HTF HD DVD REVIEW: The Perfect Storm (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (1 Viewer)

[ClaytonMG]

You have to manually turn on the EX/ES on your reciever.

 

[Member 323668]

No need to get angry, Herb. Absolutely nothing personal. I really do appreciate the time and effort spent by some individuals like you, Gary Toze or Robert Harris to inform the public about new releases and express their thoughts about the film itself and the technical details. No slap in your face, rather a highly appreciative touch.

On the other hand, I think many us agree to the fact that some sites or magazines are biased in favour of the studios, being important for advertisement revenue. (or some are just incompetent)

That's the reason for me reading YOUR comments about new releases, rather than rely on other sources. Thanks again for your work. I 90 % agree with most of your reviews. Please take my critical arguments rather as an appreciation of your reviews, not as an insult. If your reviews wouldn't be important for me and lots of other members, I wouldn't bother at all posting here.

I am sure you remember very well the discussions about Warner's new release of "Wizard of Oz". I remember dozens of threads, whether the color timing is correct and the color of Dorothy's clothes is representative for the original theatrical prints. These are quite subjective things. Peter liked it, Mary didn't. HT equipment adjustment could cure many problems and hurt feelings.

Are or are we not discussing a totally different problem here? A verifiable technical fault in Warner's interlaced transfers. I learned, that in this forum, many do not care about it, as for them the transfer is an improvement to the SD presentation. George Feltenstein keeps repeating Warner's policy: "Do it right the first time or don't do it at all." That's all I am asking for. I don't want the inevitable special edition three years later with the quality seal "this time a genuine artifact-free progressive HD transfer." Maybe those who are trying to ridicule my concerns now, will themselves be disappointed later, when their new HT equipment suddenly reveals all the ugly flaws of these wrongly-done transfers.

 

[Robert Harris]

Two points...

Warner is aware of this, and has segregated HD-i masters.

Enlarge any image enough, and you'll end up with little that one would wish to view. Be it the grain structure in a 70mm film frame, the maze of electronic information held within pixels of a SD frame, or similar electronic information in an HD frame.

Still photographs, motion pictures on sprocketed film and video images on a screen are meant to be viewed from a minimum cohesive distance in order to achieve a positive viewing environment.

That said, from a rational distance via a 2k projector on a 100+ inch screen, the image of Perfect Storm looks fine on my system.

Could it be marginally better if based upon a progressive master?

Yes.

Would the image be readily discernable by the average eye?

Probably not, unless viewed in specific scenes, with little movement on a split screen.

RAH

 

[BrandonJF]

I'm not getting the impression anyone is trying to "ridicule" your concerns. I don't think anyone questions that you can see what you say you see. There are others that share your opinion and are as passionately irritated by what WB is doing as you are. It's just hard for those of us who aren't experiencing the issue to be as passionate about it and it's much easier to focus on all of the good things we see with the transfer.

In any event, you are correct that it should've been done correctly the first time since some are obviously affected by it and there is always the potential for those of us who aren't affected today to be affected down the road.

Robert says WB is aware, so it's hopefully being resolved.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey All,

Herb,

GREAT review as usual FANTASTIC to see you reviewing HD DVD content. Good job!

Also thanks for noting the mild "softness" of this tranfer.

Indeed, from 1.5 screen widths, that's the main "problem" one would see with these "bobbed" 1080i->p warner conversions especially on a 1280 x 720P projector (which only has about 1/2 the resolution of full 1920 x 1080 when fully realized).

Thanks also goes to Johannes for digging deep to expose exactly what these problems are.

I understand the "thrill" of HD certainly in comparison to any SD presentation... 1080i "filtered" or not! So on the one hand, as Herb and RAH have done, let's give credit where it is due and enjoy an HD image that looks acceptable.

On the other hand, this early right out of the gate of HD is the perfect time to keep the bar from dropping down as the studios are "testing" the market to see how much time, energy, or $$ they need to put into mastering HD content to make the enthusiasts happy. Do you all remember the "praise" that was given to non-anamorphic 4x3 lbxed DVDs in the early days of DVD? It was difficult to find a review that would criticize because even 4x3 lbxed DVD could look so much better than laserdisc.

HOWEVER,

The enthusiasts were only properly served by the studios once they started to demand 16x9 mastering to get the full quality that DVD could offer. In the meantime... we had *years* of many 4x3 lbxed DVD titles as the studios tried to save $$ by not having to create any new masters.

