'Gladiator' BluRay - Really Bad Transfer

[Mighty_Jabba]

Highdefdigest posted a review:
https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2524/gladiator.html

 

[agen_kolar]

So I'm watching Braveheart on blu-ray, and I'm appalled at the amount of "debris" in the film. There are plenty of white flecks and blemishes that distract me. I don't see how Gladiator is getting worse reviews than Braveheart. The picture is good but not great, and the blemishes - which I've heard are not present in Gladiator - are unacceptable. It looks like it was filmed in 1975.

 

[Bullseye]

The debris is actually grain and naturally occurs in the film print. Some studios use DNR to remove the grain but at the same time removing detail.

 

[agen_kolar]

You would think they would make an effort to remove the grain for blu-ray.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Highdefdigest posted a review:
https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2524/gladiator.html

this is the review i've been waiting to read. they're usually spot on with the ratings and after reading through this one i think i'll make a trip up to best buy tomorrow and pick this up.

~~after getting this and Braveheart i only need one more movie to be Blu ---- SAVING PRIVATE RYAN!!!!!

 

[PsychoCenobite]

I thought I'd post this here as it shows how different a film can look depending on the transfer.

This is the Blu-Ray release of 'Requiem For a Dream' by two different companies - Alliance vs. Lionsgate:

https://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/requiem_for_a_dream_blu-ray.htm

Yes, the Alliance transfer is better than the SD DVD but the Lionsgate transfer shows how good it could have been and is what I'd expect for a Blu-Ray transfer.

PsychoCenobite

 

[i_am_cookie_monster]

You would think they would make an effort to remove the grain for blu-ray.

But film has grain. Grain is good!

Grain can be better or worse, depending how the film was shot as well.

Sometimes companies will use DNR to slightly blur/unsharpen everything. So that way you lose the grain, but detail is lost.

 

[Bullseye]

Grain is good for sure. Too much DNR is bad.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Grain is good for sure. Too much DNR is bad.

exactly...BSG is full of grain and all people say about that show is how great it looks.

 

[agen_kolar]

Really? I hate the grain. It's distracting and cheapens the "high definition" experience. In my opinion, grain can't equal high definition. I guess which in part is true, because true high definition is shot digitally, right?

 

[Mollins]

No, high definition is merely video which is shown in a high definition (ie. 1080p)

So films can be shot on filmstock and still be tranferred to high def

 

[Darren Carnall]

it depends whether it's intentional grain (part of the film that was chosen by the director)....or unintentional. (see the Ghostbusters bluray, which is the most appalling bluray I've ever seen. any dark shadowy scenes flicker, have 'snow' and 'grain' all through them.... it's just really, really bad.

This could be called grainy (and it is when you watch it... distractingly so) but it's not theusual grain that people are talking about, which is the 'deliberate' stuff

 

[MooMooEgg]

Really? I hate the grain. It's distracting and cheapens the "high definition" experience. In my opinion, grain can't equal high definition.

You can't make movies shot on film look like brand-spanking new Pixar films. That's kind of like trying to restore classic paintings by smoothing out the brushstrokes and filling in any dimples or imperfections that were left there by the artist.

This is why (most) people hate DNR. It's a quick, easy way to "fix" a film-like image and make it "clean", but it's the wrong method of restoration, since you're basically destroying what was originally on the canvas.

 

[agen_kolar]

You can't make movies shot on film look like brand-spanking new Pixar films. That's kind of like trying to restore classic paintings by smoothing out the brushstrokes and filling in any dimples or imperfections that were left there by the artist.

This is why (most) people hate DNR. It's a quick, easy way to "fix" a film-like image and make it "clean", but it's the wrong method of restoration, since you're basically destroying what was originally on the canvas.

I think that's what I was trying to say about the whole "true high definition" earlier - these may be in high definition, but they weren't shot in a digital source, so in my opinion, they aren't truly high definition.

I guess I prefer DNR to having grain everywhere.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

I think that's what I was trying to say about the whole "true high definition" earlier - these may be in high definition, but they weren't shot in a digital source, so in my opinion, they aren't truly high definition.

I guess I prefer DNR to having grain everywhere.

that's a great point, but I prefer the grain as long as it was intentional by the director's filming techniques. As someone mentioned in this thread already, Blade Runner was obviously way before any high def technology was around, yet it looks INCREDIBLE on Blu---mainly because the transfer was done correctly.

If every DVD - Blu transfer was done this way I'd be a lot happier.

 

[Darren Carnall]

just remember, physical film (pre digital recording) is higher in resolution that your 'HD' movies.. its when they scan the film that it becomes HD. They can scan the film into a resolution higher than your HD telly & bluray players can manage. So don't think that film isn't high definition.

 

[jimjimmyjones85]

So I'm watching Braveheart on blu-ray, and I'm appalled at the amount of "debris" in the film. There are plenty of white flecks and blemishes that distract me. I don't see how Gladiator is getting worse reviews than Braveheart. The picture is good but not great, and the blemishes - which I've heard are not present in Gladiator - are unacceptable. It looks like it was filmed in 1975.

Dude ! It's the age of true film making. Less inside. Outside sets. Real world.

The debris is actually grain and naturally occurs in the film print. Some studios use DNR to remove the grain but at the same time removing detail.

And i hate when they do this.

Grain is good for sure. Too much DNR is bad.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

According to information from Swedish retailers, the long-rumored re-release of Ridley Scott's Gladiator will finally come out on October 13, probably to coincide with the release of the new Scott/Crowe vehicle, Robin Hood. This new edition had been pre-announced for May, only to be indefinitely delayed days later (see blu-ray.com, March 3, March 9 and March 18).

Update: apparently, in the Netherlands the rerelease will be available even sooner, as early as July 1.

Artwork here:

https://www.filmarena.cz/blu-ray-gladiator

Fingers crossed they have given it the transfer it deserves!

PsychoCenobite

 

[hairlesswookiee]

Well, I still bought the first Blu Ray release and I really don't see all the complaints being nothing more than nit picky. However, this being the "Sapphire" series it should be the best possible picture and audio quality possible as the name suggests. I was lucky to get Gladiator for $9.99 so I probably won't be replacing it unless they offer a trade in program for it.

 

[PsychoCenobite]

Remastered Blu-Ray has been released and the reviews look 100% better than the original DV... oh, I mean Blu-Ray release!

https://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1263450

Glad I held off and I will be buying this version when I get some money.

PsychoCenobite