'Letters from Iwo Jima' - High-Def Digest Review

[jed]

Just posted Kenneth's review of the Blu-ray release of 'Letters from Iwo Jima.' He loved the film itself, and gave both the video and the audio perfect scores of five stars a peice.

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

[WellInformed]

This review is nothing less than criminal. As soft as the picture was on this Warner Bros. title, how could this HD DVD VC-1 port get a 5 star PQ rating? The PQ was no where near the quality of Apocalypto, Donnie Brasco, Casino Royale, or Catch & Release, yet, somehow these titles got between 4 and 4.5 star ratings on PQ.

I will continue to point this out to people 'til there is no way this site can call itself "format agnostic". All we ask is for these reviews to be fair. Is that too much to ask?

[Master X]

Id say this site is pro bd if anything. I guess thats not good to say in a bd thread.

Reviews arent facts

[illegalprelude]

just got this

[Godstar]

Originally Posted by Master X

Id say this site is pro bd if anything. I guess thats not good to say in a bd thread.

Reviews arent facts

I disagree with that, I'd say it leans HD DVD myself, since there are by far more HD DVD supports here.

This review is nothing less than criminal. As soft as the picture was on this Warner Bros. title, how could this HD DVD VC-1 port get a 5 star PQ rating?

I have to agree on this one. I found the PQ soft and slightly grainy - I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but when compared to other movies wasn't as nice to me. Again, Peter is perfectly willing to let some movies slide with grain and punish others like Casino Royale for their use of it. I just don't get it.

[MoFoHo]

I think reviews, like opinions can be subjective though. One mans 'annoying grain' is another mans 'acceptable grain'. It must be so hard for the guy on here, reviewing differing formats amidst the veritable battleground of this frormat 'war'. Anyway, I've just taken delivery of this disc, so I may check it out either tonight or at the weekend.
Now all I need is my fav war film of all time to be released in high definition- 'Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War', (or simply 'Brotherhood' here in the UK). Please please please, could anybody tell me if this Korean war epic may make it to high def? It would make my day to hear this film is coming to HD-DVD or Blu-ray!!

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by WellInformed

This review is nothing less than criminal. As soft as the picture was on this Warner Bros. title, how could this HD DVD VC-1 port get a 5 star PQ rating? The PQ was no where near the quality of Apocalypto, Donnie Brasco, Casino Royale, or Catch & Release, yet, somehow these titles got between 4 and 4.5 star ratings on PQ.

I will continue to point this out to people 'til there is no way this site can call itself "format agnostic". All we ask is for these reviews to be fair. Is that too much to ask?

The VC-1 transfer of 'Letters from Iwo Jima' is identical on both HD DVD and Blu-ray (both received the same high mark). There isn't a "port" one way or the other -- as such, format bias is a moot point because this review was on two discs that were exactly the same audibly and visually. The only thing that separates the visuals of these films is the format programming used to access the exact same transfer.

I would reference anyone to the battle scenes in the film -- compare the sharpness and detail on the mountainsides to other titles. Color choices and lens focus is a point of directoral intention and not of the transfer itself. The entire film is meant to be reminiscient of older war footage, so to knock the transfer on those terms would be criminal.

Anyway, I certainly am not trying to be argumentative. I understand some disagree with ratings, and that's more than fine! Just don't think it has anything to do with format bias -- I can assure you we slap ourselves blue in the face behind the scenes making sure bias doesn't ever find its way into the site. From our end, we all have both formats so the only bias we have is to good movies and good presentations of those movies. I for one could care less which disc they come on.

Thanks as always for posting! It's great to see that people like you guys care about film as much as you do!

[Godstar]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The entire film is meant to be reminiscient of older war footage, so to knock the transfer on those terms would be criminal.

I agree, but if that were the case, why was the artistic use of color and use of grain in Casino Royale used to penalize the movie (such as the opening, sequence meant to give it an older, edgier effect), whereas, in Letters from Iwo Jima, it either contributed to or had no effect on it's 5 star rating. I'm just curious as to when grain artistically used in a film is to be penalized and when isn't it?

