Gladiator Blu-ray sneak review preview....

[professorhat]

There's been a bit of a debate on this already here (see this thread), I haven't actually watched the whole film as yet, but yes, in some places it seems the transfer has been mucked about a bit / not restored to everyone's expectations, so I wouldn't have thought there's any issue with your TV.

 

[Anonymous]

Proff, thanks for the thread link, missed it - cheers!

 

[Andrew Everard]

Merged...

 

[Clare Newsome]

Mentasm:They are. As is usual the majority are correct in both instances. Anyone calling Gladiator 10/10 basically doesn't have a clue.

Or the all-out picture quality (three/four stars in our book; better than DVD but could be improved) doesn't detract from the majority of viewers' enjoyment of a Blu-ray release with awesome sound (deffo a 5) and a ton of well-judged extras and extended version (5 for effort for both of those). All for £12.99 in Morrisons, it seems...

 

[Anonymous]

Yeh but the point is alot of people tend to look at the picture as a priority when viewing bluray material because they are only able to listen to the film through the tv and dont have the full surround sound experience.

3-4 stars is quite a margin as one is 60% and the other is 80% and i would definately say its not worth 80% in terms of picture quality..60% is quite poor...

 

[professorhat]

If 80% is good and 60% is quite poor, your average picture score must sit somewhere around the 70% mark? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, surely average should be 50%?

 

[Anonymous]

I said quite poor, not terrible in my opinion a movie that gets 50% or 2.5 stars is not average but terrible. Blu ray is meant to be very high quality and most movies i own are in my opinion 4 to 5 stars meanin 80% to 100%. These include No Country For Old Men, Dark Knight, Iron Man, 3:10 To Yuma which also got 4 stars on Hi Def Digest and in my opinion is a alot better looking than Gladiator.

To answer your 1st question yes my average pic score would be around 70% which bein about 3.5 stars is average in my opinion

If you read the review of Gangs of New York on Hi Def Digest it got 3 stars for picture quality. If you read further into the review it describes the transfer as "a travesty". Now thats a 3 star pic quality which in your terms would be above average (60%).

 

[Clare Newsome]

Ah, but we don't do percentages - you introduced that analogy/marking system - we do stars; not the same metric at all.

Three stars is halfways between rubbish (1 star) and excellent (five stars) - plain plumb average. Four stars is above average, typically being a mix of excellent in parts and average in others.

 

[professorhat]

Ginder:I said quite poor, not terrible in my opinion a movie that gets 50% or 2.5 stars is not average but terrible. Blu ray is meant to be very high quality and most movies i own are in my opinion 4 to 5 stars meanin 80% to 100% ... To answer your 1st question yes my average pic score would be around 70% which bein about 3.5 stars is average in my opinion

I still can't get my head around this! 70% is average and 50% is terrible - what on earth is 20%? You're saying you expect Blu-Rays to be very high quality, but remember we're scoring this picture against other Blu-Ray releases, not DVD releases. If this is the case, surely 50% must be an average picture when rated against all other Blu-Rays?

Ginder:If you read the review of Gangs of New York on Hi Def Digest it got 3 stars for picture quality. If you read further into the review it describes the transfer as "a travesty". Now thats a 3 star pic quality which in your terms would be above average (60%).

Actually, Hi-Def Digest give Gangs of New York 2 stars for Video quality (or 40%) and describe it as a travesty and give Gladiator 3.5 stars (or 70%) and describe it, in the main, quite positively. As with any review, it's important to read the actual written review which is generally much more informative than the score awarded.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh yeh 2 stars lol my mistake

but even then from my own viewing experience Gladiator is not worth a 70% mark..In todays standards of high quality blu rays there shouldnt be a "better than dvd but room for improvement" transfer..why not just release the best transfer you can?

I have a sneaky suspicion that as next year will be its 10th Anniversary we may get a Super Duper As The Director Intended Edition.

 

[Davro83]

I agre with Ginder and his percentages. Anything below 70% and i think its aweful. 70% is about average. I thinks it down to computer games magazines and reviews when growing up, as a game that got below 80% and i wouldnt even bother touching. If it got less than 60% then it definatley means its a load of rubbish. These type of percentages are how i review things now. So if a blu ray got 50% for picture i would think thats appauling. If it got 70% i would still saty clear as its just below average.

 

[professorhat]

You see I also grew up with these computer magazine scores and it always annoyed me that a dismal game would get 60 - 70%, a good game would get 80 - 90% and a really good game would get 90 - 100% - it doesn't make any sense! Why use a percentage system and then never use 0 - 50%?!

One thing it did teach me though is the point already made - it's the content of the review which is vitally more important than the score given.

 

[Davro83]

Yeah i have always thought its ridiculous. It doesnt make sense but bacause its been done for years, im used to it.

