'28 Days Later' - High-Def Digest review

[jed]

Just posted Kenneth's review of '28 Days Later.' Although he loves the film itself, he had a tough time with the video transfer on this Blu-ray edition, calling it only a marginal improvement over the standard-def DVD. On the bright side, he says we do get a nice set of supplements and an impressive DTS-HD MA audio mix.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1085/28dayslater.html

[kjeldsen]

Hmm this is a very good example of the problem with High-Def digests reviews.
To often the Picture Quality is a sum of what the reviewer think the movie should look like + a bit of the actual quality that the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray platform provides.

I would not be surprised if this release is the closet you can get to to the theatrical presentation maybe even a tad better yet it gets a bad review.

This is not the first highdefdigest review where i read more about the reviewers thoughts on the looks of the film than the actual picture quality from the discs.

So what are you actual reviewing when it comes to picture quality?

Just a note, i saw this movie in the cinema, it looked pretty much as you describe it and it absolutely rocked.

[Pimboli]

Originally Posted by kjeldsen

Hmm this is a very good example of the problem with High-Def digests reviews.
To often the Picture Quality is a sum of what the reviewer think the movie should look like + a bit of the actual quality that the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray platform provides.

I would not be surprised if this release is the closet you can get to to the theatrical presentation maybe even a tad better yet it gets a bad review.

This is not the first highdefdigest review where i read more about the reviewers thoughts on the looks of the film than the actual picture quality from the discs.

So what are you actual reviewing when it comes to picture quality?

Just a note, i saw this movie in the cinema, it looked pretty much as you describe it and it absolutely rocked.

While I understand that if a film perfectly mirrors the directors original intention it should be a 5 but the fact of the matter if you put 28 Days Later on a screen right next to Fantastic Four 2 it would look shockingly bad in comparrison so I understand the 1.5 and this would seem to mirror most reviews.

For the record 'Sunshine' is out in the UK on October 29th (link below) Fox I believe dont region code UK discs so may be possible to import. That said it is very pricey.

http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/3...e/Product.html

[Ice2Dragon]

Originally Posted by Pimboli

While I understand that if a film perfectly mirrors the directors original intention it should be a 5 but the fact of the matter if you put 28 Days Later on a screen right next to Fantastic Four 2 it would look shockingly bad in comparrison so I understand the 1.5 and this would seem to mirror most reviews.

For the record 'Sunshine' is out in the UK on October 29th (link below) Fox I believe dont region code UK discs so may be possible to import. That said it is very pricey.

http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/3...e/Product.html

From what Ive read its region 2, meaning we can't import it.. Japan gets it near the end of December. Sucks.

I wont bother talking about the review. People know my stance. im surprised it didn't have a gray tint. or maybe a grain one.

[kjeldsen]

Originally Posted by Pimboli

While I understand that if a film perfectly mirrors the directors original intention it should be a 5 but the fact of the matter if you put 28 Days Later on a screen right next to Fantastic Four 2 it would look shockingly bad in comparrison so I understand the 1.5 and this would seem to mirror most reviews.

For the record 'Sunshine' is out in the UK on October 29th (link below) Fox I believe dont region code UK discs so may be possible to import. That said it is very pricey.

http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/3...e/Product.html

I´m not saying it looks fantastic (i know it doesnt i saw it in the theater) i just don´t like the reviewers tendency to question the directors choices when it comes to a pictures look. That should go somewhere else than in picture quality. This is not the first site to do, DVDFILE has done it as well though they seem to make less of it now. Maybe they learned a lesson with Donnie Darko.

[Swearengen]

Originally Posted by kjeldsen

So what are you actual reviewing when it comes to picture quality?

Highdefdigest review methodology:
Link

The review adheres to the official methodology for HDD as described in the above link and in general, the reviews from HDD are consistent in using this.

The website regarded highly for cinephiles DVDBeaver, is reviewing accordingly. This is their comment about the video of this release.

Image : 5 (4~6~6/9)

Now for the bad news:? In absolute terms, the image quality is less good than your average 480/.? SD DVDThe score of 5 indicates a relative level of excellence compared to other Blu-ray DVDs.? The score in parentheses represents: first, a value for the image in absolute terms; and, second, how that image compares to what I believe is the current best we can expect in the theatre.?

There is only negligible difference between the 480 and 1080 DVD editions of this movie ? and for a very simple reason: the source material sucks.? The original movie was shot on a Canon XL-1s which, together with a not inconsiderable amount of noisy post-processing, is not the ideal medium if you expect image scrutiny.? Razor sharp precision was not their aim.? Sadly, high definition home video is not where Boyle & Co anticipated their movie to end up, for the medium shows the limitations of the original in all its gory ? and the bigger your screen, the worse it looks.? In a given medium shot, hair is matted, faces have no texture.? In strongly backlit situations, such as in the tunnel where the survivors attend to their vehicle as rats and infected descend, the bleed from the strong light bleeds blue into the heads of the unsuspecting.? If you see a qualitative difference between the SD and BD editions ? and I believe I do ? it could just as easily be attributed to scaling.? The better your 480<1080 scaler, the less difference.


Another great review from HDD.

[jroadley]

I just think it was a waste releasing this in HD - just stick with your SD DVD

[Pimboli]

Originally Posted by Ice2Dragon

From what Ive read its region 2, meaning we can't import it.. Japan gets it near the end of December. Sucks.

I wont bother talking about the review. People know my stance. im surprised it didn't have a gray tint. or maybe a grain one.

