'In Good Company' - High-Def Digest review

[jed]

Kenneth's review of 'In Good Company' is up. While he says this is a solid-enough package overall, unfortunately the video rates quite poorly, due to what he describes as some glaring fundamental problems.

Full review here:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/ingoodcompany.html

[Brad1963]

Wow...I thought In Good Company looked fine, but thought Nutty Professor 2 looked awful. Talk about opposite extremes of opinions.

[Blurry]

Originally Posted by Brad1963

Wow...I thought In Good Company looked fine, but thought Nutty Professor 2 looked awful. Talk about opposite extremes of opinions.

I think ewe need to just keep updating eNoize's PQ thread so that we can build a better conscensus. Kenneth and Peter's have their criteria but often differ from my own, so I think the Tier thread is the best way to build a conscensus.

Having said that, I have not watched this one, so I don't have an opinion (but there have been other rating which differed glaringly from my own).

[vegasr]

This review doesn't make a lot of sense unless Universal went out of their way to screw it up. The reviews for the PQ of the SD version were very good. So for me it makes no sense that it would be so bad. In my experience the PQ quality of the SD version pretty much tells you what to expect from the HD version.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by vegasr

This review doesn't make a lot of sense unless Universal went out of their way to screw it up. The reviews for the PQ of the SD version were very good. So for me it makes no sense that it would be so bad. In my experience the PQ quality of the SD version pretty much tells you what to expect from the HD version.

A high-def transfer is held to a much higher expectation than a standard-def DVD transfer. A high-def disc has no need for edge enhancement because the high-def format is supposed to deliver the goods without any unneccessary enhancements during the disc's production.

So when I see these kind of fundemental problems leftover from DVD, I have a complaint. There has been lingering edge enhancement in a bunch of catalogue titles and we mention it every time -- the difference here is how obvious and ugly it was. When you add the EE (which is consistently present throughout the film) to the other technical glitches (the artifacting and the noise -- which I gave examples of where to find), the transfer doesn't stack up to other high-def releases.

In my opinion, if a disc looked exactly like the DVD, it should receive zero stars (albeit that's quite impossible since the HD formats inherently increase the visual pizazz) because you're paying for high-def. There are enough basic upgrades to make the picture on 'In Good Company' acceptable -- but not average (compared to other HD DVD catalogue releases) and certainly not exceptional (compared to the great visuals in recent releases like 'The Host' on HD DVD).

Anyway, I hope that clarifies things a bit.

Thanks as always for posting!

[Space_Butler]

I had no idea this movie was even coming out in hd. A shame it doesn't LOOK it. Oh well. This actually reminded me to buy the dvd for cheap, because I remember being dragged to this movie on a night out, but really enjoyed the story. Also, chalk it up once again to me glossing over things, but I totally forgot his daughter was Scarlett Johannsen.

[eNoize]

Originally Posted by Blurry

I think ewe need to just keep updating eNoize's PQ thread so that we can build a better conscensus. Kenneth and Peter's have their criteria but often differ from my own, so I think the Tier thread is the best way to build a conscensus.

Having said that, I have not watched this one, so I don't have an opinion (but there have been other rating which differed glaringly from my own).

I agree, 100%.

Seriously, though, we need to understand that a reviewer's job is different than our own viewing experience. Theirs is a recommendation based on the latest equipment that most may not have access to. The intention of the Tier thread is as Blurry explained it, a consensus of different viewing experiences from a variety of home theater equipment. It's an opportunity for us, the viewer, to voice our recommendation of how well the transfer looks.

Well, that's enough self-promotion for one day. Have a nice day.

[vegasr]

Ken thanks for the explanation. I wasn't critising your review. I haven't seen the film yet. I was just surprised with your rating because the SD version got very good PQ reviews. There was even mention of the lack EE. I just struggle to understand how Universal managed to screw up the Hi Def version probably using the SD print.

[Josh Z]

I haven't seen the HD DVD, but a low score doesn't surprise me. It undoubtedly comes from the same master as the DVD, which had some ghastly edge enhancement.

Originally Posted by vegasr

I was just surprised with your rating because the SD version got very good PQ reviews. There was even mention of the lack EE.

Whoever wrote that review you're citing was obviously not a very critical viewer. The DVD had a ton of e.e.

[mrkiller]

whats up with Universal !!! i hope they would remaster most of theyre titles so their supporters would be happy.

Anyone know how Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead look like ?? i hope they get a 4+ star. i have been wating for Shaun of the Dead for such a long time

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by vegasr

Ken thanks for the explanation. I wasn't critising your review. I haven't seen the film yet. I was just surprised with your rating because the SD version got very good PQ reviews. There was even mention of the lack EE. I just struggle to understand how Universal managed to screw up the Hi Def version probably using the SD print.

No, no -- criticize away! It keeps me on my toes and is quite appreciated.

I just wanted to answer your question and didn't mean to come across as if I were annoyed by your comment at all.

Thanks for posting on the boards -- everyone's feedback, positive or negative, is read and considered.

[cooltobeyou]

I just got this one in the mail today, and I agree 100% with Kenneth's review. Its an excellent film, and everyone should check it out if you haven't seen it yet. I'd actually give the movie a 5/5, but the picture quality was beyond BAD. The score of 2/5 might have been a little too nice IMHO.

Some people may disagree with Kenneth on this one, but there is honestly no excuse for a movie thats only a few years old to look this poor...especially when you can pop in movies that are 20+ years old, like "Streets of Fire" and "The Untouchables", and be blown away by the PQ.