'The Adventures of Tintin - 3D' - High-Def Digest Review - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-21-2012, 06:51 PM
Attebery's Avatar
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,716
Default 'The Adventures of Tintin - 3D' - High-Def Digest Review

E has reviewed 'The Adventures of Tintin - 3D.' He says this 3D Blu-ray edition of the film arrives with a first-rate audio and video presentation that's sure to satisfy everyone. Bonus material is fairly extensive, and most of it is exclusive to Blu-ray. Recommended.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6473...tintin_3d.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-22-2012, 05:46 AM
monsieurgadget's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 228
Default

Looking forward to my 3D copy of this arriving soon.

One question for E - you have rated the Supplements as 1 star and yet your summary says

Quote:
Bonus material is fairly extensive, and most of it is exclusive to Blu-ray...
A small bit of a contradiction?

Personally, I like the idea of having bonus features... yet never seem to find the time to watch them. And my wife and kids are completely uninterested in them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-22-2012, 10:38 AM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

I am curoius about the 4.5 rating on the video. I have watched it myself, and I agree with everything you said. My question is, why 4.5 and not a 5? Most CGI films on here tend to get 5 star ratings, and there didn't seem to be any issues with ghosting or crosstalk, and you talked about how great the 3D effect was. Just curious as to what else you were looking for.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-22-2012, 11:01 AM
eNoize's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by monsieurgadget View Post
Looking forward to my 3D copy of this arriving soon.

One question for E - you have rated the Supplements as 1 star and yet your summary says



A small bit of a contradiction?
Supplements shared with the DVD get one star, but exclusive material to the format receive two stars. Put them together and it's a fairly decent set along with the 3D movie.

Hope that answers your question.
__________________
M. Enois Duarte
High-Def Digest Contributor
Hi-Def Collection
Unfollow me at twitter: @MEnoisDuarte

Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash
we have very little reason to be interested in them.

~ Pauline Kael
.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-22-2012, 11:18 AM
eNoize's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravis778 View Post
I am curoius about the 4.5 rating on the video. I have watched it myself, and I agree with everything you said. My question is, why 4.5 and not a 5? Most CGI films on here tend to get 5 star ratings, and there didn't seem to be any issues with ghosting or crosstalk, and you talked about how great the 3D effect was. Just curious as to what else you were looking for.
I guess you could say, I'm very particular as to what I consider reference level and demo quality. Compared to other 5-star 3D animated flicks, 'Tintin' doesn't quite match the WOW factor or feel like it maintained a consistant 3D image from beginning to end. For a short while, I even debated giving it 4 stars because of that, but decided against it since it has many positives.

Hope that answers your question. My review for 'Musketeers - 3D' should be going up fairly soon and honestly, that movie puts on a much more impressive 3D show than 'Tintin.' Too bad it sucks.
__________________
M. Enois Duarte
High-Def Digest Contributor
Hi-Def Collection
Unfollow me at twitter: @MEnoisDuarte

Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash
we have very little reason to be interested in them.

~ Pauline Kael
.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-22-2012, 11:38 AM
Doctorossi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eNoize View Post
I guess you could say, I'm very particular as to what I consider reference level and demo quality. Compared to other 5-star 3D animated flicks, 'Tintin' doesn't quite match the WOW factor or feel like it maintained a consistant 3D image from beginning to end. For a short while, I even debated giving it 4 stars because of that, but decided against it since it has many positives.

Hope that answers your question. My review for 'Musketeers - 3D' should be going up fairly soon and honestly, that movie puts on a much more impressive 3D show than 'Tintin.' Too bad it sucks.
Thanks for the clarification on that question. I'm not a big fan of that particular critical approach which considers the merits of the content itself within an evaluation of a technical presentation aspect such as 'video quality'. Because we don't know, with any consistency, exactly how much you're going to adjust a review score because of the movie's content, the meaning of the video quality score becomes vague. Personally, when I look at a review of a disc, I want to know how well that disc represents the content of the movie. When an evaluation of that content enters the scoring process, I no longer have any frame of reference for the quality of the disc's representation of that content.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-22-2012, 11:44 AM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eNoize View Post
I guess you could say, I'm very particular as to what I consider reference level and demo quality. Compared to other 5-star 3D animated flicks, 'Tintin' doesn't quite match the WOW factor or feel like it maintained a consistant 3D image from beginning to end. For a short while, I even debated giving it 4 stars because of that, but decided against it since it has many positives.

Hope that answers your question. My review for 'Musketeers - 3D' should be going up fairly soon and honestly, that movie puts on a much more impressive 3D show than 'Tintin.' Too bad it sucks.
Thanks, that answered my question, and I agree with your reasoning. Also, yeah, the 3D on "Three Musketeers" is absolutely amazing! I would finish it today, but "Dragonball Z Kai" should be arriving today, and I will probably spend all day watching that. Disappointed, though - I just moved recently, and haven't hooked up the surround sound yet. My TV speakers have really been getting a workout. Here is to the simulated surround that is in many modern TVs, and here's to TV manufactorors starting to include half-way decent speakers!

