View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
I find it interesting that we as a consummer are ok with the exploiation (the Bits) of a DVD. We rush out like lemming to buy our favorite old movie that has come to dvd, even though said dvd will be compressed to the hilt leaving no resemblence to a crisp properly converted dvd.
Is it realy a DVD or is it a different formated VHS. I've seen VHS's that look better than DVD's
Now on to my point.
When DVD's go HD, are we going to be subjected to the same folly. A new disk with the same movies COMMPRESSED to HELL. Well it says HD so it is.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 42
-
Don't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side.
-
Why are these DVDs compressed so much?Originally Posted by Marco33
-
Why are these DVDs compressed so much?
$ money.
It's cheaper to make a single layer dvd than a double one. Besides, we the consummer are stupid. We don't care how it looks just as long as our favorite movies gets to dvd.
A good example is a poll I did a while back.
Poll question:
Would you give up extras on a dvd to have a better picture, like a Super Bit DVD. Most didn't care and one clammered that he wanted his extras.
Dvd's should be made like the super bits, dual layered and no extras. Put the extras on a seperate dvd.Don't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side. -
Oh ok. Good point then. I would gladly give up those dumb extras to have great video quality. I have never heard of super-bit DVDs however. I will admit it. Also, while I have seen some older movies put on DVDs in a very cheap, haphazard looking way (all that non-remastered junk on the screen), I don't think I have ever seen a DVD that is worse in quality to a VHS.Originally Posted by Marco33
-
I don't think I have ever seen a DVD that is worse in quality to a VHS.
Check out the new version of "Saturday Night Fever". Ghosting & poor image quality. I'd rather watch the VHS Version.
Superbit, it's not in our Glossary... should be though (mods, hint hint).
Superbit: A dual layered dvd that is encoded to use the maximum space available on the disk with just the video and few sound tracks.
Here's one.
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=40240695&loc=322&sp=1Don't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side. -
Thanks for the definition. I actually googled it as soon as I read your post but you clarified it for me even more. Unfortunatly, I have never watched a SuperBit DVD. I think it is a great idea although I would really like to see the difference between it and a regular DVD first. I bet many members on this forum have some strong opinions about this SuperBit.Originally Posted by Marco33
-
Wow you're right. The DVD also gives it a crappy plot and funny clothes. :POriginally Posted by Marco33
I've seen a few DVDs that looked just as bad as VHS movies. Typically with VHS you don't see compression blocks the way to see on DVD. VHS you have to put up with dark images and fuzziness, but it's rare you see digital compression blocks on it. I'd rather see a dark fuzzy image than a largeblock moving around and talking. -
That would be kind of cool actually, like some kind of block moster.Originally Posted by tgpo
-
Tetris Vs Godzilla!!
-
Wow you're right. The DVD also gives it a crappy plot and funny clothes.
Crappy Plot?
Your kidding right?
Watch it again, the VHS version.Don't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side. -
Don't encourage him.Originally Posted by 888888That would be kind of cool actually, like some kind of block moster.Originally Posted by tgpoDon't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side.
-
88888888 wrote:
I bet many members on this forum have some strong opinions about this SuperBit.
49 views yet nobody cares to join in, see. We just don't care about the crapy store bought dvd's. We figure if we ignore it it will go away.Don't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side. -
*in the words of luke skywalker*
I care.
In one sense it's not worth worrying about - all it achieves is upsetting yourself. on the other hand, it is shameful that people who create this material have so little input to the final product. my two worst DVD's, Leon R2. not anamorphic and single layer. not impressed. superbit R1 is on it's way to me. Blade Runner R2. anamorphic, but single layer. and horrible analogue transfer
But a search on the web reveals that situation won't change soon
I care but there's just nothing i can do about it. -
I care but there's just nothing i can do about it.
That's your uncle talking.
I see what you are saying.Don't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side. -
There's another technology that's being worked on with the recording dyes. They've got it where a DVD+R can store up to a 9 in capacity on one side as a single layer without compromising quality and they might be coming out with a DVD20 dual layer. however, the dye isn't really, or currently, compatible with the players already out on the market. And from what I understand, there is a big pushback because consumers don't want current DVD players to end up like Beta tape players in the early 80's. They've got the DVD dyes running in some new types of mini disc format in Japan that allows a minidisc to record something like 10 times the amount of data in current minidiscs, but you'll need new MD players to be compatible with the format. This would be cool because an M-DVDR could become like 3 1/2" floppies in the 80's and 90's.
