'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' – High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Kenneth's review of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" has been posted. He enjoyed the film, finding it very rewarding after an initially slow start. He has the same problems with this HD DVD release that he had with the earlier Blu-ray version, specifically compression issues, which bring the video rating down, even as the audio track faithfully serves the films intents. This is still a significant improvement over the standard edition, but you'll want to read up on this one and approach a blind purchase carefully.

Full review here:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1307/...essejames.html

[AllSport11]

Been putting off watching this just so I can pick this one up. Going to grab it along with every last release on HD DVD.

[cash]

Originally Posted by AllSport11

Been putting off watching this just so I can pick this one up. Going to grab it along with every last release on HD DVD.

It does look exceptionally well upconverted from sdvd.

[film11]

Originally Posted by Attebery

Kenneth's review of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" has been posted. He enjoyed the film, finding it very rewarding after an initially slow start. He has the same problems with this HD DVD release that he had with the earlier Blu-ray version, specifically compression issues, which bring the video rating down,
]

I never go by the reviews here. They are essentially cut-and-paste jobs, with the exact same wording. I doubt that any side-by-side comparisons have been done. Example is HARRY POTTER...word for word the same review. But having seen both side-by-side (on Sony XBR LCD sets), the HD-DVD was sharper with a bit more detail than the BR counterpart. (In fact, I believe there were even screenshots of both on another site, maybe AVS, which documented the difference.) Not saying he's wrong, but since cut-and-paste reviews are the norm on HDD, I'd wait for more comparitive opinions.

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by film11

I never go by the reviews here. They are essentially cut-and-paste jobs, with the exact same wording. I doubt that any side-by-side comparisons have been done. Example is HARRY POTTER...word for word the same review. But having seen both side-by-side (on Sony XBR LCD sets), the HD-DVD was sharper with a bit more detail than the BR counterpart. (In fact, I believe there were even screenshots of both on another site, maybe AVS, which documented the difference.) Not saying he's wrong, but since cut-and-paste reviews are the norm on HDD, I'd wait for more comparitive opinions.

Don't you think that could have something to do with your players? My BD-30 has the same BDs looking a little sharper on my display then on the PS3 I used to have. My XA2 has the same HD DVDs looking a little sharper than my old XA1. If I did a side by side comparison of a Warner title on HD DVD & BD, I would expect it to look better on my XA2.

I'm undecided on this one - I canceled my HD DVD pre-order when the BD review came out. Besides not being a stellar transfer, with it being such a detailed "character study" I'm thinking one viewing from a rental will be enough.

[Liqwid]

Originally Posted by CochiseGuy

I'm undecided on this one - I canceled my HD DVD pre-order when the BD review came out. Besides not being a stellar transfer, with it being such a detailed "character study" I'm thinking one viewing from a rental will be enough.

I can guarantee that this movie is phenominal. I rented it on XBL and I couldn't get enough of it. I probably watched it two or three times last Saturday.

It'll still be worth picking up, but I wish this movie wasn't as dry of features as it is. I wished there was at least an audio commentary.

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by Liqwid

I can guarantee that this movie is phenominal. I rented it on XBL and I couldn't get enough of it. I probably watched it two or three times last Saturday.

You know what? You talked me into it.

I can combine it with my Amazon pre-order of Beowulf for free shipping, and a Thank You & show of support to Warner for sticking with their HD DVD releases through the end of May.

Originally Posted by Liqwid

It'll still be worth picking up, but I wish this movie wasn't as dry of features as it is. I wished there was at least an audio commentary.

You like the extra features and commentary with movies too, huh? You're going to hate Blu-ray.

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by film11

I never go by the reviews here. They are essentially cut-and-paste jobs, with the exact same wording. I doubt that any side-by-side comparisons have been done. Example is HARRY POTTER...word for word the same review. But having seen both side-by-side (on Sony XBR LCD sets), the HD-DVD was sharper with a bit more detail than the BR counterpart. (In fact, I believe there were even screenshots of both on another site, maybe AVS, which documented the difference.) Not saying he's wrong, but since cut-and-paste reviews are the norm on HDD, I'd wait for more comparitive opinions.

Unfortunately, these differences can often be completely attributed to the players used in the comparison (as was noted in the post by CochiseGuy). Consider it this way, Warner Brothers used the exact same encode for its Blu-ray and HD DVD discs (this has been confirmed over and over, and verified by our studio rep) -- so it's impossible to find a difference between the two that isn't directly related to the equipment being used. Essentially, it's the same file as read by two different access technologies.

The only time there is a difference between BD and HD versions (as we've often noted -- just look to my review of 'Coming to America') is when the encodes are different or there is an authoring discrepancy in the process.

Furthermore, the still shots used to compare films like HP can vary. Think about it this way -- with 24 frames per second, are you confident that two screen captures honed in on the exact frame in each version? The exact same 1/24 moment in time? Because the differences between the third and fourth (or the seventh and eighth, etc.) frames can be drastic due to even the most subtle movements. What can appear to be sharpness variations could be the slightest changes in frames. The image itself would look identical in composition, but the grain could be in a different location, compression could have shifted, the lighting could be different, and more -- all in the exchange of 1/24 of a second.

To be honest, I don't understand the point in dissecting still shots. Films are watched in motion and minute differences are pointless if they can't be perceived when a film is being viewed as it's intended. Many times, HD or BD purists will erroneously hone in on these apparent discrepancies as evidence of one format's visual superiority when it simply isn't the case.

