First Blu-ray Disc Reviews Posted Online

An anonymous reader writes "With the first Blu-ray player and discs officially making their market debuts tomorrow, High-Def DVD Digest has posted the first reviews of three of the first Blu-ray discs -- The Fifth Element, 50 First Dates, and xXx. So what's the verdict? So far, in terms of video quality, the results seem to be mixed: standard DVD fave 'Fifth Element' underwhelmed ('just not the best HD I've seen'); likewise, 'xXx,' was a disappointment ('up close just looks like a messed-up bunch of dots'). Somewhat surprisingly, it's '50 First Dates' that ranked highest of the three in video quality ('holds its own with the best high-definition transfers out there')."

Comments

and this is going to catch on how?

[yagu]

So exactly how are HD videos (blu-ray, or HD) going to capture the hearts and imaginations of the buying public with this kind of debut? Ostensibly (you would think) the best and brightest would be selected for their ability to shine and put the best face on an already murky new format battle.

It's an interesting task, convincing Mom and Dad, friends, etc., this is the latest and greatest thing... "no, no, just wait, you'll SEE the difference in the next scene... just let me pause it on this one frame, THERE!... see how clear the pattern is on Drew Barrymore's shirt!"

I've seen HD from comcast. I've seen HD demo'ed in Circuit City (when they FINALLY got some source). My experience and subjective opinion is that what is being delivered is being delivered with unacceptable compromise, whether it be to rush to market, or just shoddy quality, it doesn't matter. I've seen compression artifacts, I've seen jittery playback. I'm not "getting" it.

This kind of rollout will underwhelm the public, especially at the rollout prices. The only thing keeping this from dying on the vine is the digital mandate to convert to digital, and the tide of HDTVs only requiring customers to buy in.

Re:and this is going to catch on how?

[Dominatus]

The problems are almost always in the source material.

Hell, TNTHD upconvertes and stretches (!) normal SD content for most of the day and calls it "HD".

I've noticed that the most important part of HDTV is the source, and this is evident just through simple channel surfing. Shows that I assume can afford better cameras because they need less of them, and less mobile ones, such as Jay Leno/David Letterman, SNL, etc, have absolutely amazing quality. Watching it on a 1080p 50 inch Sony SXRD is phenomenal, with no artifacts, or lack of detail. The colors, contrast, and image quality is so good that it appears your looking through a window.

Anyone who has seen this TV displaying true HD content at my apartment is immediately excited. And almost everyone says "oh oh! put in a DVD so we can see how that looks", unaware that DVDs are of a much lower resolution.

So I put one in, usually something fun like The Matrix or what have you, with a warning that it's going to look much worse then what they just saw. I have a pretty good upconverting DVD playing that puts out 1080i/60 over HDMI. Looks better than a normal DVD player but considerably worse than the HD content. Everyone so far has been disappointed with DVD quality (except my mom, but she's ...well...a mom).

Point is, there *IS* a difference, a huge difference, and those of us with good TVs are begging for a way to watch our movies in the same detail we watch our TV...other than HBOHD.

xxx

[nFriedly]

> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/xxx.html

you gotta wonder how many porn filters will block that third link...

How many of these were shot on digital?

[Orrin Bloquy]

Seriously, 5th Element was shot on film, and the other two I don't know about, but aren't there any well-known digital productions which would transfer cleanly? How pristine are the masters for 5th Element by now?

And to agree with the earlier poster: Whoever's greenlighting chick films like "50 first dates" and "Phantom of the Opera" for testdriving a new medium needs a new job, preferably selling hot dogs on a street corner, to get an idea of what a market actually asks for.

Re:How many of these were shot on digital?

[tourvil]

And to agree with the earlier poster: Whoever's greenlighting chick films like "50 first dates" and "Phantom of the Opera" for testdriving a new medium needs a new job, preferably selling hot dogs on a street corner, to get an idea of what a market actually asks for.

A relevant Penny Arcade comic to answer your question:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/19

Warning: reviewer does not understand technology

[Anonymous Coward]

From the 50 dates review:

Happily, this transfer proves that the Blu-ray format can deliver a picture as good as anything I've seen yet on HD DVD.

This is a nonsensical statement. There is nothing to prove. They both support the exact same compression formats (MPEG-2, VC-1 and the best of them all: H.264/AVC). The maximum bitrates are high enough to not cause noticeable artifacts in either format, when AVC is used with a good encoder. Both formats support storing the movies in 1080p24 and pull-downed to 1080i60 at runtime. Therefore, there can not be any quality difference inherent to the formats, only errors caused by external factors such as scratched discs. Blu-ray comes ahead in this case, because it has stupendously good hard coating technology by TDK.

Re:And why?

[rehtonAesoohC]

He said: "Why not something good, oh, say the first Harry Potter Movie. The Battlestar Galactica Mini-Series (not the tv series). Star Wars? T3?"

We heard: "Nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd nerd. Nerd. Nerd?"