Heroes Two Celestial Region 3 Vs Media Blasters Region 1

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 22 Apr 2008, 22:21

Region 3

Region 1

Region 3

Region 1

Region 3

Region 1

Region 3

Region 1

Region 3

Region 1

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Apr 2008, 22:26

It's like night and day, pity the R1 is also Interlaced.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 22 Apr 2008, 22:32

The interlacing came as a surprise... but, couldn't care less. Buying the R1 when I have the money.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Apr 2008, 22:33

It wouldn't put me off either.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 22 Apr 2008, 22:36

Holy bollocks...

That better be a rare capture fuck-up on the interlacing of some kind, otherwise fuck, fuck, fuck. That is bad - I'm really quite pissed and although the disc seems generally pretty good, we've still to see a proper Shaw DVD from the available elements, and that is really shit practise and backward to do 60i FFS (I wish I could say FPS).

Dragon Dynasty got the transfer right (with window-boxing and very rare interlacing instances), but shit subtitles. Whereas this has improved subtitles, but inferior transfer.

Mine's in the post, but so much for promising proper transfers...

Thanks for the rough comparison mate.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Apr 2008, 22:47

Why is it rough?

It could be just the section/scene that is Interlaced.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 22 Apr 2008, 22:58

Apart from the first cap the MB blows the IVL away.

But STILL interlaced??

Come on. At least DD have fixed this issue.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 22 Apr 2008, 22:58

Why is it rough?

Salty's caps are usually off.

It could be just the section/scene that is Interlaced.

The first cap has it too...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:08

I just noticed the first capture too.

I don't know what method he used (hopefully Lourdes's one) but the resolution of them is correct:

Non-Anamorphic ones: 768x576 - As laid out in Tom's instructions thread.
Anamorphic ones: 768x432 - Presumably this is correct. It wouldn't work to use 768x576 and 1024x576 in the same comparison.

gfanikf · Post by **gfanikf** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:17

Markgway wrote:Apart from the first cap the MB blows the IVL away.

But STILL interlaced??

Come on. At least DD have fixed this issue.

Its fine and hardly a reason to care. It so minor and unimportant and I noticed it only on one tv.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:18

Non-Anamorphic ones: 768x576 - As laid out in Tom's instructions thread.

NTSC DVDs are 720x480 (without pixel adjustment), or 640x480 in square (correct ratio) pixels.

Anamorphic ones: 768x432 - Presumably this is correct. It wouldn't work to use 768x576 and 1024x576 in the same comparison.

As this DVD has anamorphic enhancement, it should be 854x480 square pixels

.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:21

The resolutions to use on Bullets were agreed a while ago

-

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=2428

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:28

gfanikf wrote:
Markgway wrote:Apart from the first cap the MB blows the IVL away.

But STILL interlaced??

Come on. At least DD have fixed this issue.
Its fine and hardly a reason to care. It so minor and unimportant and I noticed it only on one tv.

If you've a CRT standard TV that can handle NTSC interlaced, then it might go unnoticed (can't remember to confirm), but on other equipment (like laptops and PCs that use progressive displays) it presents an irregular motion. With VHS it was unavoidable, but with DVD, that's just cheap.

Sorry, but I just feel that's poor standards by today to match the other superb content and whilst it won't make me avoid the disc, it's very annoying.

bradavon wrote:The resolutions to use on Bullets were agreed a while ago -

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=2428

Those accommodate PAL only, not NTSC.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 22 Apr 2008, 23:51

No they accommodate all DVDs, for consistencies sake. More importantly you cannot have a comparison featuring both NTSC and PAL DVDs but with different resolutions, that would look a mess.

I'm sure Tom thought of both NTSC and PAL. I was content to leave captures at their native resolutions but others wanted them bigger.

Anyway, moving on . . .

gfanikf · Post by **gfanikf** » 23 Apr 2008, 00:28

chenlung wrote:
gfanikf wrote:
Markgway wrote:Apart from the first cap the MB blows the IVL away.

But STILL interlaced??

Come on. At least DD have fixed this issue.
Its fine and hardly a reason to care. It so minor and unimportant and I noticed it only on one tv.
If you've a CRT standard TV that can handle NTSC interlaced, then it might go unnoticed (can't remember to confirm), but on other equipment (like laptops and PCs that use progressive displays) it presents an irregular motion. With VHS it was unavoidable, but with DVD, that's just cheap.

Sorry, but I just feel that's poor standards by today to match the other superb content and whilst it won't make me avoid the disc, it's very annoying.

bradavon wrote:The resolutions to use on Bullets were agreed a while ago -

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=2428
Those accommodate PAL only, not NTSC.

Yeah, but I really would never recommend watching any movie on a PC.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Apr 2008, 00:43

LCD and Plasma TVs are also Progressive.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 23 Apr 2008, 01:03

bradavon wrote:More importantly you cannot have a comparison featuring both NTSC and PAL DVDs but with different resolutions, that would look a mess.

A comparison between an NTSC and PAL DVD may not blow up your skirt (it would mine, if I wore one), but 2 NTSC-only DVDs being compared and upscaled to PAL resolution is pretty pointless and wasteful showing that both are (misleadingly) rather soft, but they're actually pretty good for real.

