Thursday, September 3, 2009

Battle of the Mad Australians

10:37 PM / Blu-ray / Comments7 Comments

Mr. Crowe:

Mr. Crowe

Mr. Gibson:

Mr. Gibson

Both taken from the recent Blu-ray releases of their respective films. Which of them do you think was given the better treatment?

You know, I seriously wish I could say one of these images was doctored.

 
7 Comments

1. Kram Sacul said:

Simulating excuses:

the lighting is different

it's not that bad in motion

I can't tell the difference on my 40" uncalibrated 720p set from across the room

screenshots don't tell the whole story

it doesn't matter because the Blu-ray will sell a lot

(Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 at 11:24 PM)

2. Author Profile Page Michael said:

You forgot the golden one:

"I only really care about the film."

(Posted on Thursday, September 3, 2009 at 11:43 PM)

3. Christopher D. Jacobson said:

I'm really hoping for a recall, based on principles (and the fact I'd like to check this movie out). It's really shameful that such a disgusting-looking transfer would ever get put out, and even more off-the-wall silly considering what a well-known and high-caliber film it is. I've always heard this movie being referred to as "One of the Big Ones," so to see such a huge catalog title get treated in such a way is truly a travesty.

How anyone can defend this abomination is mind-boggling. And I guarantee if I were to watch the Blu-ray, I'd have the same disgust for it in motion on my own TV as I have looking at these screenshots. I would never buy something that looks this bad (unless I had no idea what I was in for upon purchasing a BD), as I have a tendency to only pick out faithful transfers.

I've seen SD upconverts that look more appealing than that.

(Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 at 3:38 AM)

4. Baron Scarpia said:

I only really care about the film.

*convulses*

People don't really use that, do they? Really?

Do these same people accept large dents in the body work of a Rolls Royce because the interior's fine?

(Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 at 10:25 AM)

5. Author Profile Page Michael said:

"People don't really use that, do they? Really?"

Absolutely. I've heard it many times. I can absolutely accept people not minding inferior image quality, but if that's the case, I fail to understand why they would spend the money on a high definition setup in the first place.

(Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 at 10:27 AM)

6. MCP said:

Let's face it: most people can't tell a good image from a bad image, no matter how clear they both seem to us.

That's why the whole high def thing was so slow in gaining momentum, and is now selling a bit better just because it is becoming more difficult to find standard def hardware (analog TVs are really hard to find nowadays).

(Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM)

7. David Mackenzie said:

Oh, you screenshot scientologists! It doesn't look that bad when I look at it on my 12" laptop! It looks better than the DVD so stop whining, Gladiator is 9/10! Let's just wait until the studio re-releases it properly before we start noticing the flaws of the first version!

Seriously, though: I take my hat off/curtsey to the people responsible for Braveheart. That's absolutely stunning.

(Posted on Saturday, September 5, 2009 at 3:02 PM)

 
To combat spam, commenting is automatically disabled on entries older than 30 days.

Did a comment you tried to post accidentally get eaten by the spam filter? It happens from time to time. I get upwards of 200 spam comments every day and unfortunately don't have the time to weed through all of them in case something genuine ended up there by mistake. If one of your posts gets incorrectly flagged as spam, email me at m.r.mackenzie[at]gmail[dot]com and I'll do my best to retrieve it.

 
Archives
Categories
Recent posts