What Blu-ray discs do you consider as "Reference Video Quality"

Do you mean amazing in a good way or amazing in a bemused way? I didn't much care for what he did to the look.

Bemused, definitely.  I shake my head in amazement that he would change it like that.  It shows that the director is NOT always right about the look of a film.

All discs that accurately render the master used are reference concerning disk mastering. All masters that accurately render the underlying film within the technical parameters of the master format are reference masters. So an overall reference Blu Ray would accurately render a reference master. The closest thing we have are probably CGI animations made directly from files and compressed with high enough bit rates so compression artifacts are a non issue at real time watching. High bit rate Blu Rays coming from DI data are also good candidates, or carefully done new transfers of older films from the best sources presented again at high bit rates.

RE: the automatic use of EE in the film transfer process, while I don't know the actual transfer process enough to be sure, but it could possibly be a case where some form of EE (and/or DNR) is a necessary "evil" considering whatever technological compromises may exist in the actual transfer process.  Afterall, I'm pretty sure the mapping of film to (compressed) digital video is not some sort of perfect 1-to-1 process.

In the world of *still* photography, some form of EE is often applied even w/in film itself -- Ansel Adams for instance is well known for doing such cooking of his photos though not necessarily the same exact ways discussed here -- not just as a matter of film-to-digital transfer.  And it's certainly common to apply some amount of EE to digital still processing though it usually varies according to the target output, eg. you don't apply the exact same processing for a 4x6 still as you would for a poster-size enlargement, you would also vary it depending on type of output.

And while some may argue what Ansel Adams (and other photogs) did was needed to create the final look he wanted and is not the same as this, I would beg to differ.  The "final look" is what we as the audience gets to see w/ our own eyes whether it's a theatrical film projection or a BD image presented on our own HT display of choice.  When the BD master is produced, all the factors involved in the "final look" that we as BD consumers see should be considered, IMHO.

No, I'm of course not asking for the BD master to simply cater to the lowest common denominator (and thus apply excessive amounts of EE and DNR and whatever other processing), but let's also not have some sort of knee-jerk reaction that all forms of EE and DNR are unnecessary evils.

EE and DNR, when used properly for the best possible results, should be no different than color correction for instance -- and I'm pretty sure color correction is done somewhat automatically to some extent too.  Most people also don't realize their film processing at the typical photo lab regularly require color and exposure corrections too -- and it's usually done automagically by the 24-hour lab machines.

Since the processing of a 2-hour movie involves lots and lots of frames, it makes a lot of sense for some of these processing techniques to be applied at least somewhat automatically.  Probably what actually happens is the process goes thru multiple passes where certain automatic processes get tweaked (either toned down or increased or adjusted in whatever other ways possible) depending on the results and whether the mastering folks (and filmmakers) find whatever compromises (if needed) to be acceptable or not.

There probably isn't any such thing as "true perfection" (yet?) when it comes to the film transfer process.  Of course, again, I'm not suggesting Gladiator is what we should be shooting for -- just that we shouldn't overcriticize/demonize all uses of whatever processing techniques.

_Man_

I saw a link to a video discussing Warner's film restoration process, in which they talk about the fact that they never automate dirt/scratch removal--they always have a person doing it.  It sounds like no one bothered to take that approach with Gladiator.  Also, what everyone is upset about is the egregious and COMPLETELY unnecessary overuse of DNR and EE.  It doesn't have to be that way, shouldn't be that way, and ISN'T that way for a number of very fine releases.

As for the concept of perfection, I often see it stated or implied (not necessarily from you, Man) that people complaining about discs like Gladiator are overly demanding nitpickers, demanding superhuman standards of perfection from the poor beleaguered mortals at the studios.  It's utter nonsense.  We're asking that these people give us their best effort, which is NOT the same thing as demanding "perfection".  Here's an example of why the "perfection" claim is so much hogwash:  I just read a post describing a viewing of the new Braveheart BR: "It seemed like FILM and never video".  As far as I'm concerned, you can't ASK for higher praise than that.  The word "perfect" doesn't appear ONCE in his post.  As a matter of fact, I've seen a few posts stating that a few dirt specks can be seen here and there on the Braveheart disc.  And you know what?  I don't GIVE a rat's ass, and neither do other people who are glad Braveheart looks the way it does--like FILM.  So much for that "perfectionist" claim.

