Had my first HD movie "eyegasm" tonight!

[pbirkett]

Well, what can I say really...

I am "used" to watching HDTV as my folks have a Pio 436XDE with Sky HD, and I have watched many movies and football and stuff on that, and I always felt like HD was very nice indeed on that.

I personally own a much cheaper Panny 42" PX70 and until the last couple of weeks, I have not had any HD source to use it with, but a couple of weeks ago I got a PS3. Mainly for blu-ray - i havent played that many games on it, but i did get the one with the new GT5 Prologue, and I was very impressed by the graphics.

I also bought 3 blu-ray movies with it. Wolf Creek, 300, and Casino Royale.

I watched Wolf Creek first, and while I was reasonably satisfied, I wasnt exactly "wowed" by it. I love the film, dont get me wrong, which is why I bought it, but the actual PQ seemed little better than a decent upscaled DVD to me.

I then watched 300. Again, same thing, I felt it was about the standard of a decent upscaled DVD. Not as good as I have seen on the Pioneer with Sky HD to be honest, neither of them. Starting to wonder whether it was the quality difference between the Pio and the Panny starting to show at this point, or whether i had thought that Blu-Ray would be better than it actually is - I naturally assumed it would be noticably better than broadcast HD.

Tonight, I watched Casino Royale. I dont normally like James Bond films, but being impatient, I had to go and buy some films to try on the day. Was slightly concerned at first when the first scenes were in black and white - starting to think I had a faulty BD. Obviously it was meant to be like that...

But as the film drew on, well, what can I say, absolutely lovely picture quality. Best I have ever seen! Awesome detail, colours, just wonderful really. Film was pretty decent too - quite a lot better than most 007 films I've seen IMO. Definitely better than almost any broadcast HD stuff I've seen so far - perhaps with the exception of some of the early BBC HD broadcasts, which were pribably at least as good.

Its made me wonder if I should go out and get Planet Earth on blu-ray now. But I read mixed reports on it - some saying that the picture at times is no better than upscaled DVD, while others saying its truly stunning! I remember seeing it on BBC HD and it was extremely good on that, surely it cant be worse on Blu-Ray??

Only thing is, the blu-ray stuff has brought to my attention a problem i have never noticed before with my TV: The frame rate... blu-ray stuff is at 24fps and my telly does 60 so there is a slight lack of smoothness in movement sometimes. Pity about that. 60 fps would be better really, and if it wasnt for that, the telly would be almost perfect. Even despite the fact it isnt "full HD", the picture still seems extremely good.

Well happy

[IAN P]

Yep,Casino Royale is definately eye candy,the bass is system threatening too

[tbeachly]

If you think Casino Royale is good wait 'till you see Planet Earth & Apocalypto on blu-ray

[micks_address]

watched Fantastic Four the rise of the silver surfer on saturday night i reckon the image is up there with the best of them... sounds amazing as well, and should sound even better from the ps3 come tomorrows firmware update

not a bad film either..

[lgans316]

It's ironic to learn that the HD DVD version of FF2 looked superior to the Blu-ray in terms of gamma levels and brightness.

It looks like the OP doesn't like grain due to the statement "300 looks like upscaled DVD". If 300 on Blu-ray looked like a upscaled DVD it's time to double check your equipment and vision.

[micks_address]

FF2 must look might fine on HD DVD if its better than the Blue Ray equivalent..

i can understand the comments about 300 though.. because of the visual style of the film it can be hard to differentiate the picture quality

and the opening of Casino Royale is pretty grainy (as its supposed to be)

its the whole 'style' debate.. is a picture better cause it has no grain or because it matches 100% what the director intended?

Originally Posted by lgans316

It's ironic to learn that the HD DVD version of FF2 looked superior to the Blu-ray in terms of gamma levels and brightness.

It looks like the OP doesn't like grain due to the statement "300 looks like upscaled DVD". If 300 on Blu-ray looked like a upscaled DVD it's time to double check your equipment and vision.

[johny1980]

I have been under whelmed by a lot of blu-rays recently but its normally down to the way the films have been filmed (grainy effect ?).

Althought it wasnt that good a film a felt die hard 4.0 had a fantastic pic quality. Give it a go

[mattclarkie]

Hitman
Hitman
Hitman
Hitman


That film has fantastic PQ, and I watched it twice in 24hours as I loved it so much.


My TV is 1080/24p, so I don't notice the issues of judder, but I don't see any reason why this film would be worse for judder than any other. Give it a go.

[Razor]

One of the best Blu Ray disc's I have seen for picture quality is Crank (non cgi) and Ratatouille (cgi).

Here is a very handy list of blu ray discs and how they rate for picture quality.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316

[cloudcity]

I love the term 'eyegasm' btw.


I mst have been stiffed then because I watch Casino Royale and I would say the PQ isn't the best I've seen, above average. Either that or it's because I'm watching in 1080i not 1080p.

[BikeNutt]

Originally Posted by cloudcity

I love the term 'eyegasm' btw.

Watched Evan Almighty last night (HD DVD) and the part where the Dam bursts was a real "eargasm". We thought the windows were going to fall in.

[pbirkett]

Originally Posted by micks_address

FF2 must look might fine on HD DVD if its better than the Blue Ray equivalent..

i can understand the comments about 300 though.. because of the visual style of the film it can be hard to differentiate the picture quality

and the opening of Casino Royale is pretty grainy (as its supposed to be)

its the whole 'style' debate.. is a picture better cause it has no grain or because it matches 100% what the director intended?

Yeah, I did think that perhaps 300 was meant to be grainy, but as a result of that, I did find it difficult to convince myself that the picture quality was all that good on it. You could spot the higher resolution in the most distant shots (like when the big crowds of fighters were bearing down), but overall the PQ didnt wow me.

[gingerninja72]

if you want to see the beauty that is Blu Ray, watch Die Hard 4. A pants film, but my god it looks incredible. The moment I realised the quality was during the darker scenes - there was so much depth and definition

God only knows how amazing it looks on a proper telly, and not my (already) outdated) Panny

[amita]

If you want Blu Ray eye candy, try Beowulf - absolutely stonking picture quality (not to mention sound). I think it's probably the first Blu Ray i've watched which i feel has truly shown me what the format is capable of, and what i imagined Blu Ray discs would look like when i bought into the format. Unlike some of the so-called reference quality discs e.g. Spider-man 3. I have to agree with the review of 300, i know it's supposed to be grainy, what the director intended, etc, etc, but i would never use it as demo material.

[mattclarkie]

Originally Posted by gingerninja72

if you want to see the beauty that is Blu Ray, watch Die Hard 4. A pants film, but my god it looks incredible. The moment I realised the quality was during the darker scenes - there was so much depth and definition

God only knows how amazing it looks on a proper telly, and not my (already) outdated) Panny

Actually on a proper telly it looks slightly soft, not as much detail as some other films maybe because it is old now and no experience with the format, I mean it has no menu, only the pop-up, but still V.Good PQ.

I tried to watch Beuwolf, but Blockbuster didn't have it.