Thursday, December 20, 2007
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
I'm surprised there was no discussion about this one here. My wife and I watched this one tonight that she bought for me (her?) Tuesday.
The movie itself is mostly comprised of a collection of Hollywood cliches, but even still it never became tedious and was surprisingly entertaining for what most of us guys would consider a "chick flick". The fact that the wife loved it was a good thing.
With the crap put out this year, this is easily one of the best movies of 2007 so far IMO. The picture quality for HD was "unusual". The skin tones were a bit on the reddish side, especially in the first 30 or so minutes of the movies - much like Transformers was. Every closeup* dium distance shot was soft, especially with people. And every far away shot was amazing in detail and clarity, like the panning scenery that included forests clad with leaves upon the hills extending into the distance. These shots were reference. It's obvious that the softness of people-shots were an intended aspect of the movie. *
There was literally no EE present, and even a little would have been quite obvious with all those hills, mountains, and heads outlined against the bright-blue sky. I wish that Universal would learn from Paramount's example here. Colors were vibrant and dynamic contrast was great without killing shadow detail or blowing any light areas.
From a PQ standpoint, and for just great, light entertainment I'd recommend this one. Glad the wifey bought it.
The movie itself is mostly comprised of a collection of Hollywood cliches, but even still it never became tedious and was surprisingly entertaining for what most of us guys would consider a "chick flick". The fact that the wife loved it was a good thing.
With the crap put out this year, this is easily one of the best movies of 2007 so far IMO. The picture quality for HD was "unusual". The skin tones were a bit on the reddish side, especially in the first 30 or so minutes of the movies - much like Transformers was. Every closeup* dium distance shot was soft, especially with people. And every far away shot was amazing in detail and clarity, like the panning scenery that included forests clad with leaves upon the hills extending into the distance. These shots were reference. It's obvious that the softness of people-shots were an intended aspect of the movie. *
There was literally no EE present, and even a little would have been quite obvious with all those hills, mountains, and heads outlined against the bright-blue sky. I wish that Universal would learn from Paramount's example here. Colors were vibrant and dynamic contrast was great without killing shadow detail or blowing any light areas.
From a PQ standpoint, and for just great, light entertainment I'd recommend this one. Glad the wifey bought it.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
"I'm surprised there was no discussion about this one here." --Skyhawk
Not that every message-board poster reads DVDTOWN's reviews, but my review of "Stardust" has been up there in the lead story spot on the main page for a week now, and in my opening paragraph I say, "'Stardust' wound up as my favorite film of the year." I loved it, although you probably liked the picture quality a tad more than I did.
John
Not that every message-board poster reads DVDTOWN's reviews, but my review of "Stardust" has been up there in the lead story spot on the main page for a week now, and in my opening paragraph I say, "'Stardust' wound up as my favorite film of the year." I loved it, although you probably liked the picture quality a tad more than I did.
John
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
I meant discussion on the message board, apart from your review. This movie when it came out for some reason was one of those that was off my radar. As far a PQ is concerned, I'll have to read your review again. IMO, all the easy stuff to get in high detail (pores, hair stubble, etc.) was soft, and everything exceedingly hard to capture in detail in HD was amazing (far away hillsides covered with trees, etc.). By PQ though, I hope you don't mean you noticed EE artifacts? What aspects of the PQ/transfer did you find substandard?
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 20, 2007]
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 20, 2007]
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Member since:
September 2006
September 2006
I absolutely loved this movie. I got it from NetFlix yesterday. I really wish i had seen in in theaters now and I'll be looking to add it to my HD collection now. Just a question did anyone else have playback problems? The copy I got froze in one particular spot over and over again. I had to skip forward and rewind to where I left off. Normally I chalk this up to Netflix but since it was a brand new copy I was surprised. I haven't upgraded my firmware to 2.4 on my A1 so I'm hoping that solves the problem.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
"What aspects of the PQ/transfer did you find substandard?" --Skyhawk
Nothing was "sub" or less than standard. The picture quality is quite good. But I saw this film in a theater, and I found the image there slightly soft in places, too, as you noted. That's how it shows up on disc. So, 8/10.
John
Nothing was "sub" or less than standard. The picture quality is quite good. But I saw this film in a theater, and I found the image there slightly soft in places, too, as you noted. That's how it shows up on disc. So, 8/10.
John
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Movielover, I'm glad you loved this one. Both the wife and I smiled the whole way through this. Although it didn't get the advertising buzz that Transformers, Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, Harry Potter, or Pirates did, it will be interesting to see what this does in sales for HD DVD. I don't expect it to sell a lot in its first week because of that fact it's off people's radar, but I bet this one has "legs" and we'll see this one contribute to sales for a long while when the other titles I've mentioned are long gone from the top 20 list. At least that's my prediction!
Friday, December 21, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Movielover,
I've had a couple of discs freeze up or skip (OK, one skip and two freeze-ups) in the year and a half I've had my A1 (and that's in playing hundreds of HD DVDs). In each case, I used eyeglass cleaner and a soft cloth (the same as I use to clean my eyeglasses), and after cleaning, I could never duplicate the problem. One disc a while back had what looked like a million tiny pits in it. I thought it was damaged. But it turned out it must have gotten accidentally sprayed with something very, very fine, because after the cleaning, all the tiny spots were gone. It played perfectly.
No such trouble with "Stardust," though. It plays perfectly, and I've been through it twice.