At the risk of boring some, I'll repeat something ad nauseam.

The problem with the overuse of DNR (in all of its various digital incarnations) is that it need not be used at all when combined with the capacity of a Blu-ray disc.  When used it should be generally to balance out the look of a shot or two in a simple transfer that may include a couple of occasional old dupes and no quality back-up.

For newer films, and anything created in the past 25 years fits neatly into that category, there is generally no need.  Not to give car salesmen a bad name, but the use of DNR today reminds me of buying a car.  After the deal is struck, one is led into a sanctum sanctorum, where the unsuspecting consumer is turned over to the closer.  It is his (or her) job to sell you "stop-a-flat," seat protector, rust-proofing and paint sealant, to make that new car the "chick magnet" of one's dreams.

And this is precisely what, in my mind's eye, I can see going on when some unsuspecting mid-level studio actuary cuts a deal with a post house to turn their responsibility into the Blu-ray "chick magnet" of their superior's dreams.  How can one possibly turn down the offer, for merely another ten thousand, to turn that old film into something totally new and glorious.  

It's all good.  And it may move that parking spot just a little bit closer to the office.  And the money doesn't really matter, as it's at least partially charged back to the production.

Sorry, but that doesn't work.

Scan the properly selected original elements, clean dirt and detritus where necessary and without losing actual image information, add a pinch of color and density, and then downrez to HD.  This is a simple matter of doing less, spending less, and achieving a final higher quality result true to the original.  When there's a finished product to go through QC, have it examined by someone who knows what the film is supposed to look like on a large screen.

RAH


Edited by Robert Harris - 8/30/09 at 5:37am

Thank you, Mr. Harris.  I hope everyone realizes that what you ask for in your last paragraph is an utterly reasonable quality standard that all the studios should be held to and can quite easily achieve.  Doing so makes more money for them, makes consumers happy, and preserves the original look of the filmmakers much better.  It's an utterly win win situation for everyone.

It was overcompressed. Another WB low bit rate encode.

please describe the what was wrong with the picture and not the bitrate... :)

Here's to hoping FIGHT CLUB, North by Northwest, Forrest Gump, STARGATE and the rest of the titles I'm buying this quarter will be reference quality!

I know that Gulliver's Travels isn't reference quality. I'd like to think most of what Criterion, Sony, and Warner put out is "reference" quality even without prior knowledge of the accuracy. The Godfather is probably the only confirmed one off hand (for obvious reasons).

On a certain other website I was castigated for suggesting that THE GODFATHER on Blu-ray looked correct.  My crime?  I quoted the actual cinematographer of the film, Gordon Willis, who did a Q&A at the screening of the restored version of the film that I attended (said restoration having also been used for the Blu-ray) and said the look of the restoration was "dead on".  The person who 'corrected' me on that certain other website suggested in no uncertain terms that I was a fool to believe a man who had a "financial stake" in the film, as opposed to others who were posting negative impressions of the Blu-ray at that certain website.  Imagine how stupid I felt, to believe Gordon Willis as opposed to random internet posters regarding the proper visual look of THE GODFATHER!

Vincent

Egads, man! How could you? ; )

The Godfather looks terrific.

All this talk about reference quality makes me think of a friend of mine who has a nice HT set-up, but inexplicably buys full frame movies and watches them zoomed in (to fill the screen). He does so because he "doesn't like the black bars." To my eye, the picture doesn't look great. But he has a lot of movies and he enjoys them tremendously. So be it.

Another friend bought a widescreen TV some years ago and when I looked at her DVDs, I saw nothing but full screen (3 x4). I asked why she didn't get widescreen, and she said she didn't like the black bars. I said "well, then why buy a widescreen TV if you want full screen DVDs?" She said "Duh, I buy full screen because I want it to FILL the SCREEN!"

Something to keep in mind; while we're demanding reference quality, average consumers (who outnumber us) just want a big picture.

Gladiator.

Just kidding 

LOL, that's ridiculous.  

That term "full screen" is so confusing to most casual consumers.  They should have just called it "Square" cause when you call something "full screen" it implies that any other version is "not all of the screen". 

