'Resident Evil' -- High-Def Digest review

[jed]

Just posted Josh's review of the original 'Resident Evil.' He's a fan of the film, and says this Blu-ray rocks the house with excellent picture and sound, plus a ton of bonus features.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1213/residentevil.html

[Yateball]

Might have to upgrade my SD copy of this.

[Lyris]

I'm very surprised to read High Def Digest's reviews where they say they prefer the transfer of the first film. This is despite it being much less detailed and I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind the scores. Is it an aesthetic thing that tips you over the edge?

[Yateball]

No, it's because of the fact that the transfer is better... lol did you actually read the review or just look at the pretty stars?

Just read the section about the video... and then read the section about the video for Resident Evil: Extinction... it's explained very clearly why and how they come to their ratings.

"'Resident Evil' looks excellent. Ironically, it even looks better than either of its later sequels." That sums it up as much as I would think necessary.

[Sky_Captain]

It fucking does not look better than the sequels. That's an outright spoof!!

[deth crimsonx]

resident 2 and 3 are garbage, one was descent as its a prequel to the game.

This isnt even worth a rental

[ben1080p]

I just sold my German Import on HD and got it on BD.
Anything can look better than that.

[Satans Puppet]

Blublood!!! Blublood!!!

I was about to ask how this stands up to the German HD-DVD... I thought the German HD-DVD was pretty impressive considering the B-Movie source material

[Lyris]

Originally Posted by Yateball

No, it's because of the fact that the transfer is better... lol did you actually read the review or just look at the pretty stars?

I don't like your condescending tone, but will answer the question anyway. Yes I read the review, and disagreed with it, since the second and especially the third films have much better definition.

I was questioning why this:

lyris-lite.net/2008/01/re3/first_film1.jpg
(From the Resident Evil USA BD)

Was deemed to be better looking than this:

lyris-lite.net/2008/01/re3/5.jpg
(From the Resident Evil Extinction USA BD).

Edit: as for the films themselves, yes I think they're garbage, but they're entertaining garbage

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Lyris

I don't like your condescending tone, but will answer the question anyway. Yes I read the review, and disagreed with it, since the second and especially the third films have much better definition.

I was questioning why this:

lyris-lite.net/2008/01/re3/first_film1.jpg
(From the Resident Evil USA BD)

Was deemed to be better looking than this:

lyris-lite.net/2008/01/re3/5.jpg
(From the Resident Evil Extinction USA BD).

I don't put much stock in screencaps, for plenty of reasons. I'm sure if I was bored enough, I could post individual frames that show the exact opposite of what you did. That first frame you posted is taken from a tracking shot in a dimly lit room where the camera moves from very tight on Milla's face to the distance you show. For that, you need a lens with a wide lattitude in focus. That particular shot wasn't designed to be razor sharp. Why don't you post the famous close-up of her eye that immediately precedes it?

The screencap from Extinction has a locked down camera under much brighter conditions. Naturally it's going to look sharper. This is a classic apples-to-oranges comparison.

You can bicker over individual shots, but in general the first movie is more detailed than the 3rd one, which looks good but is a little lacking in detail and depth due to the bleached out contrasts and digital filtering. On a smaller screen, the 3rd one may look sharper because it has some edge enhancement applied, but the larger your screen the more impressive the first movie looks.

The second movie is heavily DNR'ed, has oversaturated colors, and also has some compression problems due to being an early MPEG2 BD25 release. If you honestly think that one looks better than the new release of the first, then I really don't know what to say that will convince you otherwise.

[Lyris]

Hey Josh, thanks for replying.

I think the shot from the first film compares fairly nicely to the one of the desert I posted. But, at no point does RE1 ever reach the level of detail in the third. You are right about the brightness though, so I'll get more appropriate shots - but I still think you should take a good look at Milla's face and the lesser definition around the edges of objects.

Why don't you post the famous close-up of her eye that immediately precedes it?

I will do that, yeah, good idea. There's a comparable shot in RE: Extinction. As you noted in your review, the blemish correction done on Milla's face is pretty blatant at times, but I consider that the filmmaker's job and not anything to do with the people creating the BD.

But close-ups will always be close-ups. It's the finest details that really shine, which is why I selected the two shots I did.

The second movie is heavily DNR'ed, has oversaturated colors, and also has some compression problems due to being an early MPEG2 BD25 release. If you honestly think that one looks better than the new release of the first, then I really don't know what to say that will convince you otherwise.

This is where it comes down to opinion. I mean, we could discuss which transfer resolves more TVL at their peak, which would be fact, but I accept that here there's more accounting for taste. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a totally filmic looking transfer free of digital problems (I'm sure you would too). But to me, the compression flaws and slight vertical brickwall filtering in the second RE movie are forgivable since it has more detail on show. I'll need to have a look again for DNR. Are you referring to the spatial or temporal kind?

You can bicker over individual shots, but in general the first movie is more detailed than the 3rd one, which looks good but is a little lacking in detail and depth due to the bleached out contrasts and digital filtering. On a smaller screen, the 3rd one may look sharper because it has some edge enhancement applied, but the larger your screen the more impressive the first movie looks.

I strongly disagree that the first movie is more detailed than the third when it comes to the transfer. As for the screen size, I agree, but still think the 3rd is better. I find watching the less impressive transfers on a projection setup (SXRD) shows less of a gulf between transfers compared to watching on a (properly set up) panel display. Hell, even a run-of-the-mill NTSC "optimized for Interlaced TV" release becomes more watchable...

I don't put much stock in screencaps, for plenty of reasons.

Each to their own - I think they're a fantastic method of visual evidence. Certainly looking back on SD DVD, being able to compare frame grabs (provided they were properly done!) on sites like DVD Beaver helped a hell of a lot...

[BullRay]

and honestly that's exactly what a movie like this needs.

could not disagree to any extent lesser.

glad to see you started posting region info too, was about to bug the reviewers for this in the forum. it will be nice for us importers.

[Lyris]

Yeah, although I have a Region A BD player, it's always good to know who's doing what.

[cacadodo666]

I have no specific area of the film yet to state here as comparison but the 12gb torrent looks more detailed in areas...

Ok for example....when milla wakes up in the shower scene...her pores are more detailed than the BD version. In the BD version they seem soft and blurry. I'll be back for more comment.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Lyris

I think the shot from the first film compares fairly nicely to the one of the desert I posted.

As I mentioned, that shot was photographed in a room with dim flourescent lighting, using a wide angle lens to accomodate the broad focal range needed for the tracking movement. Of course it's not sharp. Go back a scene to the opening in the Hive, especially the part where the guy spills his coffee while waiting for the elevator. Much more detail there. Take a look at all the fine print text on the security camera footage.

But, at no point does RE1 ever reach the level of detail in the third.
(snip)
But close-ups will always be close-ups. It's the finest details that really shine, which is why I selected the two shots I did.

If you think the third one looks good, compare it to '3:10 to Yuma', which has a similar desert setting but is significantly sharper and more detailed than anything in 'Extinction'.

Each to their own - I think they're a fantastic method of visual evidence. Certainly looking back on SD DVD, being able to compare frame grabs (provided they were properly done!) on sites like DVD Beaver helped a hell of a lot...

The problem with screen caps is that we're watching motion pictures. The frame changes 24 times a second. It's far too easy to freeze on an individual frame and draw incorrect conclusions about what the transfer looks like during regular playback.