 

[Anonymous]

FInally got my copy through the post yesterday. Have to say I am very disappointed with the image. Edge enhancement is abundant and lots of DNR'd textures. Hardly an image I would call very 'filmic'. The extended sections (clearly transferred from a diferent master) show how much better Gladiator could look if Universal hadn't cheaped-out on the transfer. Sound is great though

Robert Harris, the respected film restorer, has chimed in with his view on another website http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/292860/a-few-words-about-gladiator-in-blu-ray . His view? He won't recommend this release, but acknowledges it is not as bad as travesties such as Gangs of New York, but merits a new transfer and replacement program. Pretty much in line with Bill Hunt from digital bits. These two reviewers are hardly the crazy avs forum posters who spend hours staring at screen shots.

Such a shame. This could have been a must-buy

 

[Clare Newsome]

A good summation there from Robert Harris re Gladiator - an imperfect but quality release, which most people watching on an average TV screen will have no complaints with, picture-wise.

Also an indication of how much bigger home cinemas are in the US - when he talks of 'typical 100in screens' - not many of them in the UK (though we have one even larger in our main AV room...)

 

[cram]

professorhat:

You see I also grew up with these computer magazine scores and it always annoyed me that a dismal game would get 60 - 70%, a good game would get 80 - 90% and a really good game would get 90 - 100% - it doesn't make any sense! Why use a percentage system and then never use 0 - 50%?!

One thing it did teach me though is the point already made - it's the content of the review which is vitally more important than the score given.

I probably worked on some of magazines that annoyed you. Truth is there were only really two ratings - buy it or avoid (with the occasional sitting on the fence "worth looking at if this is your cup of tea") Grading systems never really work in a linear fashion because that's not how your levels of enthusiasm work.

 

[professorhat]

cram:Grading systems never really work in a linear fashion because that's not how your levels of enthusiasm work.

Okay, after this thread, I thought I was up to this kind of challenge, but I honestly have no idea what the above means!

 

[pete321]

Watched it yesterday and I must admit it wasn't too much improvement over the Anchor Bay upscaled DVD. I wasn't overly impressed with the sound either, whilst far superior to the DVD, I'd have thought there would have been a bit more sub slam with some of the action scenes. This is a film you've got to have in your collection, shame they didn't quite do it the justice everyone was expecting.

I was a bit underwhelmed about another big screen film which I was desperate to get hold of on blu-ray. Earlier this year I bought the German issue of Dances With Wolves, another one which should have been so much better on blu-ray.

 

[cram]

professorhat:

cram:Grading systems never really work in a linear fashion because that's not how your levels of enthusiasm work.

Okay, after this thread, I thought I was up to this kind of challenge, but I honestly have no idea what the above means!

Apologies if confusing. The grade is always a subjective assessment or viewpoint as opposed to grading against a strict set of criteria. Because the final award is subjective the points in the system are not necessarily linear. Eg. Is an item with 4 stars twice as good as one with 2 stars. The truth is it probably isn't. When making decisions between similar items humans tend to exaggerate the importance of relatively small differences

 

[roger06]

Well I watched it on Saturday and thought picture and sound were a big improvement.

My only thoughts / criticisms are.

1. Why bother with the two versions ? just have the extended one and with the extra space have a full PCM sound option as opposed to DTS MA

2. The added bits weren't new - they're on the 'deleted scenes' section of the DVD so not really that exciting.

Still a thumbs up from me though...

 

[jase fox]

pete321:
I'd have thought there would have been a bit more sub slam with some of the action scenes.
I watched Gladiator on bluray last night & i found the PQ to be very very good, much better than the DVD version by far IMO & certainly no were near as bad as how some have described it.

But i did find two "nit picked" faults and thats what Pete has described above, i was hoping for more bass slam & if my memory serves me right i'm pretty sure the DVD version's bass was slightly deeper from what i can remember (as its been a while since watched it on DVD) but i could be wrong & that on close ups of faces they looked abit blurry almost like the effect from what you'd get if you'd activated the DNR function but that aside im really pleased with it.

 

[Big Chris]

Clare Newsome:4) The CGI has fared well in the transition to HD, though some poorer moments - notably the tigers - haven't improved much (if at all) since the unconvincing original!

Agreed. Watched it the other day. Tigers scene still looks ropey in the bits where there are tigers and cast in the same shot. Worse still was the scene where Commodus returns to Rome, climbs the stairs and receives some flowers.... Awful! So washed out it's almost black and white, and fuzzy too. Replacing it with storyboard animation wouldn't have looked much more out of place!

Unlike most other action movies I've watched, the subtle effects and primarily the music (which is great), seemed much more impressive than the bombast of battle scenes.

My next gripe is the directors "introduction". An introduction in name only, telling us in not so many words that there'll be a director's cut in the future. (What is it with Ridley Scott and all his different cuts? Blade Runner must be up to around 7 or 8 different cuts by now!)

Overall, would agree with the consensus that it's great film, more so in this extended version, but not the last word in HD 'jaw-dropability'.