Braddy doesn't like film grain. As far as I can see from these shots, that's the biggest difference between the 3 versions. DD has film grain. Now, FILM grain is a natural thing and not to be detested - and it's preferable to lousy quick blur jobs to "remove" it. Doing so removes more than just the grain you know (DD is the sharpest and has the most details, look at i.e. Jackie's face (2nd shot) and the stripes of the black suit in the 3rd shot... however, it seems to be suffering from a bit more sharpening effects (EE) than the others).
As for DM2... I never got that movie. I actually prefer DM(1)... *shrugs*
bradavon wrote:DD maybe better framed than the HKL but it still looks like a dodgy VCD
Quit smoking crack, it looks nothing like VCD. Who's thinking in absolutes now, hmmm?
I'm not forgetting it for a second but with that it's still the best. For some the same goes for the Bruce Lee Fox DVDs.
Wrong. the HKL FoF PE is the best release of that film. It is progressive AND has original Mandarin mono. The Fox is interlaced - Colour-corrected the HKL might be (which doesn't bother me at all), but it is still progressive.
@Eva:
You'd take a transfer that is altered (colour-corrected) and doesn't match the director's original vision over a transfer that is interlaced ?
Why do you hate interlacing so much ?
Any standalone player can make an interlaced transfer look almost as good as a progressive one.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your logic.
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".
EvaUnit02 wrote:Quit smoking crack, it looks nothing like VCD. Who's thinking in absolutes now, hmmm?
Who me?
gojensen wrote:Braddy doesn't like film grain.
Whose Braddy?
Wrong. the HKL FoF PE is the best release of that film. It is progressive AND has original Mandarin mono. The Fox is interlaced - Colour-corrected the HKL might be (which doesn't bother me at all), but it is still progressive.
You'll get no complaints from me. Mark (hence my "some" comment) would beg to differ and in fact has.
tom2681 wrote:@Eva:
You'd take a transfer that is altered (colour-corrected) and doesn't match the director's original vision over a transfer that is interlaced?
In case the case of FOF I would when the pink problem is sooo overrated anyway. On screen captures sure the pink isn't nice but on a TV I don't even notice them.
Just had another look at the comparison on page 1. To my eyes the IVL looks just as clear as the DD release, only difference being the colour (very pink on DD). It's diffently not worth an upgrade "picture quality wise" in fact the IVL looks much better with more natural colours.
I think I will wait for a good HD-DVD before I will buy this film again.
Could be worth upgrading for the subtitles (maybe).
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".
a couple of days ago, and it really looks pretty poor IMO. Lots of grain and bad color. It would have been worth it for the extras, a whole disc of interviews, promos, etc that were done, edited, and subtitled. They just decided to leave them off for seemingly no reason.
(DD is the sharpest and has the most details, look at i.e. Jackie's face (2nd shot) and the stripes of the black suit in the 3rd shot... however, it seems to be suffering from a bit more sharpening effects (EE) than the others).