I'm of the mindset that if it looks like film on my television set, meaning grain, occasional specks of dirt (which is actually something I like to see IF it's there, because - and this may sound silly to some - it adds to the illusion of watching  film as opposed to video on my television set) if it is as natural a look as can be meaning no obvious signs of filtering (unless it was there intentionally, in a "300" sense of artistic intent) then it's gold to me and worth every penny for the disc.

It doesn't have to be the sharpest thing in the world, and certainly doesn't have to be the most digital looking thing in the world.

I don't know what a "reference" video is supposed to look like, I just know this is what I think of when I hear the term.

With "Braveheart" being the most recent big winner all-around, after seeing parts of the film in the new documentaries on the second disc and then sampling scenes of the film on its own, I'd easily call it reference, as I understand the term.

I think everyone's being a bit earnest, when what most people mean by "reference disc," is either 1) What disc do I hold up other blu rays against, to see if they pass muster? or 2) What disc do I put on to show people what high def means.

I understand a similar sentiment has been raised previously, but I'm suggesting that many people have answered that to them "reference disc" means faithfulness to original intent/presentation, when I believe this is just a technique to assuage the demon in us that thinks the most impressive images are the most clear and least filmic. The number of comments to this effect in a thread on "reference discs" suggests to me that many are worried that "reference disc" can not be anything but Pixar, because those look clearest.

I know I'm generalising here, so apologies, but I think my theory is quite probable.

As for my perspective, I agree that reference discs shouldn't be Pixar films,but ones that show how the upgrade from DVD should be. For that reason, I choose movies that looked horrible on DVD, which, for me has to come from the 70's: Bullitt and The Getaway are good examples.

Also The Searchers, not that it looked horrible on DVD, but because the difference is quite profound, and, since I'm so familiar with it, it feels profound to me when I put it on.

There are a lot of people here who take this stuff seriously, and that ain't gonna change!

 
You see, I think that's a seductive but false premise. You can't use a single disc to judge others. To take an obvious example: What use would the Blu-ray of WALL*E be in evaluating the Blu-ray of Grumpy Old Men (a disc I reviewed for HTF), which has a rough grainy image consistent with the period in which it was made and the intended look of the original film? GOM is a very fine transfer; "hold it up" against a digitally generated film like WALL*E,  as so many inexperienced reviewers seem to do, and it looks like crap.


If I want to show someone what hi-def means, I don't show them different films. I show them the same film in both standard resolution and hi-def. That's the only fair comparison. Some people don't see the difference (really); some people see the difference and don't care; some people are fascinated and say, "I want it!"

It takes all kinds.

Yes, but I really think this is the most useful conception of a "reference disc" thread, where the question is not: what is the best looking blu ray you own, which is a separate question, but which blu ray shows the best and most noticeable improvement over the DVD. So, with your example, if you were to show them the SD then the BD, you wouldn't choose something like El Cid or The Fall of the Roman Empire, based on recent reports, or, for me, I wouldn't choose Halloween, because I don't think the imporvement is as shocking; whereas something like The Searchers, which people used to be blown away by on SD, I think is an excellent candidate for using as a reference disc. Whereas something like Baraka, which has never had a SD release to my knowledge, or Planet Earth, which movie fans would not have cared about before HD, is not as helpful I don't think.

Actually, I'd go further than that if the purpose is to show someone else a comparison that's meaningful to *them*, not just us who are already part of "the choir".  It'd make more sense to show them a SD vs HD comparison of films/programs they personally care about (or we at least believe they'll care about), not just anything we like ourselves, and also to do it on equipment/setup that they are likely to be able to own themselves -- that is of course if I'm actually trying to show them what *they* can have by going BD themselves.

For instance, if a classic catalog film fan asks me how much better BD is than DVD, I should be showing him/her comparisons of films like Gone w/ the Wind, Casablanca, Bonnie & Clyde, etc., not so much something like The Incredible Hulk (unless they also love such "modern" flicks).

Of course, depending on what exactly I have in my BD/DVD library, it may not be possible to do a particularly good job of that for certain folks, but then again, personally, I didn't get into this "hobby" to impress other people or to win them over to the latest tech/format be it DVD before or BD now.  I'll gladly share and enjoy the experience of watching a BD or two or whatever w/ them in my moderately equipped HT or simply lend them a few titles to watch on their own gear at their own leisure.  I'll help them make solid choices about whether and what to upgrade and roughly what they can expect from such upgrade(s), but providing some sort of "reference discs" presentation or similar to try to "win them over" is not a primary concern to me.

