as good as Shrek looks, take a read of Dan's review of the HD DVD at dvdfile.com: he noticed that the movie clips *in the bonus material* look *better* than the feature film. Looks like a classic example of a studio applying a little bit of filtering to ease compression... a common practice with DVD and one that I hope that the studios learn is BAD and don't continue the practice with HDM. Not saying it's a bad image and not saying it's a problem with "HD DVD"... just noting that Paramount, for whatever reason, didn't provide an image that was optimal given the improvement that can be seen with precisely the same material in the bonus section (which is also on the same HD DVD disc).
BTW, I noticed the same problem with Disney's "Incredibles" on DVD... the clips in the bonus material were significantly sharper/detailed than the image in the feature presentation. My review of that DVD didn't leave that fact unmentioned... even though every other review I've read praised the title as having perfect picture.
I'll have to rent a copy of these movies and try them!
The only thing that could have been better with both of the Hi-Def formats is anamorphic compression on the disc itself...
Imagine all 2.1 million pixels being used for image storage of a 2.4:1 film then optically uncompressed and displayed in all of it's widescreen glory!
Agreed. I actually pushed for native 2.35:1 encoding. My idea was rather than "anamorphic" pixels that change to non-square shapes to capture multiple aspect ratios... just use a "constant height" digital encoding method that always makes the vertial 1080, and then just extends horizontal pixels past 1920 to capture whatever native frame shape you need. Players could be designed to downconvert horizontal resolution... and constant height projection systems would have what we've always dreamed of... real 2.35:1 images with the same pixel-density of 1.78:1 images!!!