With technology moving so fast it's hard to tell what formats might stick around for longer than a decade. DVD's replaced VHS in a period less than 3 years. It took CD's around 10 years to replace cassette tapes.
-
the minidsic format you mention is a rewritable system, and very clever. it's also pretty slow, probably not useful for video. anyway, who cares about a hacked double density non-compliant DVD-esque thing. HD-DVD or blu ray is already in the works. the end capacity is still a moot point if the transfer is done badly, which i think was marco's original point - no amount of technology will corect the mistakes of inept video work.
-
Exactly!Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
It pretty pathetic that 50% of the people on this forum can make a better capture of a VHS than a studio can of a film. I've done great captures myself. They have no excuse.Don't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side. -
Remember $ $ $ $ $Originally Posted by Marco33
I went to back up my new TOP GUN DVD. It was double layered because one layer had a widescreen, and the other the full screen, format. The movie itself is not a long one, but they still did compression to fit the motion chapter lists. A friend of mine has a new VHS copy of TOP GUN (hasn't quite started his DVD library) and the quality, though slight, is still noticeably better on his VHS copy than the store bought DVD.
-
that's cos you americans are retarded and still buy full screen dvd's!
-
there is going to a problem with bringing old movies to HD - and that is if they are going to do a HD telecine or if its going to be scanned ..
Since this is what i do a lot of ... I can tell you that a telecine is a lot cheaper on an order of magnitude than scanning -- but the quality is not as good as you can imagine ..
I suspect in many cases -- some are just going to be up-rez'd , specially since much equipment is being sold to do this and that is what is happening aready for some so called HD sat feeds ...
Now a really really good quality HD telecine with color correction and image cleanup can look pretty darn good ... but we shall see ..
On the other hand -- a lot (most) of more modern movies at some point may have been digitized for editing (though not with HD in mind, as generaly you do a matchback instead) or even shot in HD -- so in some cases, you could make the HD transfer from a digital master. But most will be not done this way .. WETA has bought two of the very best scanners made just recently -- that certainly is a good sign (these things are not cheap) .."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
Originally Posted by flaninacupboardthat's cos you americans are retarded and still buy full screen dvd's!
Whaaa Whaaa
I want the whole 4:3 screen filled up with picture. If it's WS they cut off the top.
NO, moron you are loosing picture @ 4:3.
God, I HATE watching stuff in 4:3. O'h don't get me started on that.Don't give in to DVD2ONE, that leads to the dark side. -
God, I HATE watching stuff in 4:3
thats kind funny saying that as when it is filmed in 35mm -- we have to crop it for wide screen and cut off a lot of the top and bottom ...
but i know what you mean ...."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
What's the purpose of bringing a widescreen format into full frame? I don't get anything in full frame if it was made at a WS ratio. I just won't get the movie if they do that crap with it. The only time I even see a FF crop of a WS movie is when an idiot TV station crops it to fit the screen. And now, many US TV stations are trying to play the movie in WS anyway. It's the consumer's own fault if they buy a friggin' 13" TV and can barely see the picture since it's too thin and tiny.
-
It's always interesting to see a perpective from inside the industry.Originally Posted by BJ_M
I'm curious though, the vast majority of DVD's over here do seem to have been scanned (or at least i assume that's the case. i'm going on rock solid titling/picture, no kind of chroma noise [although thats more an analogue video issue than a film issue] lack of picture noise, lack of "cigarette burns" and a lack of rolloff [probably not the technical term, i mean where you see the last frame of a scene/reel is distorted because of the join]) so i would think when this happens a tape is also produced, either a D1 tape or some superior format us mortals don't know about :P Now a D1 tape wouldn't be ideal for HD, but there should be a slight improvement over DVD, there will be more bits allocated to the same picture information, the final product would be slightly better. is there not some other digital format the frame scans are archived to?