Not necessarily. If you check out the link below and scroll down to the end for the Region B releases you will see that Fox are strange as far as region B is concerned and its 50/50 as to whether they region lock titles or not and seems to be no pattern, they locked Entrapment (catelog) but didnt lock Night at the Museum.

If you check this in few weeks it will tell you if the Region B one is locked or not.

[Pimboli]

Originally Posted by jroadley

I just think it was a waste releasing this in HD - just stick with your SD DVD

That does seem to be the common view, I have ordered Weeks from Play.com but Days I will hold off until in a couple of years time we in region B world actually get a 'sale'

[kjeldsen]

Originally Posted by Swearengen

Highdefdigest review methodology:
Link

The review adheres to the official methodology for HDD as described in the above link and in general, the reviews from HDD are consistent in using this.

The website regarded highly for cinephiles DVDBeaver, is reviewing accordingly. This is their comment about the video of this release.

As i said i know the movie doesn´t look good i just find this review is a perfect example of a flaw i see in hidefdigests reviews. From your link about how HiDef judges picture quality:

So when it comes to our reviews, we make pains to not detract from a disc's rating simply because a filmmaker's stylistic choices may not "look good" to our eyes.

Yet:

I have to admit I am not really that fond of the visual style of 'Swordfish.' It comes out of that new school of Hollywood moviemaking that lays on the gloss in every shot, with the sheen so pumped-up I'm constantly distracted by the unreality of it all. Everything is too shiny, too colorful, too slick.

300:
Well, I'm going to put on my flame-proof suit and say that because the film has been so intentionally processed and "degraded," its very nature just doesn't lend itself to the kind of truly eye-popping and ultra-realistic high-def that I've come to equate with the term reference quality.

The Day After Tomorrow:
There is heavy stylization at times (particularly the "survivors trapped in New York" sequences that have a severe blue cast) but stability and cleanliness holds up throughout.

As I said before, I am not a fan of the visual look of 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.' I know it is supposed to be surreal and unrealistic, but it is really more an animated film than live action -- and not a very good-looking one at that. While I loved the visual homages to such grand cinematic achievements of the past like Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis' and George Melies 'A Trip to the Moon,' 'Sky Captain' smears everything under a CGI blur, with colors desaturated to ugly shades of brown and any sense of real detailed down-res'd to a computer-generated distraction. At times the image looked so soft and poorly defined that I wanted to spray Windex on the screen.

Spiderman 3:
As you would expect from a new release, the source is impeccable, with rich blacks and very bright contrast. Unfortunately, this leads me to my main gripe with the image -- the darker scenes actually look the best and most dimensional. Anything brightly lit or in daylight suffers from hot whites, which flatten out depth somewhat. Fleshtones also suffer, with even close-ups of the actors faces not looking natural in texture.

You see my point?

[Swearengen]

Originally Posted by kjeldsen

You see my point?

You forgot this part of the review methodology:

However, when making our final rating assessment of a transfer, we can't ignore that intentional stylization can often result in an overall lessening of image quality. For example, if a filmmaker chooses to employ a particular style choice, or apply post-production tweaking during the telecine process, and it results in noticeable deficiencies elsewhere (such as high contrast washing out colors, or intensely saturated hues lessening detail, etc.), we feel it is essential to take this into account.

Ultimately, the goal is to provide a star rating for video quality that addresses both a transfer's faithfulness to the original source material, as well as how it compares in overall presentation to the current reference-bearers for the format. In other words, our video analysis and corresponding star rating is meant to assess not only how accurate a transfer is to the filmmaker's intent, but its "wow factor" and ranking in comparison to its peer titles

[Grubert]

Sometimes it's worth to do some research:

28 Days Later was shot on a Canon XL-1s. That is a standard-definition pro camcorder.

Hence, native resolution is 720x576 (European model).

[Ice2Dragon]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Sometimes it's worth to do some research:

28 Days Later was shot on a Canon XL-1s. That is a standard-definition pro camcorder.

Hence, native resolution is 720x576 (European model).

Hence, why the movie had a crappy budget, but returned and made way more Plus it was filmed in Europe and all

Anyone notice how many people from this movie and weeks later are all in the same movies together? Sunshine, etc. Kinda cool.

[kjeldsen]

Originally Posted by Swearengen

You forgot this part of the review methodology:

However, when making our final rating assessment of a transfer, we can't ignore that intentional stylization can often result in an overall lessening of image quality. For example, if a filmmaker chooses to employ a particular style choice, or apply post-production tweaking during the telecine process, and it results in noticeable deficiencies elsewhere (such as high contrast washing out colors, or intensely saturated hues lessening detail, etc.), we feel it is essential to take this into account.

Ultimately, the goal is to provide a star rating for video quality that addresses both a transfer's faithfulness to the original source material, as well as how it compares in overall presentation to the current reference-bearers for the format. In other words, our video analysis and corresponding star rating is meant to assess not only how accurate a transfer is to the filmmaker's intent, but its "wow factor" and ranking in comparison to its peer titles

So it´s a wow factor rating, it´s worthless then.

[Swearengen]

Originally Posted by kjeldsen

So it´s a wow factor rating, it´s worthless then.

Not only!

In other words, our video analysis and corresponding star rating is meant to assess not only:

1 ... how accurate a transfer is to the filmmaker's intent
2 ... but its "wow factor"
3 ... and ranking in comparison to its peer titles

More or less the same that DVDBeaver always have done. But now people know the review methodology for HDD and hopefully, it should not come as a surprise that HDD reviews accordingly. So I'm sure people unsatisfied with this method will be able to find other review sites, who reviews on terms better suited for them.