What's new

Any "Midnight Cowboy" 16x9 remaster??? (1 Viewer)

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,411
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman
It has to do with how the 24 fps source material is encoded for playback on a 30 fps TV set and which frames will get duplicated by the player. I read a *great* article on the subject online about a year ago, but I forget where it is. Maybe someone who knows where to find it can post a link (there might actually be a link in that old Leon thread, come to think of it, but I'm too lazy to dig around).
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
It's really a debate about semantics.

In essence, DVD can be both an interlaced or progressively-encoded format. However in both cases the video "packets" are stored as separated odd/even-line fields--which is why some people (erroneously IMO) argue that DVD is inherently "interlaced". This field-packing method makes the MPEG2 encoding easy for the MPEG decoder to output in traditional 480I form because the video can be decoded directly to 480I without much extra ado. That was the original idea...to make standard 480I DVD players affordable in 1997.

But IMO film based DVDs really can be thought of as "Progressive" for a few reasons:

* Even with this 'field' packing method, film-based DVDs don't employ the 3-2 repitition...they just store 48 fields per second (2 x 24 frames) and the MPEG decoder produces the 3-2 pulldown for 60 Hz playback.

* The DVD is *compressed* progressively to more efficiently use bit-space..compression is much easier on a progressive signal than on an interlaced one. After compression the frames are "split" into fields for packing on the DVD.

Now, as to this individual's comments...actually a film-based DVD flagged as "video" would NOT produce combing because the deinterlacing for video doesn't involve frame-pairing...just interpolating. So the artifact from a film based DVD marked as "video" would just be a slightly softer image (and this happens) for DVD players with 480P processing that uses flags.

The real problem with combing is:

A video DVD mis-marked as progressive so that the decoder tries to pair-up frames that don't form pairs

or

a film-based DVD that has the WRONG fields marked as progressive "pairs" so the wrong ones get paired up for progressive frame reconstruction.
 

Aaron Silverman

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 22, 1999
Messages
11,411
Location
Florida
Real Name
Aaron Silverman
That's a different article than the one I remember, but it looks like basically the same idea. :)
At any rate, Dave's got the answer.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Here's the real problem for flag-based deinterlacers:

Let's look at 5 imaginary frames of video...

If the film-based DVD originaly had frames 1-5 split into fields for storage on the disc, they should be in order like this (o for odd, e for even):

1o, 1e, 2o, 2e, 3o, 3e, 4o, 4e, 5o, 5e etc.

As long as both 1o and 1e are marked as a "pair" then the flag-based deinterlacer can grab them, zip them back into a "frame" and is good-to-go.

the problem is when the pairing is offset by one...so that it looks like 1e and 2o are a pair, 2e and 3o are a pair etc.

With still images everything would look ok...but any image movement or scene-changes and you'd see a combing/tearing effect since the offset fields would have odd/even scan-lines that would be off by 1/24th a second.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
Well, I just picked it up. I A/B'd several scenes back and forth many times. The good news, the print they used "appears" to be in much better shape than the one used for the first dvd. The opening shot looks very clean with no specks etc. The old one looks pretty bad.

The color also looks a bit better.

The bad, there is virtually NO increase in detail compared to the old version, (even though this one is anamorphic) and in some shots there appears to be less. It appears that they DNR'd the hell out of it to clean it up. Much less film grain too. Sometimes film grain can be good. And then it looks like they artifically sharpened it so there is mild EE.

Overall I guess it's a slight improvement. Could it have looked better? Sure. Should it have looked better? HELL yes.

The audio sounds pretty much the same to me.

And I agree that all the content could have easily fit onto one disc so the $29.99 list price is really extreme IMHO.

I think I might still get the PAL disc since it's pretty cheap and supposedly has the best transfer.

Overall, a disappointment.

Just my 2 cents.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
Hiya Scott, Not specifically that I noticed but the dramtic reduction in grain and detail in some shots makes me assume that they used quite a bit of DVNR. I only compared specific scenes, have not watched the film through yet. Check out DVDBeaver's screen shot comparisons. The EE I definitely did notice.
:)
 

Andrew Bunk

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,825
Dave,

I'm sorry the disc was a letdown for you. Obviously you know the film well. It was my first time seeing it, so to me it was enjoyable. I thought there still pretty good detail in many shots, but the fact that the HD print I saw had more grain would certainly suggest DVNR on the standard def release.

Still, I enjoyed the film very much, and since I never owned it before and don't see combing, I'm happy to keep the release. I hope you have better luck with the PAL disc.
 

MarcoBiscotti

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
4,799
Can anyone tell me whether I shiould have a problem with the flagging on a front DLP with a Pio 59-AVi?
I still never got around to picking this up as I've been extremely dissapointed in what I saw posted at DVDBeaver... a huge letdown.
But combing artifacts are inexcusable and I will not buy this new SE if they are going to be apparent for me in playback. There should be no reason for this to come from any studio. I can't believe that MGM/Sony flopped this transfer on such a highly ranked film no less. Im really contemplating whether or not I should go for this new edition, as Im equally unhappy with my old R1 version...
Im also pretty upset at the ammount of cropping as evidenced by the screen grabs on DVDBeaver.
Really upsetting.
 

Dave Mack

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2002
Messages
4,671
If your player has a faroudja chip you shouldn't really notice amything. And honsetly, the transfer just looks like the old one blown up and DNr'd. Little if no added detail IMHO.
 

Mark_TS

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 23, 2000
Messages
1,704
ironic that a film transfer done in 1999 (R2 disc was released Feb 1, 2000- so authoring was likely done at least a couple months earlier, based on many of the VOB file dates vs release dates on discs ive seen)
has a better image than the one we have now (R1) 6+ years later...
The SE was originally set for release in what, 2004/5 in R2, then quietly disappeared.
 

MarcoBiscotti

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
4,799
How can the original transfer possibly be better than the new release given the quality of that old MGM disc??
I understand the quality of the new package seems quite poor, but is it really worse off? Do you say this because of the combing issues?
Is the noise reduction an equal trade-off for the added anamorphicly enhanced image or should I just pass this one up altogether?
From the screen caps at the Beaver, it basically looked like a mirror image of the older non-anamorphic transfer to me... which is clearly not a good thing.
But I'd still be willing to replace my old disc for relatively the same quality, but the added 16x9 image and extras.
So is it a fair send off in the end (not excusing the poor treatment that this release has gotten)?
Is it recommended that I still pick this new 2-disc set up and get rid of my old MGM disc, being a huge fan of the film?
Thanks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,810
Messages
5,123,579
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top