Have you found a HD Disc Review? Post it here!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 May 2008, 20:14

Average film = Average disc.

How they can give it 3 stars for picture when they say its so close to the standard dvd is beyond me! if its that close give it 1 or less! so they are saying a standard dvd is basically a 3 star HD disc, well done

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 20:18

They do say it's better than the DVD. Terminator would warrant a 1 out of 5, as even that looks better (technically) that the DVD.

The film is excellent IMO.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 May 2008, 20:34

Thats the thing some reviews on sites show you how strange scoring a film is.

Evil Dead 2 for instance the dvd beats the Blu Ray by a mile, yet they on that site give the BR - 3 stars!!!!! insane! if the dvd beats a HD disc, that sort of totally defeats the point of the HD!

The thing is reviewers need to start getting hold of the best version of the standard dvds and COMPARE if the transfer is acctually better or worse. As many just assume its better, even if its far from the case.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 20:42

Don't most sites review films on HD to DVD separately so 3 out of 5 on DVD cannot be compared with 3 out of 5 on DVD. They're different ratings.

As long as know one uses Marks "out of 4" system or Hung's completely illogical (to me) rating system I'll be happy

.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 May 2008, 21:33

No your mising my point, if a dvd is better than any HD version that means that HD versions shit. It does not deserve 3 stars out of 5.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 May 2008, 22:03

romerojpg wrote:No your mising my point

I'm not

. I was just commenting how review sites give ratings out of 5.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 24 May 2008, 21:14

Assembly

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67817

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 25 May 2008, 07:15

saltysam wrote:Assembly

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67817

Note about Assembly, the SD extras are in PAL and thus won't work properly/at all in a Region A player.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 25 May 2008, 16:31

Presuming it cannot support PAL

. The LG BH200 can have PAL enabled, for example.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 May 2008, 05:10

Patton:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1341/patton.html

What I find most interesting is that Fox have given us a second disc of extras but have simply re-used the second disc from the DVD 2 Disc SE. Why the bloody hell can they not do this for titles like Predator and Speed too?

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 01 Jun 2008, 19:00

bradavon wrote:What I find most interesting is that Fox have given us a second disc of extras but have simply re-used the second disc from the DVD 2 Disc SE. Why the bloody hell can they not do this for titles like Predator and Speed too?

I made the same comment in 2006 when Fox announced their first wave of barebones BD releases, but you scoffed at the idea.

Maybe you didn't want SD extras? I don't recall. You were definitely miffed that the extras on the HD releases of that shitty movie, Superman Returns, were in SD.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 01 Jun 2008, 19:58

You're mistaken. I was miffed they weren't on the DVD side too, back then I wanted extras on both sides of a HD-DVD Combo, remember?

I've never had an issue with SD extras.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jun 2008, 00:46

There will be blood: Paramount BD Review:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1478/th ... blood.html

Dirty Harry: Warner BD Review:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1394/dirtyharry.html

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 07 Jun 2008, 01:31

Note that in a move that's likely to irritate purists, the film's original mono mix is not offered. It's an odd omission, as really, doesn't Blu-ray allow more than enough space for such things?

Warner Arseholes Strike Again!!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jun 2008, 01:50

It's not just Warner. It's becoming more and more common, especially on HD.

AFAIK Warner pretty much always (on HD) include only 5.1 or Original if the materials aren't in a god enough shape to create a 5.1 mix, like Dog Day Afternoon and Bonnie and Clyde.

Annoyingly Sony's Taxi Driver SE only has 5.1, which means the BD is too. Which is odd and Sony specifically said they created a Dolby Stereo remix for the original DVD as the materials weren't in a good enough shape for 5.1. It's annoying as the Dolby Stereo is definitely better than the DD5.1. The DD5.1 is too over the top for such an old film.

Sadly Taxi Driver has never had Mono on DVD. I like the Dolby Stereo though. I wish they had put that on the DVD too, as it's picture quality and extras are much better.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 07 Jun 2008, 02:28

They can do a super-duper 24.1 DTS-Digital Up the arse and out of your ear remix for all I care... just INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL TRACK!!!!!!

Very fucking simple.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Jun 2008, 02:33

I doubt you'll get any disagreements from anyone on this forum.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 07 Jun 2008, 11:11

I better not!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Jun 2008, 19:40

Short Circuit BD:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/418/shortcircuit.html

Oh dear, it looks like a mess. 1080i - What!

I'm pretty sure this has been confirmed to be Region A.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 12 Jun 2008, 19:44

Its also confirmed to be a shitty Noise reduced mess AGAIN!

STOP WITH THE NOISE REDUCTION!!!!!!!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Jun 2008, 19:54

Now this looks like a 1 out of 10 BD

.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 12 Jun 2008, 19:55

Its not that bad

its no Sister Street Fighter,

or even worse The Fugitive!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Jun 2008, 19:59

romerojpg wrote: its no Sister Street Fighter,

If you're giving "that" capture in Kung Fu Hustle 1 out of 10. I'd love to know what you'd give this?

-100 out of 10?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 12 Jun 2008, 20:07

Nope its better looking than the Kung Fu Hustle cap. No awful blocking in the transfer for BIG starters and they compressed the hell out of SSF, so Kung Fu Hustle should be ashamed.

http://web12.dvd2web.de/hd_ssf/hd_ssf.htm

its a crap origanal print basically, not very in focus or clear, but far from crap, no edge enhancement and mass blocking to my eyes.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Jun 2008, 20:13

SSF looks much worse IMO. I wouldn't expect it to look good though.