Blu-ray Review The Invisible Man: The Complete Series Blu-Ray Review (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

Unfortunately, I am cursed with a horribly nice projector and a terribly large screen (136" Constant Image Height), so if there are still problems, I will see them. My problem with the compression was not so much the virtually non-existent blocking but the overall softness and the incorrect aspect ratio.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Chuck B /t/321432/the-invisible-man-the-complete-series-blu-ray-review/30#post_3940722
One disc obviously won't look as good as 3, that's a no brainer. But all this talk about smoothing or "DNR HD" (which doesn't even exist) makes no sense. The discs don't look great, but that's the noise reduction's fault much more so then the low bitrate. And that's a separate step, before the video is even compressed. The compression itself is surprising considering the amount of video they fit on a disc. As I mentioned in my last post, the types of noise you get from low bitrates aren't there.
Also, from the sound of your posts, you never even saw the the discs. You can't just recycle terms you read from previous posts and make assumptions. Why because you rented other movies you didn't like and played them on a giant dull projector? Come on. I watched 6 episodes so far on a 58" plasma TV and they look a bit smooth. The picture looks much better then upconverted DVDs. The real problem was the decision to crop the video. Hopefully, they'll skip the noise reduction on the 4:3 version and they'll look even better.

I take great exception to your post and your statement about a giant dull projector, absolute nonsense, my projector is not "dull" it's incredibly film like in it's presentation and i have a dedicated room just for it's use which is a batcave.

As for the terms i used, here's how it all works, in order to fit 650 minutes of 35mm shot material ( containing film grain ) onto one Blu ray they must first apply digital noise reduction and the more of that you apply the less of the higher frequency information is retained and the more you add a blur filter to the whole product, this is well documented, you cannot argue with this, i mention DNR HD but you took the term and the way i mention it out of context, when you turn that dial up you lose detail and it's a term i am using to describe discs which are HD but have the smoothavision look to them.

Low bitrates and softness, go figure, that's due to filtering, the best detail has been removed.

Look at the review on page one, the reviewer even makes note of all this, the real problem is disc space, too much compression AND the decision to crop the footage.

Incidentally i received a reply regarding my query of why they only used one Blu ray disc. The reply below.


Price would be a minimum of $50.00 online or in the store. Price would not be competitive and would not sell many copies.

Our objective with this title is to sell 10,000 units overall between DVD sales and Blu ray. DVD sales are selling 2:1.


So there you go, personally i find $50 an okay price for a well done boxset, some sell for far higher than that and the price ALWAYS drops, i believe good reviews would help sell a boxset which came on 3 discs rather than one, obviously they disagree.

 

[Chuck B]

It doesn't matter that you're watching a giant screen in a batcave. You never saw the Blu-ray. And you don't have to add more digital noise reduction the more video you add to a disc. None of what you're saying is accurate. I'd say even the reviewer is wrong on this one. The DNR was probably added to cover up the enlarged film grain. The grain is probably acceptable at it's normal size, but not zoomed in 20 to 30% for the crop.
The two biggest factors in the quality of the image are the source material and the encoder used to do the job. If they messed up the picture by zooming, cropping and then over filtering, then that's the origin of the problem. The effect of the bitrate is marginal. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but none of the problems that appear from low bitrates are on the disc. Please take a second to read that last part over. The first thing you'd see would be macroblocking and there is none. Therefore, the number of minutes on the disc only plays a small role in the lack of quality.
I bought a Blu-ray for the same price as the DVDs were listed. I think that's kind of cool. They're going back and fixing the biggest problem with the disc (the cropping). I think that's even cooler.

 

[FoxyMulder]

[COLOR= rgb(51, 51, 51)]Not a chance in hell. But I totally understand why a studio would feel like they had been pushed into trying it due to the copy protection fees, and I wish them the best of luck.[/COLOR]

To fit 650 minutes of content onto a BD50, you'd have an average bit rate of about 9mbps.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

This also:
What a complete joke. Cutting the top and bottom off of films to appease ignorant consumers? Give me a break. Consumers who don't care about quality are well served by DVD and probably illegal downloads.
If they're so upset about being able to see the entire film, then they can use the aspect ratio controls on their TV or player to mangle the picture.

 

[Chuck B]

Even the link you post validates what I've been saying. The source and the encoder make a huge difference. That's the part you should have copied into your post.
Thanks for having someone else knowledgeable in the field back me up on this one. Enjoy the batcave!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Chuck B /t/321432/the-invisible-man-the-complete-series-blu-ray-review/60#post_3940888
Even the link you post validates what I've been saying. The source and the encoder make a huge difference. That's the part you should have copied into your post.
Thanks for having someone else knowledgeable in the field back me up on this one. Enjoy the batcave!

The link doesn't back you up at all, 9mbp/s on average is very low for a Blu ray encode and with film grain involved you cannot get away with such a low bitrate.

No one backed you up, you instead backed yourself into a corner, now have a very good day Chuck and i'm happy for you that quality doesn't matter to you, have fun with your small screen viewing.

( Gee i broke my not reply pledge - oh well never mind )

 

[Chuck B]

No, actually it does back me up. "What encoder are they going to use for this? That's going to be the clincher." That backs me up. It's a shame that not only does a comprehensive understanding of compression and video formats escape you, but so does simple logic.
The bitrate is low, and I'd like a multi disc higher bitrate set, but that's not available. The image (you know, the one I've seen and you haven't) isn't as good as it could be, but it's far better then upconverted content. And one more time, for good measure, there are no digital artifacts associated with low bitrates, so in some ways, they have gotten away with it.
So in summation, we have a cave dweller pontificating about something he doesn't understand on a disc he's never seen making fun of the fact that I watch television on a 58" screen.
I'll be looking forward to your review of the 4:3 version you won't have seen as well.
Now excuse me as I pathetically shlep over to squint in front of my tiny tv.

