King Kong HD DVD

[Gliese 581c]

Is bit-rate that important for hd-dvd ?

When comparing the dvd and the dvd superbit equivalents I couldnt really tell much of a difference in the superbit ones over the dvd's.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by aRCaM

Is bit-rate that important for hd-dvd ?

When comparing the dvd and the dvd superbit equivalents I couldnt really tell much of a difference in the superbit ones over the dvd's.

It's important to try and reach the point were the encode is transparent to the master i.e. they look identical. Providing you reach this point bit rate is academic because anything higher equals no difference in perceived PQ.

AVI

[gandley]

Yes. as far as the VC1 codec goes. with other codecs the lower the bitrate, the worse the quality will be normaly, but VC1 is remaining transparent to the master even with the bitrate getting lower. I think this means they can then store more info on the disc and not have to worry about quality issues.

It was said they would not get it below 20, so the low teens is impressive. It just means a long movie can go on the disc and have great imagery.

This benefit will be there for blu ray as well for those who use VC1 in there encoding process but for HD-DVD it negates any worries of having a max of 30gb at present.

[mak99]

Originally Posted by gandley

Well Amir from microsoft said King Kong HD-DVD would be the best encode so far, which is amazing as its only running at like 12mbits. awesome

I was lucky to see this at the AVS insider demo in Seattle last weekend. We watched the scene of KK fighting the two (three?) T-rex's, and the detail was just ridiculous - beyond HD! It was shown via the Xbox add-on, via component @ 1080p (1080i?). It was displayed on a mega-$$ projector onto a 100"+ screen, and..well, it was amazing. Nothing like I've ever seen before...

FTR, I saw the movie in the theatre and thought it was a pathetic flick - just plain moronic. When I predicted they would ride one of those flying insects off the mountain top, I about walked out...how stupid!!! Clearly the laaaaamest movie since "Congo", another crappy movie involving apes. I'm detecting a common theme here...

[Gliese 581c]

Originally Posted by mak99

FTR, I saw the movie in the theatre and thought it was a pathetic flick - just plain moronic. When I predicted they would ride one of those flying insects off the mountain top, I about walked out...how stupid!!! Clearly the laaaaamest movie since "Congo", another crappy movie involving apes. I'm detecting a common theme here...

Amazing how wrong people can be but of course each is allowed their own opinions. Cant understand how a multi award winning film, with an award winning director and one of the biggest grossing box office movies of all time with the best CG effects in a movie yet (thats my opinion) can be percieved in the way of being laaaaaame and moronic.

[sinizterguy]

Whatever everyone else thinks, I thought it was a great movie. Sticking to the original storyline but adding to it without destroying the concept.

Bought it on DVD and might even get it on HD-DVD if the HD version is good enough to show off a system.

[AgentCool]

It's a decent film and one of my top 5 of 2005. Regardless of what people say, I didn't think the film was particularly overlong until the last 20 minutes or so; the planes vs. Kong sequence goes on for a little too long but otherwise I think the film is quite well paced.

If Jackson had cut the first hour to 20 minutes then people would have complained about a lack of characterisation and build-up. Admittedly, the characters aren't totally memorable but they're developed enough - with the exception of Jimmy whose almost three-dimensional character is vaulted abrubtly - to keep you interested. On a similar note, had the second hour been cut down people would have complained about a lack of action.

I don't think it's possible to make a film everybody will like. I mean, there are people out there who don't like The Shawshank Redemption, a film I believed to be impervious to hatred.

[domtheone]

Originally Posted by aRCaM

Amazing how wrong people can be but of course each is allowed their own opinions. Cant understand how a multi award winning film, with an award winning director and one of the biggest grossing box office movies of all time with the best CG effects in a movie yet (thats my opinion) can be percieved in the way of being laaaaaame and moronic.

Kong CG was absolutely stunning (imo) from what I recall.

Naomi didn't look to bad either

Probably don't help KK either given that expectations were shirley so high given the Rings films that he did previously.

Was always going to be a hard act to follow.

[Fillumgeek]

time with the best CG effects in a movie yet (thats my opinion) can be percieved in the way of being laaaaaame and moronic.

Likewise I thought some of the effects were seriously ropey (unfinished even) especially the sequence where they are running away from the stampede of dinos - poor cgi. And imo the first 45 minutes were about 40 too long in establishing who everybody was. Anywas this is an AV site: if it looks amazing and it's free well I will be chuffed.

FG

[Fillumgeek]

I mean, there are people out there who don't like The Shawshank Redemption

Where are they? Has their pulse been checked lately?


I suppose it's true its take all sorts...

[nwgarratt]

There was nothing wrong with the first 45 minutes. It was necessary character development. You can't just start at Skull Island with no reason why they are and why those people were chosen. That would have been silly. Too many studios think people just want action all the time. Look at X Men 3, it is action nearly all the time and people are complaining about no character development. If there was another 20 or 30 minutes of further story, will there then be people complaining aboout that as well.

I enjoyed King Kong a lot and the 3 hours went by very quickly. I don't want it any shorter.

[Fillumgeek]

wake me up when the giant ape arrives.


And when they get back to New York many of those characters are not referred to again! Plus why after several action sequences did we need to see them attacked by insects for what felt like 35 minutes?

Don't get me wrong Peter Jackson is a considerable talent, but maybe sometimes having limitless money thrown at him blurs his judgement.

Give me Meet the Feebles anyday over King Kong or even The Frighteners (underrated).

[signs]

Originally Posted by Fillumgeek

wake me up when the giant ape arrives.


And when they get back to New York many of those characters are not referred to again! Plus why after several action sequences did we need to see them attacked by insects for what felt like 35 minutes?

Don't get me wrong Peter Jackson is a considerable talent, but maybe sometimes having limitless money thrown at him blurs his judgement.

Give me Meet the Feebles anyday over King Kong or even The Frighteners (underrated).

let's not forget....Bad Taste!!!!

[Fillumgeek]

let's not forget....Bad Taste!!!!

You said it man.

[Dave H]

I didn't like the insect bit also.