And in the end, the question is a bit moot anyway because what would matter most to me won't necessarily apply to others (well, certainly not to the majority of people outside HTF anyway ).  Then that basically brings us/me back to the "preaching to the choir" kinda thing -- heck, if I can't convince some relatives to watch their films/programs in OAR, how am I supposed to convince them about what I believe to be the "reference quality" approach to film transfers.   Indeed, we can't even convince many HTF-ers to watch their basic 4x3 TV programs in OAR on their brand new 16x9 displays.   I even have a brother-in-law who seems to consider himself somewhat of a purist, but his wife, my photography-major sister (who was of course trained to understand AR issues among other things), is amused whenever the subject comes up that he still defaults to using the zoom-and-stretch-and-distort mode on their 16x9 plasma unless they're watching a 16x9 DVD -- actually not too sure what he does for non-16x9 DVDs, whether they be letterboxed or 4x3 OAR.   Yeah, some folks do it because they fear burn-in (or so they claim), but IMHO, if that's gonna be a big issue/concern, then either don't buy a phosphor-based display or learn to work w/ the limitations/restrictions -- unless of course you really don't care that much about OAR (and should just admit it to yourself, if to nobody else).

_Man_

If you're right, then its probably not that helpful to define reference as upgrade-coercion discs. I guess the most fun thing to talk about is what are the best-looking blu rays that make you happy.

Of course there's a problem when running into releases like "The Dark Knight", which seem to be made to look poor on purpose for DVD, so when you look at the Blu-ray it's a massive improvement. It's s conspiracy theory many share. 

Sounds like a possible conspiracy.

Standard def has been rife with problems.  Look at generic facts.  A standard definition film of 2 1/2 hours in length.

In order to fit on a single disc, the film must be grain reduced to give it a moderately homogenized look and then heavily compressed to fit.  Any obtrusive grain turns to video noise, blacks become murky.  Overall resolution is reduced.

There is a way around the problem.

It's called Blu-ray.

Edited by Robert Harris - 9/6/09 at 5:18am

I don't know if it's a conspiracy, but since around the time the HD formats took off, many of Warner's new release titles (not their catalogue releases) have looked poor on DVD. Just loads of compression artifacts consistent enough across titles that it feels like they must be doing something wrong. Titles I've noticed have been Superman Returns, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (though the other catalogue Superman movies looked great), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, The Dark Knight, and The Departed. While most of these are lengthy movies, I don't think it's much of an excuse. These high profile titles have sections of such low quality that it's hard to believe they were released by a major studio. Thank God for Blu-ray.

I'm sure there are times when you buy the same title on both formats. I did for The Dark Knight, because I wanted a) a version I could play on anything and b) I wanted the bonus disc which has most of the IMAX scenes in their original AR. 

Unfortunately, those IMAX scenes on the bonus disc look the same as the film does on its own disc, and anyone who has the DVD version knows that's a big letdown.

Tying this post in with Robert's comments, just a layman speculating here, but is it possible that the problem is that studios only do one master; and now they concentrate on Blu Ray, which means they don't remove as much grain, because Blu can handle it, but according to Robert, DVD can't, so that grain shows up as video noise and other artifacts?

This is something now that I worry about with Lawrence of Arabia, one of my most treasured DVDs; is it true, Robert, that if they put your Lawrence restoration on Blu Ray, without going back to the source material, it would show up as quite DNR'd and EE'd, because DVD couldn't handle hardly any grain at all? (Apologies if this question is offensive to you, but its something I, and hopefully others, are worrying about with one of their favourite movies coming to Blu Ray soon).

I consider GHOSTBUSTERS to be reference material on ze Blu-ray. Hopefully GHOSTBUSTERS 2 will be also.

Lack of detail, deblocking filter softness, blocking. 15 Mbit/s VC1. Some is much higher, and some is much lower. Shot on Genesis, a camera with full 1080p resolution. What's wrong with the picture? It could be more faithful to the master it came from.

This could very well be the case. If I were still a DVD buyer I'd certainly be angry that DVD is being treated as an afterthought and is being put out nowadays with no regard for quality.