[bear89103]

Originally Posted by Godstar

I agree, but if that were the case, why was the artistic use of color and use of grain in Casino Royale used to penalize the movie (such as the opening, sequence meant to give it an older, edgier effect), whereas, in Letters from Iwo Jima, it either contributed to or had no effect on it's 5 star rating. I'm just curious as to when grain artistically used in a film is to be penalized and when isn't it?

If I remember correctly Peter reviewed Casino Royale, while Kenneth here is the one that has reviewed Letters.

So I think you guys are reading too much into this. As it's not the SAME person using different review criteria or scale. It's TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, which always will vary in their scale.

[Godstar]

Originally Posted by bear89103

If I remember correctly Peter reviewed Casino Royale, while Kenneth here is the one that has reviewed Letters.

So I think you guys are reading too much into this. As it's not the SAME person using different review criteria or scale. It's TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, which always will vary in their scale.

I'm aware of that Bear, but I'm illustrating a point that there are two different standards used when comparing grain on flims, one where films are penalized for it, another where they're not. Even if there are differing reviewers, both could agree that the film is grainy or lacks contrast - however how they rate the film is up to them. I'm just pointing out there is a double standard and it's not consistant, even with the same reviewer (namley Peter).

[Aodh]

Originally Posted by Godstar

I'm aware of that Bear, but I'm illustrating a point that there are two different standards used when comparing grain on flims, one where films are penalized for it, another where they're not. Even if there are differing reviewers, both could agree that the film is grainy or lacks contrast - however how they rate the film is up to them. I'm just pointing out there is a double standard and it's not consistant, even with the same reviewer (namley Peter).

Read the review again? He doesn't penalize the opening:

After the opening teaser, which is black & white and purposely grainy, the transfer really begins.

He penalizes the contrast:

But contrast consistently runs hot, enough so that the image looks routinely blown-out and unrealistic.

Colors often feel oversaturated. Fleshtones just don't look natural, and aside from extreme close-ups, I often could not detect realistic skin textures -- everyone looks painted orange.

[glocks out]

Originally Posted by WellInformed

how could this HD DVD VC-1 port get a 5 star PQ rating?

It's not an "HD DVD port". They make a VC-1 encoding and put it on both discs.

[Aodh]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

The VC-1 transfer of 'Letters from Iwo Jima' is identical on both HD DVD and Blu-ray (both received the same high mark). There isn't a "port" one way or the other -- as such, format bias is a moot point because this review was on two discs that were exactly the same audibly and visually. The only thing that separates the visuals of these films is the format programming used to access the exact same transfer.

Ken,

Just to clarify, I believe his argument wasn't that one should be better than another, but instead how could a VC-1 file which is identical to the HD DVD release (aka the same size/bitrate) have higher visual quality than other releases encoded at higher bitrates. In other words he's arguing based on a technical theory that BD should be better than anything HD DVD does, instead of looking at each film on it's own and rating them subjectively.

[Aodh]

Originally Posted by glocks out

It's not an "HD DVD port". They make a VC-1 encoding and put it on both discs.

Kinda, from what Amir was saying Warner authors them in the HD DVD structure first and then that file is converted into the BD file format, only because the tools are better for the HD DVD VC-1 authoring. But in the end, it's the exact same video file and isn't any different than any other.

[glocks out]

Originally Posted by Aodh

Ken,

Just to clarify, I believe his argument wasn't that one should be better than another, but instead how could a VC-1 file which is identical to the HD DVD release (aka the same size/bitrate) have higher visual quality than other releases encoded at higher bitrates. In other words he's arguing based on a technical theory that BD should be better than anything HD DVD does, instead of looking at each film on it's own and rating them subjectively.

No, that's not his argument. He's saying the site is biased towards HD DVD because they gave Blu-ray exclusive films that (in his opinion) look better than this dual-format release.