DVD reviewing...we NEW category for "Picture and Sound" quality... (1 Viewer)

[Ed St. Clair]

If you would like to use the "theatrical presentation" as a reference point for the DVD review, you would 'have' to take into account;
The condition of the projector bulb.
How could one do that?

 

[Damin J Toell]

If you would like to use the "theatrical presentation" as a reference point for the DVD review, you would 'have' to take into account;
The condition of the projector bulb.

As I noted earlier, when one refers to wanting the DVD to represent the theatrical presentation, one means the ideal theatrical presentation, not what some random (and possibly erroneous) presentation happened to look like. So, no, you would not have to take into account the condition of some random projector bulb, just as you would not have to take into account the angle of a random projector that caused the projected image to be a trapezoid instead of a rectangle.

DJ

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I believe a rating for picture quality should relate to the technical side (the transfer). The whole point of dvd reviews for me is to read about the picture and sound quality. Granted, a lot of movies have distorted or experimental looks but that should not affect the rating of a transfer. I can live with a film looking grainy or having muted colours as long as the original film elements looked the same. What i can't tolerate is shoddy transfers such as Bram Stoker's Dracula, Castaway, Shawshank redemption and Grease (all region 2). Severe digital artefacts take me out of the movie experience. I can't say the same about film artefacts unless they are really severe.

Lee,

Sounds like you're agreeing with me (not sure you meant to) as you're basically describing the scenario of "true to the source" the way you define the technical quality of the transfer.

This is exactly what I'm proposing...having a rating based on this sort of criteria you suggest above to go along side the standard score that's right now typically reserved for the "WOW" factor (which takes marks away for things like film grain or soft-focus film techniques etc.).

-dave

 

[Patrick Sun]

I think this is too much to ask for from reviewers.

I'd have a hard enough time trying to recall exactly a film looked last week in a theater if I compared it to its DVD counterpart.

I think a review that gave the reader an honest assessment of the enjoyment that the video transfer gave to the reviewer would be sufficient.
Meaning, did the DVD's transfer impede or contribute to the viewing enjoyment/experience of the DVD. Sure, it's subjective, so what.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Patrick

Just curious,

how do you feel about the example I posted earlier about a reviewer on a well-known site criticizing the "audio quality" of The Sound Of Music for its "distracting dialogue" which he viewed as an audio-flaw because he wasn't even aware of the practice of directionial-dialoge during that film's creation? Is it just "ok" for a reviewer writing a review read by thousands on the internet to be that irresponsible with his condemnation of something with which he's not familiar...even when a reader like me sends a polite email informing him of the historic practice of directional dialogue and he refuses to even accept the information and continues to review from such a position of ignorance (in the most accurate sense of the word here) and unwillingness to learn?

What about a reviewer who criticizes a DVD like AI for having too much film-grain...and says "too bad the studio didn't apply some digital filtering to get rid of the grain as the picture just isn't up to the quality of some other titles like the Fifth Element". Is that ok?

I'm not concerned with whether or not a reviewer's comments are subjective...what I'm concerned with is the lack of connection to the historic/artistic nature of our film in the way that they were designed to look/sound by their creators in most reviews I find. If here at HTF we can have thread after thread arguing about the benefits of LDI's filtering or film-grain as an valid artistic visual took that a film-creator can use...doesn't it seem a bit odd to others here that we're perfectly happy with hi-profile reviews that seem to continue the myth that "better" DVD look like picture-perfect video with 5.1 surround sound??? Doesn't that promote the misunderstanding we have regarding the most important goal of DVD transfering...that the DVD be faithful to the look and sound of the source?

If we here at HTF have enough confusion around these issues to argue about topics like the validity of audio-remixing for home-video film soundtracks or grain-removal, just think how one-sided this world of "quality" looks to J6P who has no prior-agenda for film-preservation as art or any understanding of the film-process and the character that it imparts to the image and sound of the movies that we watch.

Case in point: I was at a video store the other day and a father and daughter were looking through some DVDs to buy. The daugher asked "What's 5.1???" and the father said "those are the good DVDs...only buy the ones with 5.1 on the box". I watched him as he picked up classic title after classic title (movies like Rebecca and Casablanca) and sighed "oh well...they're not 5.1...I'll have to keep looking for some other titles..." I kid you not. Stand for an hour at a video-rental store or aisle in best-buy and you'll see just how typical "Mr. 5.1" is.

Sounds like he's been reading some DVD reviews at Widescreen Review

Sounds like many of you here are perfectly happy with that scenario and see nothing that needs to be changed.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Well, much of the problem comes from folks who seldom watch films in a theatrical setting, but see a lot of DVDs in their HT setup. No one can expected to know everything between the theatrical presentation and the DVD presentation, and their differences between the two when changes are made.

Things get missed, that's just how it is. What you can do is go back to those reviewers that seem to see both the films and the DVD and review them well. That's a small brand of reviewers that do both and do it well. But it's too exacting a demand for most reviewers to do a compare/contrast film/DVD for each one.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

So, no, you would not have to take into account the condition of some random projector bulb

Not concerned with "some random projector bulb".
Concerned with "the" PB, the reviewer was 'seeing' with the Theatrical Presentation.
How would the reviewer know the condition of "the" bulb?
Therefore, how would the reviewer 'create' a reference from TP to DVD?
If the bulb was "dim", the reviewer could 'perceive' the DVD too be 'bright'. Right?

 

[Jeff Kohn]

If the bulb was "dim", the reviewer would 'perceive' the DVD too be 'bright'. Right?

Especially when you consider that's it's widely speculated that many theaters run their projectors at reduced brightness to lenghten bulb life. And we've all seen movies where the projector wasn't properly focused, or wasn't matted correctly, etc.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Therefore, how would the reviewer 'create' a reference from TP to DVD?

Due to a limitless number of reasons, he or she generally cannot. I said this way back on the first page. I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that reviewers can generally definitively know what the ideal theatrical presentation should have looked like for comparison purposes.

I do think, however, that it is generally within the power of reviewers to discern problems caused by a video transfer (e.g., artifacts, pixelation, enhancement) from something inherent in the film itself (e.g., grain). When I read a DVD review, I am highly interested in the former and not much at all in the latter. Some reviewers, as we have seen in this thread, choose to lump both of these together to give a generalized "how it looks" review, which I feel is unhelpful to me. Further, some knowingly choose to directly compare the images of films from different time periods that used different filming technology, and I feel that this is a rather large error.

DJ