mhafner dijo:
Help me out here. Is this jpeg simply not an accurate still from the disc:
Blue Dress EE
? Is there no white EE haloe on the disc like that? Or is your point that this shot is not typical and the vast majority of the disc is free from such haloes? Or is your point that such haloes in your opinion are too minor to make this disc anything less than the most natural unprocessed picture you have seen from 1080p media? (If the still is accurate then I would have to strongly disagree that this kind of shot looks natural and unprocessed.)
My point is that forget the JPEGs altogether. I don't know how there were captured or how they were processed for the web. All I can say is that there is no "edge enhancement" that I could discern from 1 screen width away. I don't see the need to look an closer since 1080p media doesn't support a viewing angle wider than 1 screen width.
When you watch the actual, in-motion picture, it's the most unprocessed "analog" 1080p picture I've seen.
From the screenshots on both DVDBeaver and Blu-ray.com EE is the least of this transfers problems. Once again reviewers know how to spell DNR but not actually notice it when it's plastered in front of them.
All I say is that folks should look at the actual disc rather than screen shots and people retort by pointing out screen shots???
This is av "science"???
Your response is even more perplexing given that the ravages of DNR are not as visibly destructive in a still frame as they are in a moving picture with slowly panning complex detail like skin pores, fabric and textures. Things that are astonishing preserved in Baraka, I should add.
If you want to know what a full-motion 24 frame per second 1080p picture looks like... here's a hint... watch it in motion. If you notice any problems from a proper viewing distance viewing the actual material in motion on the screen then that would be the time to share information. Regurgitating hypothesis based on compromised screen captures is not information, it's conjecture.