What He Said - High-Def Digest Forums
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-02-2007, 06:50 PM
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,996
Default What He Said

Please commit on this artice by home theater freak. The people who run this site need to know your opinions.



My conclusion is that this film simply looks amazing on HD DVD and I was pleasantly surprised that they really kept the gritty theatrical appearance as I thought for sure this would be a title that they tried to remove some grain from as unfortuantely we have been seeing more and more of that these days and I couldnt possibly be more against such actions. Altering a films appearance for home video is altering the DoP's vision for the film and changes the overall feel of the film. Again its a practice that should be abolished as its insulting to the people who made the film and its insulting to people who love watching films the way they were meant to be seen.

As for the review on this film, I dont even know what to say. I have been reading review sites since I first got into DVD like 10 years ago. I actually remember signing up for DVDtalk the first week it went live on the net. All I can say is I never remember anything like the problems were seeing now with reviews happening with SD DVD. For the most part reviewers for SD DVD really did a good job overall and while there were certainly times where I would run across a review or two that I disagreed with it was usually for reasons that I could appreciate thus I never really had a problem with such reviews.

I certainly cannot say the same for HD. These formats have been plauged with terrible reviews IMO. It used to be films were judged by how close they represented thier theatrical presentation. It didnt matter if a film was grainy or stylized, if the home video did a great job of preserving the theatrical presentations look and feel it was awarded a good review and rightfully so as that is really what the home video people should be doing. They should be trying to match the theatrical look and preserve how the director of photography wanted his film to look. Now with HD it seems like the entire system has been turned on its head. Instead of reviewers judging a film by how well it preserves its intended and theatrical look, they know judge each film by comparing them to other HD films. Its like they find the best looking HD film and by best I mean, zero grain and snappy picture, the kind that really show of HD the best and I think everyone here knows what kind of look I am referring to here, the kind that give that really 3d effect. They use such transfer to set the bar and then judge all the other HD films on how well they match up to that particular films image quality.

Its a disgrace to reviewing because what your ultimatly saying is that stylized films and films that have some grain to them will always end up getting a bad picture quality review no matter what the DoP intended and no matter how well the home theatre version lives up to its theatrical version. Its a terrible way of reviewing and I couldnt possible diasgree with it more.

Blood Diamond is a perfect example of such a film. This HD DVD version matches the theatrical version perfectly. I saw this film in the theatre multiple times and absolutly loved the overall look of this film and that isnt surprising really becaus I love gritty, grainly and stylized especially when its effect is subtle as it is in this movie. This picture isnt extremely grainy and its certainly not a heavily stylized film however it has both and IMO it resulted in what was without a doubt one of my favorite looking films of 2006. In fact I loved the overall look of ths film so much tht I actually purchased 2 canisters of Kodak Vision2 500T 5218 & Vision 500T 5279 film and tried to replicate the look this film had so I could use it myself when I shoot people on 35mm.

Giving this film a 3 star rating for PQ is just a crime and it shows without a single doubt that the current system some people are using to review such films is nothing short of a joke. We all know that Universal has released a bunch of catalog titles rescently that have recieved 3 stars and I even disagreed woth some of those ratings however this film is far above the quality of those recent releases and yet somehow recieved the same exact film quality score. Its utterly mind boggling and I for one am done with it. I refuse to spend time reading reviews by people that seem to utterly disregard what the people making the film intented and totally disregard its theatrical look. These reviewers are so obsessed with a perfect 3d picture quality that they have forgetten how to properly review a film's picture quality.

Its almost like the reviewers are reviewing the films based on those threads that were created showing some kind of tier system for how films look compared to one another. This forum has one and so does AVS and while its certainly fine to create such a thread and trying to make a scale that shows just how eye popping one films image quality is towards another, using such a system towards rating films is not fine as a matter of fact its just plain pathetic.

If you want your films reviewed using methods that do nothing short of comparing how close a particular films picture quality is to the Sahara, Aeon Flux or whatever other transfers they are using as thier standard then by all means keep reading. I however strive to actually find quality reviews by people that not only understand how films are made but also understand that photography is a medium that can literally give you thousands of different visual qualities and that is something that should be celebrated, not something that should be looked down upon.

Of course ill still come here and post on these forums but I will be getting my film reviews elsewhere. If Blood Diamond is a 3 star PQ, I am the king of england.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-02-2007, 07:12 PM
Spideybat's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,852
Default

What's wrong with it? It doesn't agree with your opinion? What a shame. It's one person's review!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-02-2007, 07:26 PM
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,996
Default

NO. I 100% agree with it. I just wanted to put his post as a topic so it will have more viewers. Cough cough....administrators
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-03-2007, 09:04 PM
MrE's Avatar
MrE MrE is offline
Formerly MrENGLISH
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,966
Default

I agree. Grain was intended and therefore should not be counted against it. Can't wait to see what PQ rating Grindhouse gets whenever it comes out
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-04-2007, 07:30 PM
illegalprelude's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,961
Default

im in the same boat and I think people miss the point. This review right here says it best

Quote:
Other aspects of the transfer are also strong. If 'Monster House' is not absolutely the sharpest transfer I've seen of an animated feature (it appears slightly diffused, though this is consistent with the theatrical showing I saw), it still packs a lot of depth. The image is quite three-dimensional in appearance, which is especially noticeable in early scenes, as the film makes great creative use of the positioning of the monster house and its neighbors. However, I did notice what looked like some very slight "grain" in solid areas of the picture at times, such as skies and the like. However, whether this is present on the master and thus intentional I do not know. In any case, it is slight and didn't intrude on my enjoyment of the transfer.

(Note: Since posting this review, we received word from Sony that while 'Monster House' is a direct digital-to-digital transfer with no intermediate film print, a "synthetic film grain" was added to the source master as a creative decision on behalf of the filmmakers.)
alot of time, film grain is added or darker and lower lit scenes are on purpose to take away the home camera feel and add the so called "film" look
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amy Whinehouse: "They said I needed to go to rehab, and I said yes, yes, yes" Arkadin The Water Cooler 2 01-24-2008 08:57 PM
Hey Eidos... I thought you said No PS3 games til' 08? Oh and Kane and Lynch 360-only? Indy_aka_Rex Gaming Smackdown 64 04-25-2007 03:53 PM
Universal's "Because I Said So" (Diane Keaton) bembol HD DVD Software General Discussion 2 04-15-2007 11:42 PM
Because I Said So? Blu-News.com HD DVD Software General Discussion 1 04-05-2007 03:03 AM
For everyone who said Blu-ray would not be getting porn... apocknight High Definition Smackdown 27 03-15-2007 04:38 PM


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