 

[FoxyMulder]

 

[Chuck B]

Fair enough, the localized term was foreign to me and I though you were making fun. I apologize for the tone of the response which was set off by this misunderstanding.
All this to say that we both seem to enjoy classic TV and the overall home theatre experience so there's really no need to go at it like this. I am very knowledgeable in the field as I work in a related industry and thought I'd share my overall impression of the disc. It did take a narrow view once we started discussing bitrates, but that's because many falsely see it as the end all be all of digital video quality.
Live and live sounds good to me.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Chuck B /t/321432/the-invisible-man-the-complete-series-blu-ray-review/60#post_3940940
Fair enough, the localized term was foreign to me and I though you were making fun. I apologize for the tone of the response which was set off by this misunderstanding.
All this to say that we both seem to enjoy classic TV and the overall home theatre experience so there's really no need to go at it like this. I am very knowledgeable in the field as I work in a related industry and thought I'd share my overall impression of the disc. It did take a narrow view once we started discussing bitrates, but that's because many falsely see it as the end all be all of digital video quality.
Live and live sounds good to me.

I appreciate this response, i agree with you that bitrate is not the overall factor in anything, the quality of the master they are using plays a huge part in this, the only thing i wanted to say was i felt putting everything on one disc was a compromise, nothing more, just my feeling and instinct based on years of watching Blu ray discs.

Anyway let's put this behind us and move forward, if we were talking face to face we'd probably have got along better, with the internet it's sometimes difficult.

 

[SimonTemplar]

Hello All
Jeff has sent me an email with a screen capture comparison to show how little quality is being lost by encoding the whole series to one disc. Has anybody else here had the email?
Best
David

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by SimonTemplar /t/321432/the-invisible-man-the-complete-series-blu-ray-review/60#post_3941442
Hello All
Jeff has sent me an email with a screen capture comparison to show how little quality is being lost by encoding the whole series to one disc. Has anybody else here had the email?
Best
David

Yes i got sent it, it proves nothing, both images look to have been de-grained and filtered, the grain is soft and mushy looking, by all means buy into the argument being used, i don't buy it.

 

[Chuck B]

I got it too and, please don't jump down my throat on this one FoxyMulder, I think it validates what I was saying from the beginning. The bitrate, or squeezing all those episodes on one disc, is having little effect on the image. I asked what the bitrates were in the splitscreen and was told that one side was at 9.5 mb/s and the other was at 25mb/s. Also I was told that there was no noise reduction added and the image was encoded directly from an "Uncompressed 10bit 4:2:2 file captured from HDCAM SR" and that the tapes were a straight transfer from 35mm to HDCAM SR.
I work in a related field and I can tell you that HDCAM SR is about the highest quality tape format that exists. Captured at the specs they mention would create files of almost 2TB per hour. I think that any picture quality issues at this point are source related.
Not to get into it again, but I'm really happy they decided to fix the biggest problem for me, which was the cropping. I think they should have just offered both from the beginning. That way anyone who likes cropped video could have gotten what they wanted and anyone who just wanted to enjoy the series as they remembered it could get the 4:3 one. I've already sent the other one back, now I'll have to wait an see what's been done with the new one.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I can't really argue with your points though, i suppose the only question i have is if this small independent company can put out a disc with 650 minutes and claim it is transparent to the master then why are the majors not doing it, why do they split the episodes up into at most 6 episodes a disc, i mean Warner is one of the best companies for squeezing as much as possible out of a disc and yet even they put at max only 6 episodes onto a disc, you would think if they felt you could get 650 minutes onto a disc they would do it because Warner pioneered with the help of Microsoft the use of low bitrates.



Maybe my logic is flawed but its a worthwhile point to raise.

 

[Chuck B]

I see what you mean. I think the only logical conclusion is that companies with bigger releases have the luxury of spreading the cost of their projects over tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of units sold. That often gives the big studios a "cost is no object" mentality in regards to the entire authoring process. I can't see VEI selling more then a couple thousand of these Blu-rays (maybe less with the bad reviews).
It's worth noting however that some of these encoders (Cinevision, Blu-code and some of the high-end hardware solutions) can do a pretty impressive job. I remember seeing some demonstrations a few years back at NAB and it was pretty cool. Sonic showed they're Cinevision encoder and it's got something called a peak signal to noise ratio monitor. That's a fancy term for a feature that does a frame to frame comparison of your original video and compares it to your encoded video. If there's too big of a variance between the two you see it right away on a graph. Also knowing your stuff helps alot. High end encoders have dozens of settings that can tweaked to bring out the most in an encode. Match that to a talented and experienced tech and you'd be surprised what you get.

 

[Ferdinand Hudson]

Any further news on this? When will the re-done disc go out and will the previous one get recalled (thus minimising the risk of annoying returns)? Anyone know yet?

 

[SimonTemplar]

Nope. No news. I emailed Jeff at VEI and asked to be kept up to date but have had no response.

 

[TravisR]

In all fairness, the change will probably take quite a while. I'd guess it won't happen until the fall months.

 

[SimonTemplar]

You are right, Travis. I imagine it will take a while. It would be nice if they kept in touch in order to re assure their potential customers.