It is currently Mon Jul 14, 2025 6:37 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 6
  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2002 9:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
Sanjay wrote:
Also if this was the case, could you please explain the R2 DVD which does not have 'burnt in' subtitles.

Unfortunately the R2 DVD does has burnt-in subtitles too – review here;

http://www.zulm.net/modules....order=0

I think it’s more a case of Universal (and VCI/Film Four) showing contempt or certainly not the same attitude its show other foreign film to DVD transfers. Also you have to look at who these films are aimed for from the Universal/FilmFour point of view – majority of their market probably require the subtitles. Still no great excuse for not making them removable – with the general Indian DVDs being so bad anything they do is usually of such standard that makes the normal Indian DVD from Eros/Spark/VS/WEG look pathetic in comparison.

Ali :baaa:
Top
 Profile  
 
Sanjay
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2002 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 1:14 pm
Posts: 2256
Location: National Capital Region (India)
Thanks for the correction Ali, but that is really sad and dissapointing news since I was planning to get a copy of the R2 DVD from UK. I guess I won't bother and will just stick to the R1 DVD. By the way atleast the prints released in India did not have subtitles.
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 05, 2002 7:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
I think, keeping DTS sound track aside, as part of R1 package, ascertain, PQ, od both R1 and R2, Non anamorphic vs Anamorphic?

IMHO, just looking at ali's r2 review screen shots and my r1 screen shots..look very simillar to me!
ali was waiting for his r1 to arrive to give us comparison! :baaa: ???
Top
 Profile  
 
DVD Collector
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2002 6:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 11:01 pm
Posts: 2070
Location: Toronto, Canada
Sanjay wrote:
For me the one thing that irks me the most about this DVD si the 'burnt in' subtitles. Universal really screwed up big time with this DVD. I pray Unversal never picks up any other Indian titles in the future.

I just received my R1 copy of MW and I second with your comments here.

Image
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
R1 Monsoon Wedding (non anam??)
First Indian?? DTS DVD
(I put ?? if we can call it Indian movie)

Released by UNIVERSAL

WHY DO WE DESERVE non-anamorphic, when R2 release is anamorphic??

I was surprised to see its review in Widescreen Review. It got average PQ score but above average for audio. A few excerpts:

1) Super 16
2) Non-anamorphic 1.85:1
3) Images are generally sharp but detail is limited.
4) Contrast can appear a bit low, and viewing in a completely blackened room is recommended to compensate for the weak shadow delineation.
5) Edge enhancement and pixelization are an annoyance, as usual. (what do they mean by “as usual”??)
6) Much of the movie is focused around the dialogue, and as such audio tends to be directed toward the center channel.
7) DTS version exhibits slightly greater definition with spatial rendering, as well as with deep bass.


Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
Indeed! ab aapne thread shuruaat ki hai tou!

Good points rana!! I was EXPECTING a comparative reviewof r1 vs r2 by ALI!? not in YET!

ANAMORPHIC , yes r2, but even then PQ looks the same? ali to confirm?

We in r1 got BONUS DTS track, that is INDEED a bit more DETAILED, but I would have TRADED, DTS with ANAMORPHIC picture, mere bhaii, esp for this disc/title!

http://www.zulm.net/cgi-bin....t=2264;



Edited By arsh on 1035914554
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 7:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
R2 PAL is anamorphic and DD5.1 sound, while the R1 DVD is non-anamorphic with an additional DTS sound track. Top shots are from the R2 DVD, and bottom comparative shot is from R1 DVD;

Image
Image

Image
Image

Image
Image

Image
Image

Image
Image

.. middle shots show some evidence of edge enhancement that is similar on both DVDs. Rest seems mostly the same - very little if anything between them in terms of the picture quality.

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:00 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
One thing that is different between the two is bit rate - R2 bit rate averages around 5.43Mb/sec while the R1 DVD is averages close to 8Mb/sec - bit rate graphs (top is R2, bottom is R1);

Image

Image

...bit rate differs mainly because of the anamorphic video on R2 which is storing more information than the R1 DVD. Overall there’s very little between the two DVDs and bottom line is down to personal preference or which ever you can source the cheapest; depends on whether anamorphic video is important to you or the DTS sound track.

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2002 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
i dont know ali, thnx for comparison, i kinda prefer r1 i thing the bottom shots, being little more sharp and well defined..thnx
Top
 Profile  
 
ali
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 2:06 pm
Posts: 4944
Location: UK
arsh wrote:
... being little more sharp and well defined..thnx

There's no sharpness difference between the shots, there is some colour/contrast/brightness difference but it’s insignificant.

The reason why it R1 looks sharpener is because of the indifferent image sizes - resample them to the same size and you'll see no difference.

Ali
Top
 Profile  
 
filmibuff
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 7:30 pm
Posts: 756
Location: canada
i saw the region 1 dvd yesterday (dd5.1 soundtrack as i dont have a dts decoder).. the pq was pretty good but i felt like the sound was kinda flat... is that the case with the dvd or did i happen to view a pirate?
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
u might be right ali, as a matter of fact you are!! it is same quality!
it is simillar to kkhh, non anamorhic, being small looks better!!

for filmi buff, MW DD AND DTS sounds both are pretty dynamic! with DTS having a relative edge of being more cleaner and detailed!
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
ali, btw! how can u explain, low bit rate of r2 transfer even with no dts sound track on the same disc..just wondering...
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
ali wrote:
One thing that is different between the two is bit rate - R2 bit rate averages around 5.43Mb/sec while the R1 DVD is averages close to 8Mb/sec

...bit rate differs mainly because of the anamorphic video on R2 which is storing more information than the R1 DVD. Overall there’s very little between the two DVDs and bottom line is down to personal preference or which ever you can source the cheapest; depends on whether anamorphic video is important to you or the DTS sound track.

Ali

On this account, R2 DVD should have had higher bit rate as that one is anamorphic. But it is other way around.

Is R2 DVD 4% speed shifted??
Is R2, R1 speeds the same??

If R2 DVD is 4% speed shifted, and R1 runs at the same speed, then it will indicate that R1 DVD was copied from R2 DVD?? As the copied DVD's bit rate is very high, there is no appreciable PQ difference??

Rana
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2002 8:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
why not anamorphic then?



Edited By arsh on 1038254824
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 6
  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group