bradavon wrote:saltysam wrote:Romero i've already said Under Siege 2 is a very good transfer

I don't think Romero believes anyone but himself. That's a serious point btw

.
Well Brad considering you cannot even spot Stunt doubles, I wont go off anything you say picture wise

and you sit far to far away from your screen as well for HD
but seriously Most people on the net have no clue at all about picture anyway so I couldnt care less about many comments as frankly many people talk shit when it comes to HD picture, or sit so far away from their screen it means bugger all for HD.
You only have to look on some big sites to see apprently pro reviewers spouting bullshit they have no clue about and mistaking problems for what the film was suposed to look like! or even worse neglecting to talk about problems in the transfer which they dont see as they are blind! or even worse have shit screens.
So its got bugger all to do with who I believe, its that most people have no clue at all about picture quality. I am no expert, but I always see problems even if they are tiny, and pretty much know what is good and bad etc.. and dont mistake actual parts of the film that were suposed to be their and look like that as a bad transfer like many morons do.
But in the end the fact Under Siege 2 not even out in most normal countries on any HD format (its limited to 2 european countries which probibly put no effort into the transfer at all), its bound not to be the best it can be thats for sure.
I never go off one source on the net in regards to picture quality thats for sure as frankly only a loony would as some idiots slag off 5 star transfers and think they look shit, or give shit ones full marks, even for hilarious reasons becuase they aint got a clue.
Like it looks grainy, it must be shit, so I am a moron and mark it down a few stars as I think grain - bad, or compression, which is the new one which lights up the world with hilarity.