-
well first off -- the telecine i'm talking about is not the telecine most often associated with some pirated films ...
It is a much higher quality transfer... and also not shot off a screen.
we use D5 and d-beta tapes ... D5 a LOT .. if using tape that is ..
a common method is also to encode it directly off the color processor or stored to CIN or SGI or targa or qt images on DLT or hard drives..
depends where you go and how much money you have and what you need the images for..
we do not own a scanner - but we do have film printers - so can go the other way..."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
I was shown a couple years ago a machine where you would take a reel and place each frame and digitally scan them in at an extremely high resolution, then run the scanned frames in sequence and at the speed they normally would run while synching in the audio digitally. Thus giving a full and quality copy of the original it was taken from. However, this process is not a fast one. Anyone know the machine name?
-
Kodak Cineon if a few years ago ...
no longer made -- but still very popular and high quality"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
Reminds of an old song by Blondie -
I know but I don't care
Then I know but I don't see
Now I see but I don't know
I care but I don't care
I could but I won't be
You can but not with me
It's all a mystery
Locked out without a key
Now I care but I don't care
And I know but I don't see
Now I see but I don't know
I know but I don't know
Now I know that you don't know
And I see that you don't see
I care but I don't care
I don't care that you don't know
Anyway...I've seen some really bad transfers of older movies released by studios.
Some were obviously converted from video tape, 'cause you could see the visible rolls from the tape along with tracking problems - didn't look like anyone was paying attention while the movie was playing
Some have audio problems and there's some that came from very scratched film.
Paramount has held out the longest for reissuing many of their older films - there are hundreds that still haven't made it to DVD yet.
It's also rare that they feature any extras on their older films - even popular ones.
Don't expect all DVDs to be remastered or restored - that's one reason to read reviews first or rent before you buy.
As for Full Screen vs Wide Screen...I've touched on this subject a few times already.
It all depends on the movies and the transfers.
There are a few times where I'll take full screen over wide, 'cause there is a lot cut from the top and bottom than most realize...especially when nudity is involved.
I do prefer wide screen in most cases.
Many releases are in both formats...so there's no problem when they allow the viewers the option to choose which version they'd rather see. -
well, an image that 720x576 versus an image that's 720x432, that's not an afwul lot of data. considering it's a) what was shown in cinema and b) i have a widescreen set, it's the logical option.
In the UK it is actually very rare to find a title relased full screen and widescreen. in fact, i don't know of a single title that is
Oh wait, i do - the crow. there was a barebones single layer release in ~99 in fullscreen and there was a special ed earlier this year in widescreen. but certainly it's not normal. i noticed in america you had full/wide versions of lord of the rings, just the wide over here
DVD and widescreen have gone hand in hand over here. you want DVD, you get wide. you want full screen, you have to buy VHS.
I like it
-
It may be how the director intended the movie to be seen, but I've given a number of examples before where there's full frontal nudity in the full screen version and it's cropped at the waist in the wide screen version.Originally Posted by flaninacupboard
That's happened in a few movies - not just one or two.
I tend to notice those things
In some, it was obvious the audience wasn't supposed to see that part of the screen...'cause you could see the actress had tissue taped over her nips in a scene where she's supposed to be nude
Some examples of that - Barbra Streisand in Up The Sandbox
Dyan Cannon in Such Good Friends and Linda Blair in Born Innocent
However, I've also seen movies in the theater where you can see the mic at top of the screen in some scenes...so not all theaters had those parts hidden.
In the UK it is actually very rare to find a title relased full screen and widescreen. in fact, i don't know of a single title that is Oh wait, i do - the crow. there was a barebones single layer release in ~99 in fullscreen and there was a special ed earlier this year in widescreen. but certainly it's not normal. i noticed in america you had full/wide versions of lord of the rings, just the wide over here
DVD and widescreen have gone hand in hand over here. you want DVD, you get wide. you want full screen, you have to buy VHS.
I like it
It's a lot more common to find both formats in the U.S.
Many DVDs have double sided discs - one side full screen and the other side widescreen.
Then there are a lot that come separately...where you chose which version you want to buy or rent.
Not all titles are available in both formats though - there are many that are only widescreen.
Quote
