 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.248.61.101
... that you hope to see for such an important release (both formats; please note that Gary's observations about separating the film from the extras on the HD-DVD release into a 2 disc set as opposed to the Blu-ray single disc impacted his final conclusion, but it's disappointing that NEITHER format appears to offer much improvement over the standard definition release):
Edits: 10/23/07Follow Ups:
See review below.
Russell
When people say the high def software does not look much better, are we sure these commentators are using true 1920 x 1080 display devices?
I haven't purchased a player of either format yet, but, I have seen plenty of demonstrations and the difference between standard definition had high definition is not at all subtle.
.
.
.
.
That would be pretty cheesy, but I could see it happening.
... that apparently comes pretty darn close transfer-wise and has the same extras what impetus would anyone have to invest in pricier Blu-ray or HD-DVD versions? :o(
AuPh
"…what impetus would anyone have to invest in pricier Blu-ray or HD-DVD versions?"
The same impetus they have to upgrade any component in an audio or video system: to get something that gives them a little more pleasure. There's definitely a cost benefit factor at work but that will be less critical for some than others. Some will be prepared to spend more to get a small improvement than others. Some may need to replace their standard def player anyway and will be prepared to pay a little more to get a high def player than another standard def player.
You ask the question as if it's rhetorical and the answer is "None". That will be the answer for some people but it won't be the answer for all. In reality the amount of impetus will be slightly different for everyone and range along a scale from "none" to "compelling". We all choose where we sit on the scale and the scale is large enough to accommodate us all.
David Aiken
I'm not knocking the high definition formats, just the dashed expectations based upon the high desirability of Kubrick's releases.
> > > "The same impetus they have to upgrade any component in an audio or video system: to get something that gives them a little more pleasure." < < <
We weren't discussing components here, we were discussing a comparison of standard and high definition releases.
> > > "There's definitely a cost benefit factor at work but that will be less critical for some than others. Some will be prepared to spend more to get a small improvement than others." < < <
Sorry, that's an old humbug; no offense, but I don't buy it. By way of example, maybe some folks would justify spending $100,000 on a low wattage imported single-ended tube amplifier made out of solid silver and wax poetic about the subtle differences between that amplifier and one that costs a hundred times less, but is that what that hypothetical audiophile is really buying, or is it prestige of ownership?
More importantly, are those incremental improvements a justification for any upgrade if the pleasure is virtually imperceptable or rather only psychologically perceptable AND performance glitches negate the value of the perceived improvement? Food for thought.
> > > "You ask the question as if it's rhetorical and the answer is "None". That will be the answer for some people but it won't be the answer for all." < < <
Not exactly. Yes, it was rhetorical, but it is also a rational viewpoint that each individual will have to address at some point, especially when incremental improvements and trade-offs are involved.
> > > "In reality the amount of impetus will be slightly different for everyone and range along a scale from "none" to "compelling". We all choose where we sit on the scale and the scale is large enough to accommodate us all." < < <
What you've just described is politics in the real world, so I'm not so sure about your final conclusions. ;0)
Cheers,
AuPh
No telling how many hi def discs would be a big improvement over upconverted SD DVD for Joe with regard to PQ. However, the process is basically still newborn at this point.
Taking into consideration that most may need to upgrade whatever receivers or processors they have also, I feel the larger improvement though would be for the audio over what they are use to with SD DVD.
Heck, even some HD advocates will take the position that DD/DTS is "good enough", even when compared with uncompressed PCM or ("lossless" (?) ) Truehd.
I agree that most would but it is only 50% of the experience with hi def, at least for titles that have more than just DD+ on HD DVD.
I did run across a chap on a forum though who has his hi def player connected to a SDTV. He bought the player because he wanted access to the lossless tracks! :)
The truth of the matter is that HT surround sound has been ahead of visual reproduction for a number of years. Lossless may be one of the final battlegrounds for nuanced improvement (that, 10.1 super DTS or whatever), but don't fool yourself: the visual experience is of much greater greater importance for HD; sound improvements are like icing on the cake for those seeking the best visual experience.For me, having whiz-bang surround is less important than the overall quality of the sound and visual presentation obtainable (regardless of how many channels and whether the original medium is sourced from digital, 35mm film, 16mm film, videotape, etc.). I see, or rather hear this as a diminishing return issue that isn't even on the radar with Joe Public (who are almost always the final arbiters in marketing matters).
The reality: Most folks are still getting acquainted with the idea of having a flat-screen WS digital display device replacing their bulky 4:3 interlaced tee-vee.
