JoshB
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2001
- Messages
- 903
- Real Name
- Joshua Bal
Yes, perhaps their are differences. I too have noticed differences in quality in the video area, but only slight improvement, and only in certain scenes and only in certain movies. If I'm going to get a BETTER release that boasts higher quality all around, I would much rather see BIGGER improvements throughout the entire movie rather than just a few scenes that I have to really take a good look at. In the audio area, it normally exists when a DTS track has been added. In some cases(The Mask of Zorro) a Superbit was not needed, since the previous 2-Disc set had a DTS track and great picture quality. The DTS tracks probably had no difference at all, and the only improvements would be in the video areas. In some cases with Superbits, unless you have a widescreen TV or some other expensive high end set, it is very difficult to notice differences unless you have both copies on hand and can do a comparison. In some scenes, yess differences are noticeable, usually in detailed scenes. But in others, with faster moving sequences, it may be more difficult. In the case of BHD, where grain is intentional, a Superbit would proabaly not solve this. Yes, the bit rate would be higher, but since the film was shot this way, it would be very hard to notice improvements.
In certain scenes in this movie (BHD), that are moving very fast and have intentional grain, I thought the transfer was handled well. The only reason to have a Superbit of BHD would be for the audio, and thats all. Many felt this way about the previous release. If a Superbit is to be released, it should be a title that would show off both the audio and video areas. With a film like BHD, the transfer makes it difficult to notice improvements in detail and any other scenes. I'll bet that if a Superbit could be made of some of Spielberg's films(A.I., Saving Private Ryan, and Minority Report) you would notice little if any difference in video quality, due to the intentional grain. So far, none of the current Superbits have been shot in this manner. Their for, a Superbit of a film that has intentional grain would be a waste, because the grain(and high contrast in some cases) is still their and can't be taken away or improved. Thats the way it was shot.
I know this all can be argued, since Superbits have a higher audio and video bit rate, but if you are going to use it, make it worth while. I don't see the need to use it in a film that will only improve certain areas. Unless you remaster or improve the negative and use a different(or better one) it is still the same transfer, just lack of features and higher bit rate. It should be a film that will show off the A/V qulaity and be noticeable, even to those with smaller televison who buy the Superbit for this case.
Also, Superbits have caused some harm because they put too many of the same title on the markets. With some of these titles, their are already 2 and soon 3 of the same release. Unless you can afford both, you are stuck with one. People should be able to make a choice more easily. They see 2 of the same movies, but they are different. One has extras but isnt a Superbit, and the other is. All Superbit is really a fancy package with a logo slapped on it that boasts higher quality. It is still the same film, same transer, lack of extras and a louder soundtrack.
In certain scenes in this movie (BHD), that are moving very fast and have intentional grain, I thought the transfer was handled well. The only reason to have a Superbit of BHD would be for the audio, and thats all. Many felt this way about the previous release. If a Superbit is to be released, it should be a title that would show off both the audio and video areas. With a film like BHD, the transfer makes it difficult to notice improvements in detail and any other scenes. I'll bet that if a Superbit could be made of some of Spielberg's films(A.I., Saving Private Ryan, and Minority Report) you would notice little if any difference in video quality, due to the intentional grain. So far, none of the current Superbits have been shot in this manner. Their for, a Superbit of a film that has intentional grain would be a waste, because the grain(and high contrast in some cases) is still their and can't be taken away or improved. Thats the way it was shot.
I know this all can be argued, since Superbits have a higher audio and video bit rate, but if you are going to use it, make it worth while. I don't see the need to use it in a film that will only improve certain areas. Unless you remaster or improve the negative and use a different(or better one) it is still the same transfer, just lack of features and higher bit rate. It should be a film that will show off the A/V qulaity and be noticeable, even to those with smaller televison who buy the Superbit for this case.
Also, Superbits have caused some harm because they put too many of the same title on the markets. With some of these titles, their are already 2 and soon 3 of the same release. Unless you can afford both, you are stuck with one. People should be able to make a choice more easily. They see 2 of the same movies, but they are different. One has extras but isnt a Superbit, and the other is. All Superbit is really a fancy package with a logo slapped on it that boasts higher quality. It is still the same film, same transer, lack of extras and a louder soundtrack.
