Tai-Chi Master: HKV (R2FR) vs R0HK vs Scholar (R3Taiwan)

Film Reviews and Release Comparisons
tom2681
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 5577
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
Location: Where you'll never find me

Tai-Chi Master: HKV (R2FR) vs R0HK vs Scholar (R3Taiwan)

Unread post by tom2681 » 10 May 2006, 21:21

Tai-Chi Master.

Universe:
1:30:35 NTSC.

HK Vidéo:
1:29:02 PAL.

R3HK:
Image

R2FR:
Image

R0Taiwan:
Image

R3HK:
Image

R2FR:
Image

R0Taiwan:
Image

R3HK:
Image

R2FR:
Image

R0Taiwan:
Image

@Hungfist:
Time to distribute those custom subs. :lol: :lol:
Remastered, my ass ! :D
Last edited by tom2681 on 01 Nov 2006, 16:40, edited 2 times in total.
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".

User avatar
grim_tales
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 21733
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 18:34
Location: St. Albans, UK

Unread post by grim_tales » 11 May 2006, 08:47

The French disc is clearly better. The Universe is crap, way too dark IMO.

User avatar
bradavon
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 24418
Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30

Re: Tai-Chi Master: HK Vidéo (R2FR) vs Universe (R3HK)

Unread post by bradavon » 11 May 2006, 12:48

Tom: Is this the Re-release (I refuse to call it Remastered) or Original Universe Tai Chi Master DVD? Any chance of adding the other one?
Tom2681 wrote:Tai-Chi Master.
@Hungfist:
Time to distribute those custom subs. :lol: :lol:
Remastered, my ass ! :D
I'll upload them to my webspace tonight if Hung doesn't do it first. I'll wait to add instructions that link you provided until then so it's all in one post.

The subs with those instructions work a treat. They forget one step: To tell you to change the tagname for the subs from the default English to Chinese. I forgot to do this and didn't notice until I burnt the DVD I couldn't be bothered to re-author the DVD again just for that one VERY minor error (it says English when I turn the subs on).

Also oddly despite choosing to have them ON by default they're not.

I now have a glorious Tai Chi Master DVD with English subs, anamophic and Cantonese Mono.
grim_tales wrote:The Universe is crap, way too dark IMO.
If that was all that is wrong with it I wouldn't be that bothered with it. The 5.1 remix is atrocious.

tom2681
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 5577
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
Location: Where you'll never find me

Unread post by tom2681 » 11 May 2006, 13:02

Is this the Re-release (I refuse to call it Remastered)
It is the so-called "remastered" edition.
The original is brighter, but also softer (it's not even watchable AFAIK).
I'll upload them to my webspace tonight if Hung doesn't do it first.
I'm not sure that HungFist actually wants to "release" his subs.
He'd rather give them to those who want it (one by one).
He doesn't want his subs to fall into the wrong hands. :D
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".

User avatar
HungFist
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 10818
Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 15:50
Location: Japan
Contact:

Unread post by HungFist » 11 May 2006, 13:38

Tom2681 wrote: I'm not sure that HungFist actually wants to "release" his subs.
He'd rather give them to those who want it (one by one).
He doesn't want his subs to fall into the wrong hands. :D
Right. I did Jailhouse 41 subs, and soon after found my subs from places I didn't post them to... probably being used by internet bootleggers... no offence Tom). I don't want that to happen again.

User avatar
bradavon
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 24418
Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30

Unread post by bradavon » 11 May 2006, 15:16

Isn't it best to let everyone have them? If you don't want them posted publically I won't upload them here, no worries. I've not uploaded them anywhere.

Instructions can be found here:

http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/t219535.html

User avatar
HungFist
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 10818
Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 15:50
Location: Japan
Contact:

Unread post by HungFist » 11 May 2006, 15:27

bradavon wrote:Isn't it best to let everyone have them?
No, because then everyone would be downloading internet rips and no one would buy the official dvd. I'm not working hard to make subs for people who couldn't care less about buying the actual dvd.

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19862
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Unread post by Markgway » 11 May 2006, 16:08

French is much better, natch. Though a touch too bright perhaps?
Image

chenlung
King of Beggars
Posts: 901
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 22:45
Location: Scotland

Unread post by chenlung » 26 Jul 2006, 01:44

I don't agree, Universe one is MILES better!
Scott

tom2681
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 5577
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
Location: Where you'll never find me

Unread post by tom2681 » 26 Jul 2006, 14:17

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19862
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Unread post by Markgway » 26 Jul 2006, 14:44

chenlung wrote:I don't agree, Universe one is MILES better!
Really???

I know that the French image isn't that great, and any upcoming Weinstein remaster will I'm sure blow it away, but it's still much superior to the blurry, dull Universe, no?
Image

chenlung
King of Beggars
Posts: 901
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 22:45
Location: Scotland

Unread post by chenlung » 26 Jul 2006, 14:45

I was kidding, as Tom2681 kinda knew :lol: !

I'd have to be really stupid to attempt watching that murky shit (remix AND video) :P !
Scott

chenlung
King of Beggars
Posts: 901
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 22:45
Location: Scotland

Unread post by chenlung » 29 Oct 2006, 04:04

BTW, why has the Universe image been blown up in resolution (and then masked into 16:9 ratio)? That's not really fair and it loses quality (not that it has any lol). I won't be blowing my images up in resolution.

