Go Back   High-Def Digest Forums > HD DVD Format-Specific Forums > HD DVD Software General Discussion
Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-23-2007, 01:29 AM
jed's Avatar
jed jed is offline
HDD Founder
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Default 'A Mighty Heart' - High-Def Digest review

Kenneth's review of 'A Mighty Heart' is up. Although he quite liked the film itself and says that this is a technically solid HD DVD release, he cautions that this one isn't likely to turn heads.

Full review here:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1094/mightyheart.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-23-2007, 01:33 AM
Ph8's Avatar
Ph8 Ph8 is offline
Uh Oh..Hot Dog!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Default

Sounds good to me . I am interested in seeing this one and as of now I only buy a movie if its available in an HD format.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-23-2007, 01:41 AM
hawaii sun's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Default

saw the movie a few days ago, the audio was very good, however the PQ was grainy. not sure if that was the intent of the director.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-23-2007, 03:44 AM
zaphod's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Switzerland
Default

I've lived in Karachi, so this is a must for me. I'd pick it up anyway.
I don't care if the PQ is not perfect, I'm not buying any more day-and-dates on SD. The only thing bothering me is that there might be a 'definitive ultimate director's cut' with lots more supplements somewhere around the corner...
__________________
I don't care what you say, region coding sucks.
Results of the official recount: 120 , 122 . I'm even more shocked.
Heavily into necrophilia - still enjoying 'dead' HD DVDs.


Sus sui pulcher.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:17 AM
ben1080p's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Buy/Sell/Trade Score: 49
Posts: 11,086
Default

Ill give it a rent since the pq isnt looking that great.
__________________
Format Neutral
BD:60 HD:85

Arch-Nemesis: ben1080i

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyschmanny View Post
epic ben1080p.......f***ing ....epic.
Yea..im that awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:34 AM
mmmmDoNut's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Default

Everytime I see the cover for this movie, I always think of scanner darkly.
__________________
Video: 70" JVC HD-70G886, Denon 2807, Toshiba HD-A2, Sharp BD-HP20U, aTV, Vip 612
Audio: Athena WS-100 (F), WS-60 (C,SL/R), WS-15 (SBL/R), AS-P4100

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-23-2007, 08:57 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: This Blu Earth
Default

I don't get the audio marks - is it only getting 3 stars because it doesn't have massive use of LFE and surrounds due to there being no car chase scenes or robots or missiles or the like?

To me, if everything is totally crisp and dialogue is well placed then doesn't that come close to being a perfect "quality" audio encoding?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-23-2007, 09:18 AM
AnalogBalrog's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

I saw this HD DVD a few nights ago and was thoroughly dissapointed. The PQ, while possibly faithful to the source, was the worst PQ I've yet to see on HD DVD. I suppose it didn't help any that I didn't care for the film.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-23-2007, 09:34 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Default

the PQ isn't as bad as "spartacus" and "american me". those hd dvds are actually worse than the best sd dvds!!!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-23-2007, 10:32 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaii sun View Post
saw the movie a few days ago, the audio was very good, however the PQ was grainy. not sure if that was the intent of the director.
that's not grain that you're seeing as the movie was shot on high-def video. rather, you're seeing video noise.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-23-2007, 12:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Default Vc-1?

Why didn't they use VC-1 on Transformers so they could fit a TrueHD track on that bad boy.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-23-2007, 12:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default

While a debate over director's intent v. video quality is alluded to in the review, I don't understand why there is even a debate. While I suppose there may be some who only want to view a movie as "eye candy," I don't understand giving a low grade for intended picture quality. Isn't the point of high definition video that it allows us to view a film as close as ever before to how the director intended it to look? Or is it graded based on some form of "ooo pretty" basis, which removes the intentions of the filmmaker all together. I think it is unwise to waffle between the two, since in some cases a reviewer will state that "even though it was the director's intention, the picture quality is poor" or on the other hand "the picture quality is poor b/c the OAR is wrong thus losing the director's intentions" Which is it?

This is more of a general post, but since the theme was mentioned in this review, I thought it was appropriate to post here, if it wasn't I apoligize
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-23-2007, 03:07 PM
Josh Z's Avatar
HDD Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BambooLounge View Post
While a debate over director's intent v. video quality is alluded to in the review, I don't understand why there is even a debate. While I suppose there may be some who only want to view a movie as "eye candy," I don't understand giving a low grade for intended picture quality. Isn't the point of high definition video that it allows us to view a film as close as ever before to how the director intended it to look? Or is it graded based on some form of "ooo pretty" basis, which removes the intentions of the filmmaker all together. I think it is unwise to waffle between the two, since in some cases a reviewer will state that "even though it was the director's intention, the picture quality is poor" or on the other hand "the picture quality is poor b/c the OAR is wrong thus losing the director's intentions" Which is it?
A good review must by necessity balance the two aspects. To give a movie like this a perfect video score without cautioning that the picture is soft, grainy, and dull is misleading to readers. Imagine what uproar would have occurred if the '28 Days Later' Blu-ray, a movie that was shot on sub-Standard Definition DV for all but 2 minutes of its run time, had been given a score of 5 for its accuracy, without taking into account what it actually looks like.

On the other hand, of course the goal of a High-Def disc is to accurately represent the director's intentions without distorting or manipulating it. Both aspects must be weighed in the final score.

The review gave the 'Mighty Heart' disc a 4 out of 5 for video quality, which is perfectly respectable. No one should be upset about that. Not every disc is going to rate a 5.
__________________
Joshua Zyber
Critic, High-Def Digest
Contributor, Home Theater Magazine
Curator, Laserdisc Forever | Cinema Zyberdiso.
My opinions are strictly my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of this site, its owners or employees.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-23-2007, 03:15 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Weeds
Default

I enjoyed this movie, strange cuz I had some bad thoughts going into it, but found it enjoying.

Great looking one too, its not as bad as people are making it out to be. And its an enjoyable flick, not one Id watch again, but still a good enough rental.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0