Iron Monkey: HKL CE (Collector) vs HKL PE (Platinum)

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 17 May 2006, 13:06

*Might as well use my 1-day break from exams to good effect*

HKL CE vs. IVL FS:

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

CE:

PE:

PE is slightly sharper. Not by much, though.

CE:

PE:

If you look at the floor on the left, you'll see that the PE is much more detailed.

CE:

PE:

As I've said before, the CE suffers from an extremely low bitrate.
This results in macroblocking and loss of detail in fast-moving shots.

CE:

PE:

Here's why some people believe that the PE is inferior. The low bitrate used in the CE hides grain.

On a small TV, the PE would look grainy while the CE would look fine.
On a big screen, the PE would look alright, but the CE would look blurry.

*Eagerly awaiting a different comparison that might prove me wrong*

Update:
IVL vs CE vs PE (IVL and CE caps from DVD-Heaven):

-IVL
-CE
-PE
No contest.

Note: The slight difference in brightness might be due to different software being used for playback.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 May 2006, 13:16

Any chance of adding one more and using one of the captures from that IVL comparison?

You could mention thanks to that site owner and a link to it. I've added this link to your post btw.

Looking at those captures I'd say it's about equal. Both have their very minor problems which overall even things out. The PE wins for adding DTS (if you don't like it ignore it) and oodles of extras.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 17 May 2006, 13:28

Done.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 May 2006, 13:52

I think those captures (CE v PE) look about the same TBH but I'm very happy with my PE

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 17 May 2006, 13:59

They do? Look at the third comparison shots, grim. Do you notice the pixelisation in the middle of the CE screenshot? It's a fast movement, which results in these tiny squares. No problem on a small screen, but the bigger your screen, the bigger do these squares get.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 May 2006, 14:11

I agree with Tom, the PE looks better. I've seen the R4 PE (identical to R2) and it's lovely.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 May 2006, 14:33

True LD but the PE has the grain. Grain is grain and as it's hidden on the PE that puts a plus in the CE's box.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 17 May 2006, 14:45

Just a thought, but wasn't it possible for HKL to remove the grain as they did in the CE and then have it back during the scenes in which we have fast motions (which is probably most of the film's running time)? Isn't this possible?

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 17 May 2006, 14:50

But why would they want to remove the grain ?
Grain is good, grain is life, grain is cinema !

+The only way to remove grain is to use a Digital Noise Removal filter that makes the picture look soft and unnatural (most early HKL titles were heavily DNR'ved).

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 May 2006, 16:02

Yeah, grain is all right on films I think, it's compression artefacts that I hate.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 17 May 2006, 17:29

Grain is perfectly acceptable if it was on the original print - some films / TV shows even have "intentional" grain, for example 24. Lots of scenes in that are grainy.

It can be an artistic choice to use film stock that produces grainy results. In the case of these Hong Kong films I guess it was the only stock they could get their hands on at the time, so I can accept the grain in Iron Monkey.

I'd much rather it feature a sharper image with grain than a soft image with the grain blurred out.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 17 May 2006, 17:38

Not a massive difference, but the blocking isnt very nice when you notice it thats for sure. They are suprisingly similar looking pictures mind you, even if they were many years apart.

Ahh the future of cinema, no grain at all on Digital film (unless its done on purpose).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 May 2006, 19:10

romerojpg wrote:They are suprisingly similar looking pictures mind you, even if they were many years apart.

Not when you consider all HKL did with the Remaster they created for the CE was up the bitrate.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 17 May 2006, 19:24

Well we dont know that for 100% sure

its an assumption.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 May 2006, 19:31

I'm glad I have my PE. Best of the three.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 May 2006, 19:36

romerojpg wrote:Well we dont know that for 100% sure its an assumption.

I'm willing to bet it's a true assumption. The odds are stacked heavily in it's favour.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 17 May 2006, 22:43

Nope I'm still saying that the CE is better (with the exception of macroblocking, which is minor in comparison with the consistent coarse, gritty look of the PE). The PE is decidedly irritating and I couldn't sit through my ex-flatmate's DVD.

The PE wins for sound but to me, image is far more important than audio.

Thanks for the grabs Tom - it confirms what I've known all along.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 May 2006, 23:46

Both are decent in their own way end of discussion

Audio to me is as important but both have the same DD5.1 mix (I think) so it's not a big deal or rather they're very similar.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 18 May 2006, 00:39

Bisc refuses to admit he's WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 May 2006, 01:15

I wouldn't say that. He's no Romero

In some ways the CE looks better to me. A low bitrate is the cause but the end effect is less grain and that's a good thing (when it's unintentional).

For me like I said the difference isn't great and overall the PE is the clear winner.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 18 May 2006, 12:07

bradavon wrote:Both are decent in their own way end of discussion

Audio to me is as important but both have the same DD5.1 mix (I think) so it's not a big deal or rather they're very similar.

The PE has a cracking DTS soundtrack but I canne mind if the 5.1 mix is improved or fit.

But aye, I prefer the CE but as you say, end o' discussion. 8)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 May 2006, 12:52

Care to translate the second part of your first sentence please?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 18 May 2006, 13:00

Bisc doesnt mind if the 5.1 soundtrack is improved or not?

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 18 May 2006, 13:04

Sorry. I can't remember if the 5.1 soundtrack has been improved or what.

I'm surrounded by choochters at work and I even have to tolerate emails being written in the local dialect. I pick up accents/bad habits easily. But like most Scots, I am actually very well spoken.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 May 2006, 13:18

I only know one Scot (my Mum's boyfriend) and he's well spoken. Even if I can't understand a word he says sometimes

. He's Glaswegian btw.

The 5.1 remix is 5.1 EX on the PE but whether it actually sounds any better in reality I don't know.