# Osage's HTS Review of...CAPTAIN AMERICA - THE FIRST AVENGER (2D Blu-ray; Paramount/Marvel)



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

*Releasing Studio: Paramount/Marvel Studios 
Disc/Transfer Specifications: 1080p High Definition; 2.35:1; Region 1 (U.S.) Release
Video Codec: MPEG-4 MVC
Tested Audio Track: English DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 (played back in 5.1 configuration)
Rating: PG-13
Director:  Joe Johnston 
Starring Cast: Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci 

OSAGE'S PLOT ANALYSIS:*

Like most other Region 1 folks, I picked this up early yesterday morning – release day – from a local Best Buy, opting for the standard 2D variant of the Blu-ray that comes with the DVD version and digital copy. Let’s get the packaging of _Captain America_ out of the way first – I am utterly disappointed that Paramount didn’t give this, or _Thor_ for that matter, steelbook treatment, especially given the fact that Universal gave a ho-hum-at-best title like _Fast Five_ a steelbook package, as they have the _Jurassic Park_ franchise set also just released yesterday. I think fans who enjoyed this film theatrically were expecting something in the way of a steel cover package, perhaps with Cap’s iconic shield raised in relief off the front; instead, what we get is the ordinary slipcase (in the case of Best Buy’s packaging, as they did with _Thor_) featuring a “clip” from an early Captain America comic on the back. Best Buy likes to call this “exclusive” packaging, but to me, making a DVD or Blu-ray release truly “exclusive” should entail something along the lines of what they did with _The Hills Have Eyes_ on DVD (with the unique “blood packet” in the slipcase) or, of course, given it the steelie treatment. There is also something overtly cheesy and off-putting about the artwork of Chris Evans used on the cover; Paramount could have come up with something much better, even if it was to merely use an image of the shield. 

Upon a second viewing of _Captain America_ – that is, in my own screening room on Blu-ray, outside of a commercial theater – it became even more clear to me that Joe Johnston gave this film a bit of a rushed element in order to coincide with the upcoming _Avengers_ launch, and while there’s an interesting enough backstory here, the conclusion is kind of hurried to bring Chris Evans’ Steve Rogers character into modern day society so he can join up with SHIELD. Alas, there’s really no way to connect a genuine _Captain America_ sequel to this unless the plot doesn’t take place circa World War II – now that Rogers (Evans) is in modern day America, the _Avengers_ plot must pick up from here. 

That aside, this was a solid origin story effort from Paramount, Marvel and Johnston, and while many have called it a bit slow moving and un-involving due to the war element, this remained true to the comic origins for the most part and fans of the books will be pleased. Was it Marvel Studios’ best effort to date? No. What that is, I’m not sure – I am still loyal to the first two _Spider-Man_ films, in which I truly believe Sam Raimi just nailed the ultimate comic adaptation on film – but _Captain America_ sure was fun, theatrically and at home for the most part, and it was a night and day difference compared to the first travesty we got years ago trying to bring this character to the screen. The main issue I had with the casting here, though, was using Chris Evans in yet a second Marvel character – I realize they’re two separate entities within the comic universe, but Evans was already cast as Johnny in _Fantastic 4_, and to me that just adds a conflict of interest element within Marvel’s world. Every time I see him as the Human Torch in _Fantastic 4_, I think of him as Rogers in _Captain America_ and vice versa. It’s almost like this one guy is in two places at the same time, even though in reality it’s just one actor (Evans) portraying two separate roles – but I keep thinking Rogers and John Storm are interchanging their presence somewhere in the world. I know, weird.