Another factor: Only a portion of folks who have a surround set-up will pursue anything beyond 5.1 for their living room environments, providing they're wives approved of adding additional speakers to begin with. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of those folks who have a surround set-up still grapple with selecting between is DTS and Dolby Digital surround with few clues as to why more than one surround format is provided.
Trust me, in Fry's, Circuit City, Best Buy, Sears, etc., where most display devices are sold, improved sound is not going to be a prerequisite to selling those large flat screen display devices that make their cash registers ring. The idea is to hang it on the wall like a picture and not have too many interconnecting wires and boxes. Surround sound is merely an afterthought for most folks, and the customer's eyes are the key to the appeal of these products.
In the final analysis, surround is very much a niche market, even more so that either HD format. High-end Home Theater emporiums & showrooms, with some notable exceptions, aren't much better even though they target an upscale market. Specialty shops try to sell prestige to customers interested in spending money for what is perceived to be the best, not necessarily demonstrating what produces the best picture & sound.
The bottom line: Sound IS important to audiophiles, both stereo purists and high-rez surround advocates, but that is a total immersion environment with visual accompaniment often thought of as a distraction from the listening experience, hence the two system solution some high-end purists often set-up.
Just my two cents; YMMV.
Cheers,
AuPh
Great PQ is still paramount for me (since I'd be using my 2-channel system for audio and therefore listening to the 2-channel downmix of whichever audio tracks are on the BD). BTW, I still haven't found the ideal BD player for me--one that has great PQ for BD, upscaled DVD, and (for the moment, until I get a hi-def display) 480P out of DVD. I don't think it exists (yet).
Russell
I'm hearing about problems getting various discs, both formats, from different sources. Amazon shipped my 2001 yesterday, but my The Shining hasn't shipped yet. Most stores seem to have some, but not all. It looks like its location specific. Either Warner is having trouble getting some of these out, or they underestimated demand.
Jack
I picked up "2001" and that's it for now. I was initially going to spring for "A Clockwork Orange" but nevermind... thx Auph !
Where they get a proper master and put a little TLC into the recording ?
I was going to spring for this one but maybe I should wait.
Watched via PS3 hooked up to a 65'' Panny Plasma, ISF callibrated and 1:1 pixel mapping active, sound via HDMI through a Denon.
2001 - A great transfer that leaves all previews versions absolutely in the dust. The Dawn of Man sequence is so detailed that the front projection does become very obvious, as opposed to vaguely visible. The colors in those early shots are absolutely stunning.
In general color rendition and especially grey levels in the light bleeding into space in many pans across earth, the space station etc. are brilliant and finally without banding or horribly false colors as on the DVDs.
One note, the documentary has been slightly cut down from the version features on YouTube and is a bit more fluffy. Then again, I am thrilled to finally see the full doc from 1966 that has been featured in excerpts on the Criterion and other editions. The audio interview with Kubrick is also a treat.
Sound is PCM and very clean for a movie of that age. It is the 5.1 remix done for the last remaster.
A true must-have.
Shining - yay! My second-most favorite transfer of the batch with much better colors and contrast than the previous DVD, losing the faded-70s touch and bringing out a lot of detail, while having much better black levels. Not on par with a modern film in terms of detail but more than I exspected. Surprisingly little grain, although it is there. My bet would be that it was reduced somewhat digitally, but nothing offensive IMHO. The film seems to flutter/jitter a tad in several static scenes, most notably Grady/Jack in the bathroom. It is very slight but annoying, some digital stabilization would have been nice. Nothing major to write home about, though.
Sound is the known 5.1 remaster in PCM which is very true to the original and a great mix. Purists will miss the mono. As for composition, I first pointed out the often quoted page in the Kubrick archives a few years back on Home Theater Forum, so I firmly am on the side of the Theatrical Composition. It is full 16x9, though, so not really 1.85:1, but it does work great. The 1.33 made actors so small in the frame that oftentimes the performances were too overwhelmed by the space, the theatrical framing has a better balance in that regard.
I haven't watched the docs yet. The inclusion of the European cut would have been nice since Kubrick did it himself and released it. Ah, well, ultimate edition here we come.
FMJ - Yes, it is remastered, with much better colors, reduced but still quite visible grain, and more detail. Contrast, grayscale and black level are the most considerable improvements over the old edition, not the detail as much. Very, very watchable now and, at least for me, well worth the double-dip. Aspect ratio is full 16x9 and works much better than the 1:33, but we had 16x9 already on the last HD release.