I can assure you the two versions of 'The Assassination of Jesse James' were directly compared (as were the two versions of the most recent HP film). I can assure you that Warner has been using, and will probably continue to use the same transfers for their dual format releases. However, even though that is the expectation, we still take the time to directly compare the releases for our readers. Anything less would be unprofessional, unethical, and distinctly unforgivable.

I understand your frustration, so please don't feel this is an attack on you. It's an attack on the misinformation and misunderstandings that have been spread to fine folks like you. Thanks as always for posting!

[film11]

Ken, thank you for explaining the mode of comparison that is used on the reviews. Often, readers are kept in the dark as to how these comparisons are actually done. Some view the disc on one format, then view the other disc seperately. In such cases, small differences can go by undetected, as both formats usually look fine.

In my case, the side-by-side set-ups used the HD-A30 and the more expensive Sony BDP-S300. Certainly in the case of HARRY POTTER, the HD-DVD version looked better, despite both formats having the same transfers. (Both of the Sony XBRs were set up equally as well.) And that was also the opinion shared by any customer who came in and viewed them both. I'd assume that it may be due to how the files are read, but I wouldn't even try to think of any technical differences as to why a title may appear stronger on one format over another. I can say that I've seen many titles where they look the same on both formats. But I've seen many appear stronger on HD-DVD. One thing I've never seen is a BR disc that looked better than an HD-DVD. But then, I haven't seen everything!

I completely agree with ypour statements about screen-shots. I usually pay them no mind as well, for the very reasons you indicate. I mentioned it here only because I came across them a week or two after having seen the HP movies (on a nearly daily basis) and they seemed to confirm the real-time viewings. But screen-shots should certainly not be used as any singular indication of differences.

Having just bought my very first HD player today (the aforementioned A30), I probably will get the JESSE JAMES disc, primarily for the film itself. (Which I haven't seen, but it sounds like the sort of movie I'd appreciate.) Be interesting to see how it looks at home. At least I know not to expect too much!

Thanks again for your courteous and informative response.

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Unfortunately, these differences can often be completely attributed to the players used in the comparison (as was noted in the post by CochiseGuy). Consider it this way, Warner Brothers used the exact same encode for its Blu-ray and HD DVD discs (this has been confirmed over and over, and verified by our studio rep) -- so it's impossible to find a difference between the two that isn't directly related to the equipment being used. Essentially, it's the same file as read by two different access technologies.

The only time there is a difference between BD and HD versions (as we've often noted -- just look to my review of 'Coming to America') is when the encodes are different or there is an authoring discrepancy in the process.

Furthermore, the still shots used to compare films like HP can vary. Think about it this way -- with 24 frames per second, are you confident that two screen captures honed in on the exact frame in each version? The exact same 1/24 moment in time? Because the differences between the third and fourth (or the seventh and eighth, etc.) frames can be drastic due to even the most subtle movements. What can appear to be sharpness variations could be the slightest changes in frames. The image itself would look identical in composition, but the grain could be in a different location, compression could have shifted, the lighting could be different, and more -- all in the exchange of 1/24 of a second.

To be honest, I don't understand the point in dissecting still shots. Films are watched in motion and minute differences are pointless if they can't be perceived when a film is being viewed as it's intended. Many times, HD or BD purists will erroneously hone in on these apparent discrepancies as evidence of one format's visual superiority when it simply isn't the case.

I can assure you the two versions of 'The Assassination of Jesse James' were directly compared (as were the two versions of the most recent HP film). I can assure you that Warner has been using, and will probably continue to use the same transfers for their dual format releases. However, even though that is the expectation, we still take the time to directly compare the releases for our readers. Anything less would be unprofessional, unethical, and distinctly unforgivable.

I understand your frustration, so please don't feel this is an attack on you. It's an attack on the misinformation and misunderstandings that have been spread to fine folks like you. Thanks as always for posting!

[oxbladder]

Just curious if this was actually released today?

[Liqwid]

Originally Posted by oxbladder

Just curious if this was actually released today?

Yes, it has been released today.

[Favelle]

I have BOTH the Blu and the HD version of this film and they are EXACTLY the same. Heck, on my HTPC I put the bitrate meter up just to check and the meter is the SAME at specific points.

Don't let anyone tell you differently.

Having said that, the transfer is "meh"..and audio is only DD+ @ 640kbps......but its the best we have, unfortunately...

[oxbladder]

Originally Posted by Liqwid

Yes, it has been released today.

Thanks very much. Most site or online store listings said the 26th but I found a few that stated a March release so I just wanted to be sure before I go seeking it this weekend.

[nusilver]

I have to say, I was pleased with the look of the film. I don't buy hdm just for the sake of being able to say "hey lookie wow" to my friends and guests, but simply so that the movies look as good as they possibly can. i'm quite familiar with edge-enhancement, macroblocking, and compression artifacting as a result of a poor encode; however, had i not read the video portion of the review for the HDDVD and BR of this movie, i wouldn't've noticed any of it. Simply put, the film looks great, and don't let HDD's review dissuade you from buying this wonderful movie on HD DVD.

[hfritz]

I loved unforgiven and really want to see jesse james. As a brad pitt fan, is it worth buying?!!