But from everyone that could have portrayed Rogers, I believe Evans was a good choice; once in the iconic helmet and costume, his facial gestures looked right and he seemed believable tossing the shield around and taking out Nazis. The strange transformation from scrawny strength less Brooklyn weakling to gung-ho super soldier keeping his genuine rage towards America’s enemy in World War II was totally believable, even if the downright bizarre method used to superimpose Evans’ face and head onto the scrawny little body early on is still a bit disturbing. Johnston does an excellent job with painting the right mood and feel for the era at hand, giving the film a blatant olive/beige/golden hue that really draws us into the time period; without it, I don’t think _Captain America_ would have succeeded nearly as well. We are genuinely transported back to a time when Adolf Hitler ruled Europe and most of the surrounding lands, interrupted by, if anything, the HYDRA weaponry and “advanced” science and technology that seemed way out of place throughout. It is suggested that the secret science division of the Nazi organization, lead by Hugo Weaving’s “Red Skull” character, has tapped into a power harnessed by the gods themselves (references to the _Thor_ world are made in various parts) and has allowed them to create futuristic-like weapons that just don’t feel right in the context of the plot; of course, I totally understand this was a comic adaptation and you have to just go with it, but I am merely pointing out how I felt about that aspect of the story at times. Further, there’s the young “Howard Stark” element; Johnston includes him here but it really feels like a tacked-on tactic to include notable members of the SHIELD/_Avengers_ initiative as we ramp up towards that feature film. I am sure Tony Stark’s father played a major role early on during the World War II days, creating weapons and technologies for the U.S. government via his Stark Industries (in the _Cap_ comic run) but I feel his role in this was a bit on the cheesy/thrown-in-for-good-measure side. Of course, we all remember when elements of Cap’s shield prototype are found in Tony Stark’s lab toward the end of _Iron Man 2_, suggesting Howard had kept parts of the “super soldier” experiment all those decades. It’s interesting, if anything, how all these themes are converging to steer towards _The Avengers_ scheduled to launch in the summer of 2012. 

For those of you who haven’t seen it yet, _Captain America – The First Avenger_ begins with a team finding a massive vessel of some kind frozen in the ice. As the team makes their way into the bowels of the frozen downed aircraft, they stumble upon the iconic red, white and blue shield and it’s clear SHILED operatives are behind the excavation process. The plot then goes backward in time, depicting soldiers fighting in the war-torn lands of Europe during the second World War; the Germans have designated a secret special science division, HYDRA, to be headed by the egotistical Hugo Weaving (_The Matrix_). Weaving’s character has tapped into a power perhaps once wielded by the gods themselves, and he has discovered a way to apply it to weapons, creating guns and cannon machines that blast out giant scorching rays of blue light, instantly vaporizing anyone struck by it. Of course, this all hints at the “technology” seen and used by many of the characters in _Thor_ (references to “Odin” are made) and before we know it, Weaving’s character is in a position to go overboard by his rapidly growing powers, many of which were already injected into him by a scientist that has now fled to the U.S. (Stanley Tucci). This all leads to Weaving becoming the iconic _Captain America_ villain, “Red Skull,” partly named for the flaming red color his body is left with from Tucci’s injected serums.

Back in America, U.S. boys are lining up to fight the war in Europe in an effort to defeat the Nazis. Steve Rogers (Evans) is a scrawny American soldier prospect that believes in the defeat of the Nazis down to his very bones, but just doesn’t have what it takes physically to join the armed forces. Early on, we see hints at the hero Steve is about to become – when bullied in a Brooklyn, New York alleyway by a brute twice his size, and ultimately beat up by this thug, Steve dons a garbage can lid to defend himself and mumbles “I can do this all day…” as he continues to be pummeled upon. Steve and his best friend Bucky attend the Stark Expo in Queens, New York, where a young Howard Stark is showing off his latest invention of a car that levitates off the ground – but when Stanley Tucci’s character (now working with the Americans on Stark’s “super solider” program) learns of Rogers’ fanatical patriotism when overhearing a conversation between him and Bucky, he has Rogers brought to a private room of the army volunteer center nearby, where he offers him the chance to be part of a secret experiment. Tommy Lee Jones portrays the commander of this offensive program and doesn’t believe Rogers has what it takes in the least bit – but Tucci’s character convinces him that what they’re looking for is a man that is filled with good intentions and wants to be a good soldier, not necessarily one with physical qualities. 

In a secret lab beneath the labyrinth of an antique shop in Brooklyn, Rogers is strapped into a chamber designed by Howard Stark himself, where he’s injected with the “super soldier” serum as well as exposed to “vita rays” to aggressively promote growth. When Rogers emerges from the chamber, he has been transformed into a muscular, ridiculously strong man – the complete opposite of how he went in. The experiment for creating the perfect soldier seemingly worked – but when Tucci’s character is gunned down by HYDRA spies sent to steal the serum he and Stark created right after the experiment, Steve discovers his new “powers” as he chases down the assassin on foot as he attempts to escape in a careening car. This sequence reminded me very much of the first _Spider-Man_ when Peter (Tobey Maguire) is discovering his spider powers and jumping from car roof to car roof as he chases his uncle’s killer; as Rogers chases Tucci’s murderer, he leaps from car to car as well, ultimately catching up with the spy and confronting him but not being able to stop him from swallowing a cyanide tablet so he didn’t have to divulge his identity to Rogers.