Clockwork - it's the original theatrical ratio at 1:66:1 with black side bars and in terms of colors, grayscale, and black level another vast improvement over the last DVD. Detail... it is the fuzziest of the new disks, but it seems to be the original film as opposed to a shoddy transfer. There are very detailed moments in there, but most of the film seems to be just a tad out-of-focus. My theory as to why comes down to Kubrick's obsession from Clockwork onwards to work with practical lights and that, in clockwork, combined with the extreme wide-angle lenses which make focus and depth of field a nightmare, probably lead to the many slightly fuzzy scenes. When you explore for yourself, please note the lens on the shots. The wider they are, the fuzzier they seem.
I am slightly bummed about this, since it might indicate that the eventual Barry Lyndon transfer will have much of the same issues in the interior scenes. But again, it's likely the movie, not the mastering. Grain is present, but on a level that doesn't bother and seems similar to what I remember from my many theatrical viewings.
My biggest gripe about clockwork is an apparent compression or mastering artefact at the very top lines of the screen (so you need 1:1 mapping without overscan to see it). It seems as if the first few lines are constantly slightly blurry. The problem looks digital to me, maybe somebody else can chime in.
Sound is the 5.1 remix from the DVD presented in PCM. It's a great remix for a movie of it's time and presents especially the score the way it really should be heard. Beethoven in Mono is painful.
Eyes Wide Shut - Unless I made a mistake searching, there seems to be only the unrated original cut on there, not the digitally altered US version. If indeed true, let that one rest in peace and never bring it back. Eyes Wide Shut is the most tricky one in look, because even in cinemas the movie was extremely grainy and used unusual exposures and stock. The HD transfer is not as grainy as the release prints and detail is OK, but not great. It is quite grainy in some dark shots and you see a veil of grain slightly over brighter ones. Having said that, I think the atmosphere of the movie is preserved quite nicely. The framing works much better because this movie needs the close-ups of people for their emotions. The 1:33 transfer really worked against that IMHO. Black levels and colors are adjusted slightly but have less of an improvement than the other movies, no doubt due to the more recent creation date.
So closing words here - as a Kubrick addict the disks all are absolutely worth it and a dream come true for fans. Vast improvements over the DVDs. In terms of demo material, certainly 2001 qualifies. It is still beyond me why Barry Lyndon wasn't included, so please Warner, hurry up and do it!
bruno2000
Apparently the spell chanting was in Arabic, which the Muslims found offensive, so it was changed, but (again apparently) remains in the US version.
clark
It doesn't ooohhh and ahhhh like it probably did when it was originally released (e.g. picture phones). I'm only a third of the way through it but so far it's a winner.
As for the audio, a little thin and bright, but then I'm starting to rate the music soundtrack against CDs. Still a whole lot better than DD/DTS.
A review is available on highdefdigest.
I'll check to see if it is available at a nearby Blockbuster. If not, I'll put it in my netflix queue but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a long wait. No telling how many copies they would have on BD although it really isn't something I feel I need to see immediately though.
I'll wait until some folks come forth who watched it and give their opinion and also when more high def resources put it through its paces.
IMHO, Gary Tooze does a remarkable job; he provides a major service to the film collecting community with his comparisons. As far as I can tell he has no obvious agenda other than keeping the industry honest and DVD purchasers from getting screwed double-dipping on mediocre transfers. I can't speak for others, but he has saved me a lot of money, and *ahem* persuaded me to spend quite a lot as well, but the latter without regret.
Like AA, DVDBeaver is one of the few sites that I find worthy of making a small donation to keep afloat, not that I'm suggesting others do likewise. Gary's up to date screen-shot comparisons may matter to some more than others and donations to any enterprise should be a personal matter. I'm just amazed that out of his passion for film Gary has taken on what must be a Herculean task for everyone's benefit, because when you think about covering all regions and various formats it has to be a major expense.
> > > "I'll wait until some folks come forth who watched it and give their opinion and also when more high def resources put it through its paces. " < < <
Great idea! As a matter of fact, why not be the first? What a great gesture it would be for someone with a critical eye to invest in a copy or copies (if you're going to compare both standard and HD formats) and write up your own comparisons to help the rest of us make up our minds! Would'ja? I look forward to it!
Just teasin', Robert. ;0)
Cheers,
AuPh
The initial review had the aspect ratio incorrect which has now be spoken for on that site.
I'd like to see more reviews on other displays used. Gary's reviews are usually spot on. I feel this one is a bit off base.
I myself cannot do a comparison. I have neither the SD or HD versions, nor would it be very useful considering my display! :)
:o(
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