Now we have the same problem with hi-def. IMO, now is not the time to blindly praise every HD image because it happens to be a vast improvement over our SD legacy... now is the time to let the studios know that we want them to provide FULL HD quality.

That doesn't mean we have to get angry with a great company like Warner Brothers. It doesn't mean everyone has to boycott an HD DVD that looks vastly better than their SD DVD just because it's a non-optimized 1080i-conversion.

BUT, let's keep both sides of the debate alive... because just like with 16x9 encoding for SD DVD, it was the voices of the HT community that would *not* be satisfied with recycled 4x3 lbxed masters that ultimately pushed the studios to invest in new 16x9 mastering--which then benefited *EVERYONE*.

Same here.

Thanks goes to enthusiasts like Johannes who calmly and objectively talk about the problems with these masters. This is one of the few webforums that actually understands and talks about problems like this. This is our chance to ensure that Warner improves future HD DVD authoring. It's a great opportunity that will benefit *all* enthusiasts.




Exactly. Just like only a small fringe of HT "extreemists" cared about 16x9 in 1997. But thank god we didn't let the ridicule for our "anamorphiatic" position stop us...because now the whole HT community enjoys 16x9 as a matter of course because of our early efforts. I'm thrilled that some HT enthusiasts have caught on to the problem of bad 1080i-p conversion early in the live of HD DVD... this is something the studio can easily FIX... and it doesn't even require a new film-digital transfer... just proper deinterlacing!


Had the studio merely applied proper 3-2 pulldown reversal for full frame-reconstruction when deinterlacing the legacy 1080i60 masters of these films for 1080p24 HD DVD authoring, the image would look much "sharper" and more detailed. That doesn't even require a $$ new film-digital transfer! In fact, it costs no $$ at all! It just takes a little *thinking* by the guy doing the mastering to make sure he uses a real 3-2 deinterlacer for 1080i60 film-source material rather than the run-of-the-mill bob/weave deinterlacing algorithm built into most software.

Heck, folks at AVS are using their home PC to deinterlace film-source 1080i60 video to the original 1080p24! This isn't rocket-science... the Warner Guys just need a little "wake up" call to get their head around this one and do it right.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Well, a review of any HD or SD disc that wants to tell people reliably about technical issues with the transfer must use equipment that pretty much fully resolves what is on the disc, does not add anything relevant or take away anything relevant. Basically you need properly calibrated professional equipment. Consumer and prosumer equipment goes so far and then begins a gray zone of uncertainty about why you see what you see and what it means.
Add to that that the perception of artifacts is also quite subjective and what one person recognizes as an artifact the other does not and vice versa independent of the fact that objectively there is an artifact or that there is none (however the term is defined and used in the context).
Now, there is no doubt that half vertical resolution is a very visible issue if you watch this film on a 1080p resolution system and sit close enough to resolve all 1080p detail. It's about as much resolution as SD PAL in that direction. HD becomes SD. You also get severe aliasing if there is no vertical filtering but incompatible video fields merged together. The Warner discs seem to use a mixture of both. The horizontal resolution still is HD so you get a mixture that looks sharper than SD but less sharp than good HD. If you watch in on a 720p system the issue is less visible.
1080i film based HD transfers made 1080p without proper inverse pulldown are not acceptable for high end quality discs. This is below consumer equipment level capabilities where correct inverse pulldown is now available for SD and HD. Bad move from WB. Shortsighted. Nobody is forcing them to release 1080i masters like this or in this critical introductory phase if they can't do any better for now. There are plenty of genuine 1080p masters around.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I would have to say that a proper 1080p master off a pristine source from the newest telecine machines, or even the original 2k or 4k HD IP master (if one exists for some of these films) would probably look much better than a 540p "bobbed" conversion from 1080i/60 old school masters.

If WB and other studios pull this kind of crap on premium quality and premium priced media such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, they won't be getting my dollars!

They should be releasing stuff with new state-of-the-art masters, and then holding their inferior quality back catalog until they can do new ones that do these formats and the films proud.

And yet, it's all about "the Benjamins" at the end of the day, isn't it?

Dan

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Well, I thought the picture looked fine and the sound was awesome.

Thanks for the review, Herb!

- Steve

 

[Vincent_P]

Lots of early DVDs looked "far better" than the movies had ever looked at home before, but when you got down to it, they were in fact riddled with artifacts and didn't represent at all what the format was capable of. Giving a pass to incorrectly reconstituted "1080P" HD-DVDs taken from 1080I masters is, quite simply, not the right way to handle this issue.