Outfitted in silly costumes to be portrayed as a propaganda tool against the German forces in the war, Rogers is dubbed “Captain America” and appears at soldier morale boosters and the like. Tommy Lee Jones’ character Is still not convinced that Rogers has what it takes to be any kind of soldier, despite his new strength, but when Rogers learns Bucky and other members of an elite team sent in to hunt down HYDRA operatives have become prisoners of war, he takes matters into his own hands and goes in to rescue them. Using his powerful new strength as a weapon, Rogers punches his way through HYDRA lines eventually coming face to face with Red Skull, who is already knowledgeable regarding “Captain America” and his “powers.” The buildup in these scenes is exciting and tense, but things really begin to heat up when Rogers returns to the American lines with the POW’s in tow, alive and well, and Jones’ character authorizes him to be fully outfitted as Captain America – the super soldier. 

Stark outfits Rogers with a take on the iconic red, white and blue costume, creating a battlesuit-like getup complete with a powerful, technologically advanced shield, as well as specialized motorcycles and other weapons. From this point on, _Captain America – The First Avenger_ turns the action level up big time as Cap and an elite group of soldiers take the war to HYDRA’s front door, smashing, burning, gunning down and killing everything in their way as they try and get to Weaving’s character himself. It’s here that Cap shows off his strengths and abilities with his shield in full force, throwing the shield like a boomerang to take out HYDRA and Nazi operatives while using brute strength to punch guys out. The action sequences here are taut, kinetic and exciting, giving the film a genuine feel of the comic; Evans, as Rogers, looks great in the costume as he flings his shield around and blasts HYDRA agents with specialized weapons onboard his cycle. 

Weaving’s character, meanwhile, is putting into place his final plan of world domination – he plots to blow up cities all over the Earth with specialized HYDRA weapons, but before he can do that, we are treated to the prerequisite final fight sequence between hero and villain, as Cap gets aboard the giant aircraft Red Skull is piloting to carry out his mission and the two interlock in battle. The fight sequence is not as violent, or aggressive in delivery, as, say, the sequence at the conclusion of _Spider-Man_ between Peter and the Green Goblin (probably the best fight sequence of any comic book film ever made) but it is entertaining as Steve uses his shield to get the upper hand over Red Skull while defending himself against Skull’s brute strength. The conclusion of _Captain America_ has been fraught with debate since the film’s theatrical launch, specifically in reference to the sequence involving Rogers waking up in what appears to be some kind of hospital after he crashes Weaving’s character’s plane in the ice – of course, this was merely all a prop created by SHIELD who has found Rogers in the ice these decades later and who have thawed him out to join the Avengers in modern-day society. This sequence indeed feels a bit tacked on and rushed, almost as if Johnston simply needed some way to get the Captain America character into modern time, but as I said, this leaves no wiggle room for a _Captain America_ sequel; still, it was pretty cool when Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury character and his men chase Rogers down through Times Square in New York City and Jackson informs him that he’s “been asleep” when Rogers has no clue what time period he’s in. Then, of course, there’s the very cool _Avengers_ teaser at the conclusion of the film’s credits. 

In going back to some of the things I believe didn’t work in _Captain America_, the whole HYDRA technology element just didn’t fit in certain instances; I understand, again, you need to go with this, but I thought the spy coming to steal the serum and shoot Tucci’s character in the beginning getting into his “advanced” submarine off the docks in Brooklyn was just plain silly and out of place. Further, the HYDRA soldiers that appear as Storm Troopers out of _Star Wars_ was ridiculous as well, I thought, as was the gigantic aircraft Weaving’s Red Skull flies at the end of the film, and which Rogers ends up taking control of to ultimately steer into the ice. This HYDRA “technology” and the whole connection to the Norse gods with the tie-in to _Thor_ elements was just too much and bordered on beyond disbelief at times, given the time frame at hand (circa World War II). 

