1st blu-ray movie reviews in - not good!

"Swam Mollen" <bigboobs_linda@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150907522.632619.182620@y41g2000cwy.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Fifth Element:
> " But, unfortunately, the big problem here is still the softness. This
> transfer is just not that sharp, at least compared to the best HD I've
> seen. The print is also a bit dirty in spots, which really surprised
> me. This all gives the image a flatter look that I'm used to on HD --
> what I expected would be eye-poppingly three-dimensional throughout
> just plain isn't. Oftentimes, I felt like I was watching a standard DVD
> upconverted to 1080i -- good, but kinda fake-looking. Indeed, when I
> compared the Blu-ray version of 'The Fifth Element' to the Superbit
> upconverted (both via my Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray deck), the difference
> was not as apparent as between most of the the HD DVD and DVD releases
> I've seen. Still, complaints aside, 'The Fifth Element' does look very
> good, and this is hardly a bad transfer. It just is not the best that
> Blu-ray has to offer."
>
> xXx
> "While 'xXx' does look okay on Blu-ray, it still suffers from some
> noticeable image quality problems that, quite frankly, I just didn't
> expect from a format that has been has highly touted as this one."
>
> "Maybe I'm becoming too nitpicky, but consumers are being asked to
> shell out a lot of money for these new next-gen high-def formats, so we
> reviewers have to be critical. 'xXx' just doesn't look good enough,
> especially coming on the heels of a successful first two months for HD
> DVD, which has seen a solid slate of discs, most with generally strong
> transfers."
>
> "So, what gives? Admittedly, I can't really rip the Blu-ray format just
> yet, because this is only the third title I've reviewed. Plus, they've
> all come from the same studio. So I can only theorize. One, Sony is
> currently using only single-layer 25GB Blu-ray discs for their first
> releases (the format does support 50GB dual-layer discs as well, which
> could certainly positively affect video quality). Sony is also using
> plain old MPEG2 compression (versus HD DVD, which employs VC-1). Now,
> I'm not an expert, but I have to wonder if some of the problems I've
> seen on these first three DVD releases (the stairstepping, the noise,
> the overall lack of apparent detail) doesn't somehow have to do with
> the use of storage-challenged single-layer discs and MPEG2
> compression."
>
> Underworld Evolution
> "My second gripe is that I still noticed some film grain in the
> transfer (or perhaps video noise, as the two can be hard to distinguish
> between). Again, the darkest scenes were the worst, with the picture
> appearing unstable and a tad fuzzy. I don't know if this is due to the
> fact that Sony is going with 25GB single-layer discs and MPEG2
> compression for its initial Blu-ray offerings, but whatever the cause,
> these problems keep 'Evolution' from hitting a true home run. Still,
> this is the best-looking Blu-ray title I've seen yet."
>
> Crash:
> "However, the quality is never consistent. Black levels are wobbly --
> some scenes look great, others a bit washed out, and shadow delineation
> can suffer in some of the more overexposed shots. Softness is also a
> problem -- the film just doesn't look that sharp most of the time, and
> some post-production digital tweaking appears to have been applied to
> jack up the picture. The result is some readily apparent grain and
> noise, and colors that look plugged up. Though the hues are generally
> well saturated, they can also look just as blurry. "
>
> "Final Thoughts
>
> Unfortunately, I'm a member of the 'Crash' haters club. Granted, I
> didn't despise the film as much this second time I watched it, but I
> also don't feel it deserved the acclaim it received (and certainly not
> a Best Picture Oscar). But the film has its fans, so enjoy. However,
> this initial Blu-ray release from Lionsgate is a disappointment. The
> transfer and soundtrack are fine given the limited source material, but
> the lack of extras is really lame. I hope the Blu-ray camp gets it
> together soon and realizes you gotta give us more than just a new
> transfer -- we want all the bells and whistles, or at least a
> supplemental package comparable to the standard DVD release. As is,
> this disc is a tough recommend given its premium $39.95 list price. "
>
>
> And for HD-DVD:
>
> Chronicles of Rid****
> "
> Notch up another winner for HD DVD. I've seen many great transfers in
> the month since the format launched, and 'Chronicles of Rid****'
> certainly ranks up there with the best of them. I don't know if this is
> in fact the greatest piece of demo material available today, but it is
> as good of a candidate as any of the HD DVD discs released so far for
> such a lofty label."
>
> "Sharpness is also as good as it gets, with no softness to speak of
> even during the film's extensive CGI sequences. Colors are also very
> bold, rich and smooth, with no apparent noise or inconsistencies. "
>
> 16 Blocks:
> "16 Blocks' looks quite lovely on HD DVD. Presented in its original
> 2.40:1 theatrical aspect ratio, the image is very natural, rich and
> detailed. Though a tad bit stylized, this transfer still retains a very
> realistic appearance. "
>
> Phantom of the Opera: 2004
> "My surprise enjoyment of 'Phantom of the Opera' continued with the
> film's impressive picture. I would even venture to say that of all the
> initial HD-DVD titles I have reviewed thus far, 'Phantom' has produced
> some of the most striking images. I don't know if I've ever described a
> video transfer as "delicate" before, but that is exactly the trick
> 'Phantom' pulls off here, perfectly straddling the line between
> technical razzle-dazzle and a realistic video image.
>
> A lavish, sumptuously-mounted film, 'Phantom' is certainly overflowing
> with color, texture and subtle lighting, which quite frankly got lost
> even on the fine-looking standard DVD released last year. But not here.
> Quite frankly, my direct comparison between the HD-DVD and standard
> DVDs of 'Phantom' was no contest -- the HD-DVD blew it out of the
> water. On a good home theater setup, it is would be hard for anyone to
> say HD-DVD doesn't offer a considerable improvement over standard DVD,
> at least with 'Phantom' as your demo material.
>
> Based on the usual approach to transfers of films such as this in the
> past, I expected 'Phantom's vibrant reds, oranges and midnight blues to
> be pumped up to oblivion, with all the characters looking not so much
> as they have been lit with light, but painted with day-glo colors.
> Instead, I was pleasantly surprised by how much detail there on the
> HD-DVD transfer. From the fine textures of the actor's skin in close-up
> to the most minute costume design details, I was often blown away by
> how terrific the image looked. Depth is incredibly three-dimensional in
> just about every scene, so much so that I'd say there are select shots
> here that rival the best video I've ever seen on any consumer format.
>
> What also pushes 'Phantom' into the realm of true HD demo material is
> that, unlike Warner's other initial HD-DVD launch title, 'The Last
> Samurai,' it is almost completely lacking in film grain. As good as
> 'Samurai' looks, it was shot using the Super 35 process, which produces
> a bit of grain in the image, which often comes across as noise on
> video. But 'Phantom's images are so smooth and free of any apparent
> imperfections that I almost couldn't believe it wasn't some new sort of
> CGI enhancement. (Maybe it is?) But however they did it, this film
> looks absolutely smashing, and is certainly worth watching just to see
> how good a HD-DVD disc can look."
>
> So it looks like, so far, HD-DVD wins in both value and quality against
> Blu-Ray.
>
> Shame, Bliggy was so happy.

So blu-ray is the "Halo killer" of movie formats.