Unaltered captures from the R3 Scholar Taiwanese DVD:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3905/scholar1zq6.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3773/scholar2ec2.jpg
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3112/scholar3on9.jpg

Feel free to crop the black bar away should you add them but I honestly do not see why these images have to 'match' the others, just leave them as 'nature' created them. Just like a flower, you don't it it just because it doesn't match the others. Otherwise, there is no comparison.
Scott

tom2681
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 5577
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
Location: Where you'll never find me

Unread post by tom2681 » 29 Oct 2006, 14:37

I won't be blowing my images up in resolution.
Nope, you've done even worse:
You've downsized it to 640x480. :evil:

1. I agree with you about the resolution thing.
If I had been allowed, I would have resized all caps to 1024x576 to ensure that there is no loss of detail. Unfortunately I was overruled.

2. You can't compare two shots of different sizes (or different aspect ratios) because the bigger one will always look better.

3. We (they)'ve agreed on 720x and correct aspect ratio.
720x480 -> 720x540 (4/3)
720x576 -> 720x404 (16/9)

4. Stop complaining about this in every thread. I know we shouldn't downsize, but there's nothing I can do about it. The people have spoken. The people are stupid.
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".

User avatar
Markgway
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 19862
Joined: 18 Feb 2005, 02:04

Unread post by Markgway » 29 Oct 2006, 16:33

If I can manage 720x480 -> 720x540 (4/3) 720x576 -> 720x404 (16/9) so can everyone else.
Image

User avatar
bradavon
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 24418
Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30

Unread post by bradavon » 29 Oct 2006, 19:18

tom2681 wrote:Nope, you've done even worse:
You've downsized it to 640x480. :evil:
Yeah that does look weird.
tom2681 wrote:2. You can't compare two shots of different sizes (or different aspect ratios) because the bigger one will always look better.
Not always but otherwise exactly.
chenlung wrote:and then masked into 16:9 ratio
Agreed here, if it's non-anamorphic show it as such but then many people will be zooming so it could help to give an idea how it would look.
tom2681 wrote:3. We (they)'ve agreed on 720x and correct aspect ratio.
720x480 -> 720x540 (4/3)
720x576 -> 720x404 (16/9)
IMO we don't have to use this resolution but:

1. Whatever resolution we choose we STICK to it for 4x3 and 16x9 respectively no messing around because "you" feel like it
2. I seem to remember members using resolutions far greater than 1024x576. To the point where you could only see half the image without scrolling.

This makes it a NIGHTMARE to be able to compare which is better. Which lets face it is the ENTIRE POINT!

Sure you may lose quality by resizing but then it affects all the images equally so they'll all end up looking the same anyway but at the end of the day I don't have a problem upping the resolution but lets keep it under 1000.

1024x576 is too high, by the time you post it and the left of the Bullets is taken into account you'll be scrolling left and right like no one business.

p.s - Like I keep saying if it really bothers you USE LINKS! Why is no one listening?

User avatar
bradavon
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 24418
Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30

Unread post by bradavon » 29 Oct 2006, 19:21

Besides 1024x576 will mean you have to enlarge the capture. They natively capture at 720x480 or 720x576.

All I do is resize the height to 404 (or 405) so it's not like any resizing should be happening anyway. This is purely to allow for a non-distorted image.

If it's non-anamorphic then unresized should be 720x540. This is purely to allow for a non-distorted image.

Every time I've done it that is what the default resolution has been, to enlarge it will give an inaccurate view of the image.

chenlung
King of Beggars
Posts: 901
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 22:45
Location: Scotland

Unread post by chenlung » 29 Oct 2006, 20:55

I've changed my captures back to 720 because I understood :).

I can't help the 640x480 as WinDVD captured it that way. Unless anyone can tell me why?
Scott

tom2681
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 5577
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
Location: Where you'll never find me

Unread post by tom2681 » 29 Oct 2006, 21:04

@Brad:
Resizing all caps to 720x404 causes a 76 vertical pixel loss in NTSC and a 172 vertical pixel loss in PAL.
That's the only problem I have with it. :)
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".

User avatar
BiscLimpkit
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 4727
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 22:33
Location: Scotland

Unread post by BiscLimpkit » 29 Oct 2006, 21:08

omg... I'm going to through my universe disc away....
Image

tom2681
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 5577
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
Location: Where you'll never find me

Unread post by tom2681 » 29 Oct 2006, 21:12

Biscman wrote:omg... I'm going to through my universe disc away....
Yeah... but there's no better english-subtitled version yet.
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".

User avatar
bradavon
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 24418
Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30

Unread post by bradavon » 29 Oct 2006, 21:59

It's such a shame the same can't be said for Fong Sai-Yuk or Fong Sai-Yk 2, not even HK Video have released those.
tom2681 wrote:@Brad:
Resizing all caps to 720x404 causes a 76 vertical pixel loss in NTSC and a 172 vertical pixel loss in PAL.
That's the only problem I have with it. :)
Fair enough but IMO a distorted image is way worse.

Why are they distorted btw? They're not this way when watching the DVD.

tom2681
Bruce Lee's Fist
Posts: 5577
Joined: 25 Oct 2004, 16:18
Location: Where you'll never find me

Unread post by tom2681 » 29 Oct 2006, 22:11

Fair enough but IMO a distorted image is way worse.
I never implied we should distort the caps. :|
Why are they distorted btw?
What do you mean "distorted" ?
What caps are you referring to ? :?:
I used to be "the man who loves the movies you hate".
Now I'm just "that weird french guy with a cat avatar who comes to BnB once a year for no reason and then disappears again".

chenlung
King of Beggars
Posts: 901
Joined: 27 Feb 2005, 22:45
Location: Scotland

Unread post by chenlung » 01 Nov 2006, 12:49

BTW, Universe is R0, Scholar is R3.
Scott

Post Reply