*VIDEO QUALITY ANALYSIS:*

From the get-go, there were reports circulating all over the ‘net about this highly anticipated Blu-ray release’s video quality, and its inherent disappointing softness and lack of detail – the 2.35:1 transfer of _Captain America_ in 1080p was nothing of the sort on my display. The film definitely has that olive/beige coating to the image, befitting of the time period being portrayed, but the quality of the transfer itself was outstanding – in fact, it’s one of the better Blu-ray transfers I’ve seen lately. The whole presentation was just wickedly clean and sharp as a tack, with no apparent noise, grain or other anomaly that I was able to detect from my seating distance. That overtly beige/olive look to the film stock, poured on by Johnston purposely, works wonderfully for conveying mood and feel, taking us back to the days of World War II and definitely adding to the drama. There is a smoothness to the 1080p image on this disc unlike anything I’ve seen before, and this could be what others have been seeing and noting as “softness” – but this isn’t softness in any sense of the term really, as the picture quality is rendered with stunning clarity even though the smooth characteristics of the transfer. Colors are purposely muted, but when they pop through, such as sequences involving shots with grass or foliage, the image retained its rock-solid quality and the colors were appropriately lively. 

A real knockout Blu-ray transfer from Paramount on this one – not for eye-popping, retina-searing high definition visuals, but for its success in accurately representing the filmmaker’s vision in creating a mood in a specific time and place out of history. Wonderfully film-like presentation here, with smooth images and a solid, twitch-free appearance. 

*AUDIO QUALITY ANALYSIS:*

Alas, I was disappointed by the 7.1 Master Audio track in English (running in a 5.1 configuration in my setup), and I went into _Captain America_ forewarned about this as I read many early comments about the Blu-ray’s lack of sonic energy on the audio track. What went wrong here? Was this a purposeful mix by the engineers, using more subtle cues for effect? I’m not quite sure, but _Captain America’s_ DTS-HD Master Audio mix wasn’t what I hoped for in a comic adaptation soundtrack – from the very beginning, the mix was low in overall output, which required me to raise my system’s master volume up beyond its normal operating point. There was a distinct low output in the dialogue channel as well, which caused me to have difficulties making out what certain characters were saying even with my master volume cranked; bass was almost non-existent on my system, and when the LFE did kick in, it lacked aggressive tactile punch. 

The surrounds were used aggressively when the sequences called upon them – the HYDRA laser beams flying all around the soundstage was a good example – and there didn’t seem to be a lack of surround activity, but this track just didn’t wow me as a whole. The biggest issue was the fact that I had to crank my master volume up way beyond what I normally listen at to get decently immersed, suggesting to me the mix was simply not mastered hot enough. Bullets pinging during shootout sequences, subtle ambience cues such as gentle winds whipping through the surrounds and other elements were placed in the rear channels perfectly, creating an engulfing environment – but the experience just wasn’t _loud_ enough at a given volume level. 

I have heard better on other Blu-rays. 

*SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS:*

Oh, come on. This is a buy, especially if you have been following the road-to-the-_Avengers_ saga via _Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk_ and _Thor_. I can’t comment on the 3D version of the Blu-ray, but this 2D variant – cheesy Best Buy packaging aside – is a solid package for the most part, with interesting extras on the disc about the comic and the production as well as an immensely clean 1080p widescreen transfer. I, for one, would have liked a steelbook package.

As a side note: Cap’s “upgraded” suit he’s set to wear in _The Avengers_ looks great, and the ego rivalry between Rogers and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is clearly evident based on the official _Avengers_ trailer released recently. That’s gonna be one kick-butt ride.

Let’s discuss!


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Good review Osage. I finally got around to watching this DVD the other day since I had seen it in theaters. I agree with your take on the technology being out of place for that time period but I guess we have to accept the creative license they used to link all of these story lines together for The Avengers.

I also had to increase the volume a bit beyond normal but I did enjoy the impactful sound effects. I haven't looked at any waterfalls but it seemed that there wasn't a 20hz filter in the mix like with Thor.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> Good review Osage. I finally got around to watching this DVD the other day since I had seen it in theaters. I agree with your take on the technology being out of place for that time period but I guess we have to accept the creative license they used to link all of these story lines together for The Avengers.
> 
> I also had to increase the volume a bit beyond normal but I did enjoy the impactful sound effects. I haven't looked at any waterfalls but it seemed that there wasn't a 20hz filter in the mix like with Thor.


Thanks for the feedback and kind words about the review, Infra! 

Before I go any further with discussing the audio issues and technology fabricated in the film -- did you view this on standard DVD or Blu-ray?