As we all know, NTSC and PAL have different standards with resolution and speed, both have advantages over the other (NTSC'll play at original speed whereas PAL is higher resolution). An imperfect situation but it's one that a DVD buyer of higher calibre etc will probably be aware of. From there and placing that unfortunate problem we're left with aside, it's the content that matters to see whether something's cropped, less detailed or whatever. Upscaling is not only going to ruin the compressed JPEG further, but the detail too (all just to suit a website's rules). I believe that after uploading the capture at the natural pixels (I'm on the wall with square pixels though which will lose resolution too), I'd leave the PAL/NTSC decisions to the viewer (if they care) who will then choose from there.

I think the problem is the staff are biased to PAL format (could be wrong), whereas a reader from NTSC land is going to come on to a comparison of PAL>NTSC nature and say "oh, that NTSC DVD is shit because it's too soft" (because it's upscaled), but both could actually be from the same master at similar quality and the NTSC one (because it takes up less space) may have an essential item that a PAL DVD doesn't (such as a mono soundtrack) that the viewer is unknowingly going to have to sacrifice for the lesser (even though it's a bit higher resolution) PAL version because the unscaled version of the latter looks better than the upscaled NTSC one.

An upscaled DVD-to-Blu-Ray size comparison is acceptable and different I suppose because you're comparing the level of detail in the amount of information captured, and how obviously it's going to be improved (with exception to a few Blu-Rays so far) etc.

Don't get me wrong, it's up to you guys and I'll still come and all that. Just don't agree with it

. But anyway, moving on 8) !

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 23 Apr 2008, 01:06

Yeah, but I really would never recommend watching any movie on a PC.

PC screen maybe generally small, but it's the best because it lets you have control of the settings and if you're a HTPC user (Home Theatre Personal Computer), then it's beneficial if you're outputting to a projector. It's not just that, people have LCDs, Plasmas, DLPs, computers - all progressive and of today.

It's also annoying that I asked many months in advance too to make sure we didn't have that problem. I just hope that interlacing only occurs a few times throughout the movie (like Dragon Dynasty) and not the whole thing (I'm probably dreaming). MB's release of '7 Grand Masters' wasn't clean (wouldn't expect it), but it suffered from 60i syndrome along with the original English dub, full ratio, original Mandarin with re-translated subtitles.

In a nutshell, no-one is denying the effort gone into it and as much as it seems like nothing and ignorable, it is something and I hope it doesn't occur again (I hope they weren't being lazy and just assumed no-one would bother with it) - it doesn't do anyone good. We were granted one of the few chances of a rather special DVD and it was a tad let down by someone's carelessness - chances of a recall on such an issue are highly unlikely too unless they do it in a somewhat low-key manner for a select number who are bothered with it and also fix it for future pressings (if any!). If you've contact with MB, can you tell them to flag film content 24p (23.976 actually) and all that for future stuff please

?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 23 Apr 2008, 01:29

@ Chenlung: You're complaining at the wrong person. I don't really care what the resolution is as long as the resolutions used are the same (depending if it's non-anamorphic or not).

It was decided by others and generally agreed some time ago. Salty is just following the forum rules for posting captures.

I think the problem is the staff are biased to PAL format (could be wrong).

I can assure you no one on this forum is biased to either format, most of us own stacks of DVDs from both formats. I can also tell you Tom is a very knowledgeable chap about these things. I've not read all of your post, sorry too many words

.

Here is the original discussion, including Tom's reasoning:

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=1889

TBH it would be better to reply there than to take this thread off topic any more. The current rules (which like all rules on this forum aren't set in stone) and instructions were comprised by Tom and Lourdes. Both are knowledgeable people on this subject.

If you wish to discuss it further please reply in the link above

.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 23 Apr 2008, 02:19

You're complaining at the wrong person.

Yep.

I don't really care what the resolution is as long as the resolutions used are the same (depending if it's non-anamorphic or not).

See above

.

It was decided by others and generally agreed some time ago.

Ohhhhhhh I know

!!

Salty is just following the forum rules for posting captures.

I know, but I was on about his comparisons not being frame (lol barely called that)-accurate. It was when you mentioned the resolution thing, I happened to elaborate.

I can assure you no one on this forum is biased to either format.

OK. If you were keen on having all resolutions the same, then another option would be to downgrade all captures to the lowest resolution image featured in the comparison.

I can also tell you Tom is a very knowledgeable chap about these things.

Ah yeah 8).

I've not read all of your posts, sorry too many words

No, you wouldn't have

.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Apr 2008, 08:37

What other Media Blasters Shaws release are there?

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 23 Apr 2008, 08:58

The Master is due next

Also

Five Element Ninjas
Black Magic 2
Challenge Of The Masters
Deadly Duo
Martial Club
Ten Tigers Of Kwantung
Flag Of Iron

Interlacing is ancient history to me, because my player turns any interlaced image automatically into progressive!(but still can't fix standards conversions) However, its still on many dvds, often a failing of the authoring houses to bother. AFAIK, every DVD image is interlaced, its the progressive flag that makes it progressive

Good effort!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 23 Apr 2008, 09:58

Thanks Ivan, I may pick up Heroes Two

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 23 Apr 2008, 10:20

with comments like chenlung's i don't know why i bother posting comparisons

yep,the frames are not exact but you'd have to be particularly anal to not decide on what looks best from what i've posted

it's not as if chenlung provides many comparisons himself,i think he waits for suckers like myself to buy the disc then he can post his sarcastic comments.Chenlung if the caps i post are no use to you don't look in the thread

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 23 Apr 2008, 10:47

Well I appreciate the comparisons. First class effort Salty