I guess I COULD hook up the surround - UPS won't be here for another couple of hours, but I got to buy new speaker wire (don't get paid until tonight), and the place I am at now is temporary while I am looking for a permanate place. When I packed up my wires at my last place, it took me hours to untangle everything, and just not sure if I want to run more wires than needed right now.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-22-2012, 11:47 AM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorossi View Post
Thanks for the clarification on that question. I'm not a big fan of that particular critical approach which considers the merits of the content itself within an evaluation of a technical presentation aspect such as 'video quality'. Because we don't know, with any consistency, exactly how much you're going to adjust a review score because of the movie's content, the meaning of the video quality score becomes vague. Personally, when I look at a review of a disc, I want to know how well that disc represents the content of the movie. When an evaluation of that content enters the scoring process, I no longer have any frame of reference for the quality of the disc's representation of that content.
I have been wondering this myself. You know, what would be REALLY useful is that, on future 3D reviews, the video quality and the 3D quality get two different ratings. Just add an additional field for 3D movies to the reviews. Right now, I am going back and forth between the 2D and 3D reviews to get the information I am looking for. Sadly, though, right now, I am blind-buying many 3D titles simply because I am hurting for 3D content.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-22-2012, 12:00 PM
Doctorossi's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravis778 View Post
I have been wondering this myself. You know, what would be REALLY useful is that, on future 3D reviews, the video quality and the 3D quality get two different ratings. Just add an additional field for 3D movies to the reviews. Right now, I am going back and forth between the 2D and 3D reviews to get the information I am looking for. Sadly, though, right now, I am blind-buying many 3D titles simply because I am hurting for 3D content.
That change might help some reviews (like this one), but the issue impacts reviews of 2D movies, as well. Sometimes, for example, a video score will be reduced because a movie is in black and white. I think it's very common, as well, that a movie made in mono or 2-4 channel stereo will receive a lowered audio score because of its lack of a modern surround mix.

If a movie gets a '3.5-star' video rating and the reviewer cites the movie's 16mm origination as the culprit, how do we know how closely the disc represents how well the movie could look? Is 3.5 the best the reviewer thinks a 16mm movie can look? Or is 4.0 the top of the reviewer's reduced '16mm review scale', but this particular disc release doesn't quite present the movie as well as it could?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-22-2012, 12:51 PM
gravis778's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctorossi View Post
That change might help some reviews (like this one), but the issue impacts reviews of 2D movies, as well. Sometimes, for example, a video score will be reduced because a movie is in black and white. I think it's very common, as well, that a movie made in mono or 2-4 channel stereo will receive a lowered audio score because of its lack of a modern surround mix.

If a movie gets a '3.5-star' video rating and the reviewer cites the movie's 16mm origination as the culprit, how do we know how closely the disc represents how well the movie could look? Is 3.5 the best the reviewer thinks a 16mm movie can look? Or is 4.0 the top of the reviewer's reduced '16mm review scale', but this particular disc release doesn't quite present the movie as well as it could?
I don't like that. I mean, Metropolis may look the best it can look, given the condition of the material, but there is just no reason to give, say, both it AND Casablnanca 5 stars on video. What about some cheaply made 80s or 90s film like, oh, Ladybugs? You couldn't give it a 5 star on the video and then give, oh, lets say, Across The Universe a 4 star release simply based on how good it could look.

I am sorry, but a movie shot on 16mm just should not receive the same score as a movie shot on a Red Digital camera, because then you have no base for comparrison.

I think this site does a pretty good job balancing "how good a movie should look" with how it looks compared to others of similar time-periods. There is the ocassional time when I may think a reviewer is smoking crack (Flash Gordon was a good example), but most of the time, I think the reviews on the video and audio quality are spot-on
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Adventures Of Tintin 3D Blu Ray-Your Thoughts? johnnysac5 3D Gear & Movies 7 06-14-2012 09:10 AM
'The Adventures of Tintin' - High-Def Digest Review Attebery Blu-ray Software General Discussion 20 03-14-2012 08:55 AM
Adventures of Tintin(2D) $19.99 at Amazon.ca (until March 12th) SilentBob Ultra-HD/Blu-ray Bargains 2 03-07-2012 08:43 AM
'The Adventures of Tintin' Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D are up for pre-order Landy Blu-ray Software General Discussion 4 02-17-2012 02:47 PM
The Adventures of Tintin SteelBook ahsoka SteelBook / Iron Pack 1 12-31-2011 06:43 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off