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Just the standard DVD. Maybe next year I'll finally get an Oppo blu-ray player and start collecting movies again, I have so many DVD's it's a tough upgrade to swallow for now.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> Just the standard DVD. Maybe next year I'll finally get an Oppo blu-ray player and start collecting movies again, I have so many DVD's it's a tough upgrade to swallow for now.


You do know that Blu-ray players play standard DVDs and upconvert them to 1080p (if your display accepts it) right? :bigsmile: Actually, I would definitely recommend the Oppo -- well, I own the first generation BDP-83 -- as they are excellent in the DVD upscaling department. If you have a good DVD transfer, it will definitely make the disc look almost like a Blu-ray...

I'm surprised you haven't jumped into high definition yet; the players have come down in price substantially...

That said, there are going to be differences then between what you heard and what I heard on the Blu-ray...the DTS-HD Master Audio track on Captain America's Blu-ray Disc was mastered, seemingly, at a low level as this is being reported by almost every reviewer who sees the title; I had to crank my master volume WAY beyond what I normally view/listen at when playing this title back just to get a satisfying experience. It was disappointing.

Also, let me say this -- I watched the DVD version of Thor because it was included with the Blu-ray (combo pack) and the Dolby Digital track on the DVD was MUCH louder, heavier and punchier than the Master Audio mix on the Blu-ray, and I commented on that in my Thor review thread. I much preferred the lossy, compressed Dolby audio of the DVD over the MA if you can believe that -- leading me to think the DVD audio on Captain America most likely sounded a bit more tactile and "in your face" compared to the Blu-ray, hence why your experience with the title differed from mine. :T

EDIT: Wait -- I just re-read your original post, and see that you stated that you too found the volume to be a bit lower than normal on the DVD version...sorry. Then the conclusion is that there were some audio elements in the design by Paramount engineers/those who worked on the film which translated into a rather anemic mix.


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

I know all Blu-Ray players upconvert DVD's (at varying levels of quality). The Oppo 981 I have now does a great job and when I do get a Blu-Ray player it will also be an Oppo but the $500 is a bit steep for me at the moment since I have so many DVD's. Probably next year though.

All my problems aside, yes I had to raise the volume a bit on the DVD but only about 3db's more than usual. You're right, the Blu-Ray MA mix will always be different than the DD or DTS on the DVD. I have to be clearer when I comment on a movie that I watched the DVD version.

After reading some reviews of Captain America it looks like the DD on the DVD might have a better (more lively) mix than the Blu-Ray. If you or someone else has both versions I'd love to hear if there is a difference either way.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> I know all Blu-Ray players upconvert DVD's (at varying levels of quality). The Oppo 981 I have now does a great job and when I do get a Blu-Ray player it will also be an Oppo but the $500 is a bit steep for me at the moment since I have so many DVD's. Probably next year though.


I hear you about the prices; yeah, the BDP-83, Oppo's first generation BD player, was $500 when it debuted (I own it) but I received it as a holiday gift. The player does a great job upconverting good DVD transfers; very good transfers like most of Sony's Superbit collection look nearly Blu-ray-like. I would definitely recommend an Oppo if you have a big DVD collection, as I do as well, and that was a huge selling point for me (DVD upconversion in a Blu-ray player); of course, you know this because you have a 981. 



> All my problems aside, yes I had to raise the volume a bit on the DVD but only about 3db's more than usual. You're right, the Blu-Ray MA mix will always be different than the DD or DTS on the DVD. I have to be clearer when I comment on a movie that I watched the DVD version.


No worries at all, my friend -- I just wanted to be sure of what you were referring to so that we can discuss the right thing! 



> After reading some reviews of Captain America it looks like the DD on the DVD might have a better (more lively) mix than the Blu-Ray. If you or someone else has both versions I'd love to hear if there is a difference either way.


Indeed; although what some call "better" or "more lively" is often the result of a "hotter" mastering on a disc's soundtrack...every time I bring up the fact that the lossy, legacy soundtracks for a particular title on a DVD sounds "more robust" or "punchier/louder" than the lossless counterpart on the Blu-ray, I am bombarded with comments regarding the fact that it's merely a difference in mastering volume (which I'm aware of), and that with the DVD format, the audio scheme's compression can, ironically enough, cause the audio to seem louder and more "in your face." This is exactly what I experienced with _Thor_ when I compared the DVD to the BD; the Dolby Digital track on the DVD shook my room and my house with such authority, it woke my wife out of a deep sleep on the second floor of our home...and this was at a rather low point on my receiver's volume scale. The bass was ridiculously deep and pounding, with waves and wallops of LFE shaking my walls...I did not experience the same on the Blu-ray's DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack. While not weak by any means, the MA track just didn't have the same tactile hit and pounding as the Dolby Digital audio...:scratch:

Still, I am going to have to watch _Captain America_ again, this time choosing the DVD version, and compare it to the Blu-ray's sound; I will definitely give you my thoughts once I do that.


