grade while the BD gets 4. If it's because of the PiP stuff then I don't care. As long as the PQ and SQ are the same.

[Detroit Tigers Fan]

Originally Posted by bone crusher

Also how did both the HD DVD and BD versions get the EXACT same score in each individual category but the HD DVD gets a 4.5 in overall grade while the BD gets 4. If it's because of the PiP stuff then I don't care. As long as the PQ and SQ are the same.

HD-DVD had 3 stars in hi-def extras while blu-ray as usual its keeping par of 0.

[Mobius]

Just curious if someone could help me understand why Warner would put both a PCM and a Dolby True HD track on the disk? Wouldn't there really be no difference in the sound quality at all?

[Mobius]

Originally Posted by bone crusher

As long as the PQ and SQ are the same.

The PQ should be exactly the same as they are both using a VC-1 encode, SQ should be the exact same on the Dolby True HD track. If the PCM track is better than the True HD track then it's possible the SQ is better, but the reviewer gave the same score on SQ which leads to my post above. Why would Warner spend the money to produce both a True HD track and a PCM track if they sound exactly the same? I'm sure the majority of Blu-Ray owners would have preferred some HD extras vs. the PCM track or Dolby True HD track.

[Nicodimus22]

Originally Posted by jed

from our prickly Mr Bracke.

Wait...all this time I've been reading movie reviews from a porcupine?
While I understand the need for diversity in the workplace and all that,
shouldn't you limit movie reviewers to non-quill-bearing folks? Sorry if
I offended any pricklers out there, just had to speak my mind.

[taygan315]

Great review of 300 Peter. Sorry you did not like the film as much as the majority of us did. I thought that, visually, the film was a painting in motion. Just beautiful imagery. Cant wait to get this one.

[WellInformed]

Originally Posted by Mobius

The PQ should be exactly the same as they are both using a VC-1 encode, SQ should be the exact same on the Dolby True HD track. If the PCM track is better than the True HD track then it's possible the SQ is better, but the reviewer gave the same score on SQ which leads to my post above. Why would Warner spend the money to produce both a True HD track and a PCM track if they sound exactly the same? I'm sure the majority of Blu-Ray owners would have preferred some HD extras vs. the PCM track or Dolby True HD track.

Technically, TrueHD and PCM are SUPPPOSE to be exactly the same.

Apparently, the PCM track sounds better than the TrueHD track, but not enough to warrant a 1/2 star increase in SQ score. Personally, I've heard a difference on Stomp the Yard (in favor of PCM). This site noticed a difference between the Blu-ray (PCM) and HD DVD (TrueHD) versions of "The Departed" in a blind test. Now, it seems there is a slight difference on an encode from at least two studios (and across different players). That appears to rule out the studios themselves. This is interesting indeed. I wonder why that is.

[exodus]

just a quick newb question. So all this added grain he's talking about. Does this mean there was no grain on the theatrical release? They just redid everything for the dvd / BD? does that make sense?

if they didn't do that, then the theatrical release would have all the grain, and would it be a surprise to anyone that the dvd looked like this?

[Godstar]

Originally Posted by exodus

just a quick newb question. So all this added grain he's talking about. Does this mean there was no grain on the theatrical release? They just redid everything for the dvd / BD? does that make sense?

if they didn't do that, then the theatrical release would have all the grain, and would it be a surprise to anyone that the dvd looked like this?

The theatrical release was grainy, but I don't think Peter cares. He'll take off a 1/2 star or full star if he doesn't like how it works with the movie. However, if it's something like March of the Penguins that's really grainy, but because their camera's sucked and they had no choice....well....it's perfectly wonderfull. Go figure.

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by exodus

just a quick newb question. So all this added grain he's talking about. Does this mean there was no grain on the theatrical release? They just redid everything for the dvd / BD? does that make sense?

From the review:
"Warner presents both the Blu-ray and HD DVD versions with identical 1080p/VC-1 encodes in the film's original 2.40:1 projected aspect ratio, and if nothing else, this is a very accurate reproduction of the theatrical experience of '300' (at least the one I saw projected digitally at a flagship theater here in Los Angeles)."

But, more bothersome to me is the Green screen footage. It was my understanding that on the BD version the Green screen footage was included, you just had to watch it separately, not PiP alongside the finalized CGI main feature as on the HD DVD version. From this review, it doesn't sound like it's there at all.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Godstar

The theatrical release was grainy, but I don't think Peter cares. He'll take off a 1/2 star or full star if he doesn't like how it works with the movie.

Oh, c'mon. The half star difference in overall rating is clearly because the HD DVD version got 3 stars for HD extras, while the BD got zero.

[Godstar]

Oh, c'mon. The half star difference in overall rating is clearly because the HD DVD version got 3 stars for HD extras, while the BD got zero.

He punishes movies by a half-full star for grain, and I'm not compairing against HD DVD titles, but on the scores given themselves.

Case in point....
March of the Penguins

Even for a top-notch nature documentary, 'March of the Penguins' is extraordinarily photographed. Shot on film (not HD video), grain is quite visible (particularly in the opening passages) but the source is pristine as far as major blemishes go.

Rated: 4 stars. Note that it was the actual fault of the filming company that they didn't use HD video, it wasn't artistic impression they added in. They could have, but they were saving money, so no foul.

300:

Finally, a computer-generated "film grain" has been added to the mix, which gives the image a final coating of jumpiness, with obvious noise in every shot.

Rated: 4 stars. So even though he knows going into the film that there was artistically added grain, like it or not, and was done to provide a visual effect, he marks the movie down a star because he doesn't like it. Had nothing to do with the crappy quality of the film or transfer, if it did he probably wouldn't have marked it down. However, because it annoyed him that they added it in stylistically, the film gets downgraded a star on PQ. I would be saying the exact same thing if this were an HD DVD film or BD film. If you don't like the artistic quality of the filming, don't mark down the PQ which should be just about the transfer quality, mark down the movie itself, since that is what you find so much objection with.

He did the same thing to Casino Royale for the opening sequence, which was like 2 minutes of the film. Again, it was stylistic. Yet people place CR in mid tier 1, where they've placed MoTP at low Tier 4, and both received 4 star reviews on PQ. Go figure.