Why isn't "Iron Man" more BLU?

I just have to get this off my chest, because it is really bothering me. I loaded up "Iron Man" last night (Blu-Ray) and was quite shocked by how standard def. the picture looked. Many of the scenes were "muddy", the black levels were far from perfect, the persistent grain, it just did not WOW me like I expected it too. The "Fireballs" didn't have that high def "pop", the suit didn't "SHINE"...something just felt very wrong about the whole presentation. I did not see this movie in theaters, so I have no idea what the original print looked like, but this disc really dissapointed me as far as image quality. And whats up with the physical disc itself? It's painted a lame shade of blue, with "Iron Man" written on it like it's a third rate title. Where's the graphic? I know that the first pressings had problems playing on certain players, which leads me to wonder if this encoding/disc was a rush job. Well, atleast I have that cool "Target" case...and a really good film.

edit.
i watched this on a 56 INCH screen.

---

[Post edited by bladerunner1 on Oct 4, 2008]

i dont know about the quality, cause i haven't had time to watch mine... but maybe a double dip later, with special edition, behind the scenes super special edition, and a better cover.

lol

A fifty-Six foot screen eh? I think I found the problem.

Quote:
A fifty-Six foot screen eh? I think I found the problem.

lmao. yeah...

"Many of the scenes were "muddy", the black levels were far from perfect, the persistent grain, it just did not WOW me like I expected it too. The "Fireballs" didn't have that high def "pop", the suit didn't "SHINE"..." --bladerunner1

Maybe it's a difference in expectations. I saw the movie in a theater, and the Blu-ray video presentation is pretty much what I remembered. No, this is not a movie with typical comic-book colors that pop off the screen, nor has Paramount scrubbed the grain clean and left a waxy, super-clean, super-smooth appearance. But if that's what you expected, yes, you'll be disappointed.

I said in my review of the BD's video, "The best part about it is the realism of the colors, quite rich and true to life, never too bright and never too glossy. A natural film grain provides texture, and definition remains quite sharp in most scenes. I found the image a tad dark in some dimly lit shots, but it's a small quibble."

So, I think we're both seeing the same thing but interpreting it differently depending on our expectations.

John

I watched this last evening on my Samsung BD-UP5000 plugged into my 52" Toshiba DLP and you know what? I have to agree with John, it met my expectations. It looked just like it did in 70mm at the theater and that works for me

Quote:
nor has Paramount scrubbed the grain clean and left a waxy, super-clean, super-smooth appearance.

Waxy? I don't get.."waxy"? But i do get "super-clean" and "super-smooth". And i thought the whole idea behind the tech. was to give you that "You are there" vibe. In order to achieve this, things must be super-clean and super-smooth...but certainly not waxy. For example. "2001".

"i thought the whole idea behind the tech. was to give you that "You are there" vibe. In order to achieve this, things must be super-clean and super-smooth.." --bladerunner1

No, the whole idea behind high-def techology is to give a viewer an accurate reproduction of a movie's original print. If there is grain in the original print, there should be grain in the high-def reproduction.

When a studio uses DNR or some other form of grain removal to scrub a print clean before transfer to disc, it often removes a good deal of detail along with the grain. Removing dirt, scratches, and noise from an old print is one thing, a good thing, but removing natural film grain is another, a bad thing, in my opinion.

Paramount video engineers recognized that the studio had filmed "Iron Man" on conventional film stock (not digitally), which means the movie had grain in it, which they chose to leave alone, a decision I applaud. But I'm afraid that no matter which direction studio engineers take in this matter, they are going to make some viewers unhappy. The purist in me says to take the high road.

John

Quote:
Paramount video engineers recognized that the studio had filmed "Iron Man" on conventional film stock (not digitally), which means the movie had grain in it,

I guess I just don't like the film stock they used then. lol. The grain was only one of my gripes anyway, infact it really didn't bother me as much as the other stuff I mentioned up there. Oh well, it's still a keeper. Thanks for the chat John.

Blade,
They have the cartoon iron man which has NO grain. Maybe then you can be less distracted when watching the movie, and be amazed by all the colors!