If Warner Bros. can't correctly convert their 1080I masters to 1080P, then at the very least they should RELEASE the HD-DVDs in native 1080I. At best, they should remaster from scratch to 1080P from the original film elements. But this shoddy 1080I-to-1080P conversion crap is completely unacceptable.

Vincent

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Vincent,

I can't imagine why WB is incapable of using an algorithm to do proper frame reconstruction. I think that the authoring house just has *no clue*. Hopefully that will change very soon.

IMO, WB is a studio that's "big enough" to not make a mistake like this.

I might have purchased a non-anamorphic DVD from a small independent studio in 1998, but even then I was boycotting non-anamorphic DVDs from major studios who "knew better". Never did buy that original Titanic. Won't buy "bobbed" HD media either.


Yes, your notion to release in native 1080i60 on HD DVD is one possible solution... that way a future player with 3-2 cadence could restore progressive playback.

BUT...

it's so easy... all they have to do is use 3-2 pulldown instead of bob-deinterlacing. You can get software on a PC that will do it just fine. It's not complicated. And it's not $$!



Yes. Right now bobbed transfers will get lots of widespread praise because they still look so much better than SD. But in a few years when full-resolution 1920 x 1080 progressive-scan displays are more common and folks start to compare bobbed HD titles next to real 1080p24 authored discs... the shortcomings will become more obvious.

WB has enough smart guys that they have no excuse for this type of mastering.... even if it's being out-sourced to some 3rd party authoring house. They need to get involved and get this fixed.

Heck... like you say they can just *wait* on old 1080i60 masters until they figure out how to do it right. Plenty of real 1080p24 stuff waiting to go in the meantime!!!

 

[Juan C]

Look at the bright side - If these masters look fine to you, then so will downrezzed ICT discs!!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Actually that's not far from the truth. The horizontal resolution of these masters is probably already less than the 1920 possible due to older mastering practices and bobbing 1080i to 1080p usually results in an effective vertical resoution closer to 540p.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Don't knock the current transfer if you have not seen it. Same goes for David.

- Steve

 

[Juan C]

Did you overlook the smilies (mine and David's)? It's called humo(u)r.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Steve,

do i have to "see" a 4x3 lbxed DVD transfer in order to be critical of a studio not using the full vertical resolution of the DVD format?

No. Because as good as any 4x3 lbx transfer could look, the *same* transfer done properly in 16x9 would have 33% more vertical detail.

Neither do I need to "see" an HD DVD in order to criticize the studio for providing you and me, the HT community, with a title using only approximately 1/2 of the 1080 format's full vertical resolution potential by having bobbed/weaved an older 1080i60 master to 1080p24.

I'm not slamming HD DVD or Herb's excellent review or anyone for enjoying this HD DVD title which looks *vastly* better than the SD DVD.

I'm criticizing WB for not providing an HD DVD product that makes proper use of HD DVD's potential in the hopes that they'll stop incorrectly mastering older 1080i60 tapes by the practice of bob-deinterlacing.

I would think we should all agree on this.

 

[Dave H]

I agree 100%.

Hopefully, between this forum and AVS the message will get pounded into the skulls of people who make these decisions....as it seems it takes a hell of a lot of pounding. I'm sorry, but there is no good excuse for this - these people should know SO MUCH better.

Unfortunately, we've been down this similar road how many times with letterboxed DVDs? I mean we still have many SD titles not released anamorphically/OAR.

If they continue with these screw-ups, I fear they will NEVER get fixed on many titles as many never got fixed on standard DVD. :frowning:

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Dave H,

my thoughts exactly.


GOOD POTENTIAL NEWS: Word is (I've been told by a source I cannot name) that a few HD DVD titles have been "indefinitely delayed" while the powers that be look into the matter of 1080i60->1080p24 conversion to ensure that it's done correctly the next time around...

I'll let you know if I learn anything futher. Let's hope that the studios (all of them) learn these lessons well and learn them early. It would suck if just like 4x3 lbxed DVD, we got stuck with years and years of non-optimal mastering on a key issue like this in hit-or-miss fashion.

 

[Neil Joseph]

Thanks for the review. I am most curious about the DD TrueHD audio as there do not seem to be many HD-DVD's with that capability... Phantom Of The Opera is the only other one that I am aware of right now

 

[Adam Tyner]

Constantine and Training Day include TrueHD tracks as well.

 

[TonyD]

these tracks dont actually work yet, no players can do it?