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Most of the mixes on Blu-Rays will be noticeably better than DVD's; one good example would be Battle LA which did not have the LFE impact on my system (with the DVD) than what I've read about the Blu-Ray which has been touted as a great demo disc.

The reverse is also true on occasion as you had mentioned with Thor and probably the best examples are War of the Words and Master and Commander with which the DTS DVD tracks are louder and dig deeper than their Blu-Ray counterparts. For some reason the engineers will introduce a HPF at 20-25hz from time to time on a Blu-Ray release which doesn't make sense. From what I can tell this may also be true with Captain America and thanks for testing it out!

It would be nice if they printed that info on the back of the box, something like "audible content down to 10hz!". But of course that won't happen because only 1 out of 1000 people would even know what that means let alone have a system that could reproduce it!


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> Most of the mixes on Blu-Rays will be noticeably better than DVD's; one good example would be Battle LA which did not have the LFE impact on my system (with the DVD) than what I've read about the Blu-Ray which has been touted as a great demo disc.


You know something? I reviewed _Battle: Los Angeles_ but don't remember whether the LFE was walloping or not; from what I recall, I found the opposite of most of the reviews -- but, of course, I am in serious need of a new subwoofer. 

Still, I do not find what you cite in your statement above -- that most of the Blu-ray soundtracks will be audibly better than the DVD counterparts; for the most part, I find the lossy legacy tracks to hit harder, envelop me better and in an overall sense impress me more as compared to the newer lossless codecs. It may just be my ears, and what I personally "prefer."



> The reverse is also true on occasion as you had mentioned with Thor and probably the best examples are War of the Words and Master and Commander with which the DTS DVD tracks are louder and dig deeper than their Blu-Ray counterparts. For some reason the engineers will introduce a HPF at 20-25hz from time to time on a Blu-Ray release which doesn't make sense. From what I can tell this may also be true with Captain America and thanks for testing it out!


I have not had the opportunity to sample _Master and Commander_ and/or _War of the Worlds_ on Blu-ray yet, but let me say this about _War of the Worlds_ and its ridiculously hot DTS track on the DVD -- this is one of the, if not _the_, loudest, most aggressive and deep-reaching soundtracks I have ever heard in all my time in the hobby. The sequence in which the tripods rip apart the ground and the legs come up and begin smashing everything in sight is so tactile and walloping, I can't turn my master volume up beyond a certain point before my sub just can't take it...it's absolutely amazing, and probably one of the best home video tracks there is. So, it doesn't surprise me that the Blu-ray's audio couldn't really best that track...

I will let you know what I find when I view the _Captain America_ DVD...:T


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Osage_Winter said:


> Still, I do not find what you cite in your statement above -- that most of the Blu-ray soundtracks will be audibly better than the DVD counterparts; for the most part, I find the lossy legacy tracks to hit harder, envelop me better and in an overall sense impress me more as compared to the newer lossless codecs. It may just be my ears, and what I personally "prefer."


Sorry, I should have prefaced that statement with the following: I haven't personally heard a difference between the audio with Blu-Ray & DVD's because everyone who I know that has a Blu-Ray player is either using the TV speakers or a HTiB but from what I've read most Blu-Ray mixes are noticeably better.

Man, I need to jump on the Blu-ray train soon!


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> everyone who I know that has a Blu-Ray player is either using the TV speakers or a HTiB


Are you serious?

Well in that case there is _no_ way to gauge the performance of a soundtrack; a good surround setup with separate components (either an AVR or preamp/processor and power amp(s)) of quality is needed. I wouldn't give an HTiB a second look...


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Osage_Winter said:


> I wouldn't give an HTiB a second look...