John
I've had a couple of discs freeze up or skip (OK, one skip and two freeze-ups) in the year and a half I've had my A1 (and that's in playing hundreds of HD DVDs). In each case, I used eyeglass cleaner and a soft cloth (the same as I use to clean my eyeglasses), and after cleaning, I could never duplicate the problem. One disc a while back had what looked like a million tiny pits in it. I thought it was damaged. But it turned out it must have gotten accidentally sprayed with something very, very fine, because after the cleaning, all the tiny spots were gone. It played perfectly.
No such trouble with "Stardust," though. It plays perfectly, and I've been through it twice.
John
Friday, December 21, 2007
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Quote:
But I saw this film in a theater, and I found the image there slightly soft in places, too, as you noted. That's how it shows up on disc. So, 8/10.
Alright I just read your review. And I agree with you with what you say about these "soft places":
Quote:
undoubtedly softness is undoubtedly intentional, and in any case is hardly a matter for discussion because it enhances the story.
If this was the case, why would you subtract anything for those soft closeups if you believe that was the intention and it did indeed enhance the story? BTW, I notice that you gave this film the same rating as you did "Eyes Wide Shut" in PQ?
Edit: I should mention that I had no problems playing this disk either.
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 21, 2007]
Friday, December 21, 2007
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Skyhawk,
You may have confused my review of "Eyes Wide Shut" on HD DVD with my colleague Dean Winkelspecht's review of the BD edition, which are identical transfers. He liked the PQ slightly better than I did. He gave it an 8/10 and I gave it a 7/10, which I find remarkably close, given that we are both human.
In the matter of "Stardust" (and any other film), I never try to base my final evalutation on whether a film is supposed to look a certain way or whether it came out that way in the transfer process. If EE or noise or whatever is severe, I'll mention it, but otherwise I just try to comment on whether I liked it or not, based on remembered comparisons of hundereds of other high-def releases and thousands of other SD discs. In the case of "Stardust," I would have given the movie in a theater an 8/10 as well.
This is definitely a thorny issue with reviewers and shows how reviewing picture and sound quality is just as subjective as reviewing the movie itself. Some reviewers insist they can detect exactly what is being introduced by the transfer process, and they only grade PQ on the basis of how well they say it was transferred to disc. Thus, if a picture looks crappy to begin with but it's a perfect transfer, they'll give it a perfect score. I don't agree with that (mainly, because I admit I'm not that "expert," as the experts like to brag about themselves). For example, I thought the newest "Ocean's Thirteen" was a great HD transfer of questionable source material, I said so in my review, and I tried to make my picture-quality rating reflect that. Likewise, Kubrick shot "Eyes Wide Shut" in largely "natural" light, making most of the movie look dim, grainy, and sometimes even fuzzy. WB's HD transfer of it is probably pretty accurate, but I felt a 7/10 was appropriate for the final result, and Dean thought an 8/10 was more fair. Close enough. If you read our reviews, you'll see that we say the same things about it, so all's well that ends well.
John
You may have confused my review of "Eyes Wide Shut" on HD DVD with my colleague Dean Winkelspecht's review of the BD edition, which are identical transfers. He liked the PQ slightly better than I did. He gave it an 8/10 and I gave it a 7/10, which I find remarkably close, given that we are both human.
In the matter of "Stardust" (and any other film), I never try to base my final evalutation on whether a film is supposed to look a certain way or whether it came out that way in the transfer process. If EE or noise or whatever is severe, I'll mention it, but otherwise I just try to comment on whether I liked it or not, based on remembered comparisons of hundereds of other high-def releases and thousands of other SD discs. In the case of "Stardust," I would have given the movie in a theater an 8/10 as well.
This is definitely a thorny issue with reviewers and shows how reviewing picture and sound quality is just as subjective as reviewing the movie itself. Some reviewers insist they can detect exactly what is being introduced by the transfer process, and they only grade PQ on the basis of how well they say it was transferred to disc. Thus, if a picture looks crappy to begin with but it's a perfect transfer, they'll give it a perfect score. I don't agree with that (mainly, because I admit I'm not that "expert," as the experts like to brag about themselves). For example, I thought the newest "Ocean's Thirteen" was a great HD transfer of questionable source material, I said so in my review, and I tried to make my picture-quality rating reflect that. Likewise, Kubrick shot "Eyes Wide Shut" in largely "natural" light, making most of the movie look dim, grainy, and sometimes even fuzzy. WB's HD transfer of it is probably pretty accurate, but I felt a 7/10 was appropriate for the final result, and Dean thought an 8/10 was more fair. Close enough. If you read our reviews, you'll see that we say the same things about it, so all's well that ends well.
John
Friday, December 21, 2007
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Well John, I would have probably given Stardust close to a score you did as well, but for different reasons. The noise in dark scenes wasn't film grain but noise IMO, and probably would have merited at least 1/2 point off. The off (red push) skin tones in parts would have merited at least another 1/2 point off IMO. But because everything far away was so much in detail, along with the complete absence of noticeable artifacts like EE or DNR, I would have given this a 9/10 I think. So we're not far off, just the reasons I guess.
Sorry, I guess I did see the wrong review of Eyes Wide Shut. I probably would have given this a 7/10 like you as well. A great restoration effort, especially for color and contrast.
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 21, 2007]
Sorry, I guess I did see the wrong review of Eyes Wide Shut. I probably would have given this a 7/10 like you as well. A great restoration effort, especially for color and contrast.
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Dec 21, 2007]