Nor would I but they jumped on the $200 Wal Mart special (or whatever) and enjoy it. They've experienced the difference but don't have the means to do much else. Only one of my friends has a "real" 5.1 system but he doesn't have Blu-Ray, or anything that has HDMI. I'm the only crazy audiophile :help:


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> Nor would I but they jumped on the $200 Wal Mart special (or whatever) and enjoy it. They've experienced the difference but don't have the means to do much else. Only one of my friends has a "real" 5.1 system but he doesn't have Blu-Ray, or anything that has HDMI. I'm the only crazy audiophile :help:


You don't necessarily _have_ to be a "crazy audiophile" to enjoy the benefits of full surround audio from better-than-HTiB components. :T


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

You're right but it's more fun if you are


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infra,

I haven't forgotten you -- I watched a bit of Captain America on DVD the other night, but after cleaning the whole house and poppin' some pain pills, I conked out after about 40 or so minutes in; from what I recall, the DVD's Dolby Digital didn't sound tremendously different compared to the Blu-ray's MA mix (like it did on Thor), but perhaps a bit louder and bass heavy. The video looked eerily like the Blu-ray as well, upscaled to 1080p via my Oppo BD player...

I will rewatch the DVD to do the full comparison again as soon as I get a chance and report back...


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Sounds good, thanks!


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Okay Infra.

Watched the DVD almost to the end last night. Here's my summary:

Unbelievably (or, believably based on the DVD upscaling performance of the Oppo BDP-83) the DVD's video transfer was remarkably similar to the Blu-ray's; certain parts had better detail on the Blu, such as the shot of the Brooklyn Bridge before Rogers tries to enlist towards the beginning (this sequence on the Blu-ray was so sharp and dimensional it almost looked cartoonish) and the scene in which Rogers takes the flag down during the special assignment exercise regiment (the Blu exhibited ridiculous amounts of detail in the grass and foilage), but overall the DVD and Blu-ray looked very much alike. I realize we talked about the audio differences between the versions, but I was just throwing that out there...

Now, from what I could tell, the Dolby Digital track of the DVD was a bit louder and bass-heavy than the Blu-ray's DTS-HD Master Audio mix, which I expected, but it wasn't the same kind of difference between the Thor Blu-ray and DVD. That title had shockingly louder and more aggressive audio on the DVD version compared to the Blu-ray, but on Captain America, the Dolby Digital audio was merely slightly louder and punchier. The swooshing of HYDRA's blue lasers in a couple of scenes, plus the shootout sequence early on when Rogers goes after the HYDRA agent who shot Stanley Tucci's character, all exhibited the same kind of active surround motion, with bullets and lasers flying into the surround channels aggressively, compared to the Blu-ray's delivery of these scenes. It wasn't a night and day difference from what I could tell, but the Dolby Digital audio was slightly hotter with some more pounding LFE in certain areas.


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Thanks for testing the difference Osage! It is exactly as you had predicted, the DVD mix is a bit hotter which probably made me believe the audio I heard was better than what was reviewed with the Blu-Rays.

I found it interesting the video was so close to the Blu-Ray, it makes me doubt the investment in Blu-Ray even more. Of course every movie will be different but it would seem on average the video is very close and the audio can regularly be better (if anything just hotter). It almost doesn't seem worth it to spend an extra $10-20 on the discs on top of the player cost. 

Or maybe I just need to embrace change and the new technology lddude:


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> Thanks for testing the difference Osage! It is exactly as you had predicted, the DVD mix is a bit hotter which probably made me believe the audio I heard was better than what was reviewed with the Blu-Rays.


Indeed, Infra; I can understand now why you felt the track was more aggressive watching the DVD as compared to the Blu-ray reviews you read. There was a difference between the Master Audio and Dolby Digital -- but not mind blowing. 



> I found it interesting the video was so close to the Blu-Ray, it makes me doubt the investment in Blu-Ray even more. Of course every movie will be different but it would seem on average the video is very close and the audio can regularly be better (if anything just hotter). It almost doesn't seem worth it to spend an extra $10-20 on the discs on top of the player cost.
> 
> Or maybe I just need to embrace change and the new technology lddude:


You know something, Infra? This is something I have been mulling over for awhile now...the fact that, to my eyes, I just don't see a night and day difference between these two formats like everyone else seems to gush about. And I have said this since I watched my first Blu-ray Disc on my Sony SXRD set -- Blu-rays do look nice, but they're not in the same improvement league as VHS to DVD was in my opinion. The audio is even worse in this regard, in that I don't hear staggering improvements between the lossy audio tracks and the newer high resolution lossless varities. Now, A LOT of factors are at play here -- I don't own a billion-dollar system with components that would easily show the differences between these two formats, and I am running a rear projection display in my system which is notorious for making video look a bit soft and very film-like, in addition to the fact that I am sitting way too far from our display based on charts and resolution analysis information which could be adding to the "DVD looks just like Blu-ray effect" because at our distance the benefits of 1080p, supposedly, are useless. Couple all this with the fact that I am running a Blu-ray player with outstanding DVD upconversion abilities, and it becomes easy to see why perhaps Blu-ray was basically wasted on someone like me.

For the most part, I just don't see the fanatical difference between a well mastered upscaled DVD and a Blu-ray, ESPECIALLY when it comes to older, catalog titles -- a good example of this is with THE EXORCIST, which I purchased on BD this past Halloween because I am a diehard fan of the title, and the digibook packaging of the Blu-ray looked too seductive to pass up (you can read my review of The Exorcist on Blu in this section of the forum, a few threads down). Warner's DVD edition of "The Version You've Never Seen" of The Exorcist always looked great upscaled on my Oppo, with only the age of the film stock during certain sequences showing the biggest problems in the transfer; when I compared the Blu-ray's transfer to the DVD, I found that they looked rather identical -- all the closeups of actor Max Von Sydow, for example, looked unbelievably detailed and clean on both the Blu-ray AND DVD, with no differences I could discern. I mean, just how detailed and clean can a certain format or resolution get? I saw every pore, nick, bump, scratch and wrinkle in Sydow's face and skin structure on both formats, so unless the 4K video resolution of the future can basically deliver the characters into my lap without 3D trickery, I just don't see the benefits of Blu-ray especially with older titles like this. 

As I stated, this could all be chalked up to the value of my system -- far beyond an entry level rig, but far from a system that would require a bank loan to fund as many people are running, especially on this forum -- as well as other factors including seating distance and display technology. Perhaps it's my gear not allowing me to hear or see the so-called overwhelming benefits and differences Blu-ray offers, but that's where I'm at. 

As for your situation, if you want to continue to hold off on buying into Blu, that's fine as well; if you can afford it, and if you have grave curiosity, get yourself an Oppo BD player and check it out. From what I have been told, the next jump from 1080p Blu-ray is supposed to be this "4K" resolution which is supposed to be mind blowing, but experts are questioning whether or not the human eye can even detect a resolution this high, or anything much higher than 1080.


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Yeah I don't think we can come to a real conclusion in the Blu-Ray debate with the limitations of both of our systems. I noticed you are shopping for a new TV (in the other thread) so maybe when you get one you can let us know if you see a more significant difference in the visuals (with newer films). Until then this case remains open :dontknow:


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> Yeah I don't think we can come to a real conclusion in the Blu-Ray debate with the limitations of both of our systems. I noticed you are shopping for a new TV (in the other thread) so maybe when you get one you can let us know if you see a more significant difference in the visuals (with newer films). Until then this case remains open :dontknow:


Indeed, I would absolutely love to get a new display into our room -- 70" preferably -- but since that time I had started looking at new TVs, the budget issue has dwindled shockingly fast...we no longer have the money for it, period. :hissyfit:

How big is your display?


----------



## Infrasonic (Sep 28, 2010)

Osage_Winter said:


> ...we no longer have the money for it, period. :hissyfit:


D'oh! Well maybe next year sometime. Look at the bright side, when you are able to get a new set it will be even better and cheaper than if you were to get one today!

I have a 52" LCD that's probably around 5yrs old now. It fits my needs perfectly at the moment since I only sit about 9ft from it (I have a wall mount that moves it out around 20") but I'll probably be looking at projectors late next year when I move to a bigger place (hopefully!).


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

Infrasonic said:


> D'oh! Well maybe next year sometime. Look at the bright side, when you are able to get a new set it will be even better and cheaper than if you were to get one today!
> 
> I have a 52" LCD that's probably around 5yrs old now. It fits my needs perfectly at the moment since I only sit about 9ft from it (I have a wall mount that moves it out around 20") but I'll probably be looking at projectors late next year when I move to a bigger place (hopefully!).


My G-d...how I would _love_ to sit nine feet from a 52....:unbelievable: :rubeyes: :clap: :sad:


----------

