The Royal Tenenbaums: How bad is the EE? (LARGE IMAGES) (1 Viewer)

[Sean Oneil]

Looked alright to me on my 55"

 

[Seth Paxton]

I would consider the watery look around edges to be MPG compression effects as opposed to edge enhancement.

They can be mistaken for each other. Like a white on black text. It gets watery around the edge thanks to compression and you get that greyish effect into the black. That's not edge enhancement.

Instead look for a distinct visual "ringing", like the line is being drawn again for emphasis.

At least that's what my limited experience and training has shown. I would always default to Bjorn's opinion on the matter.


As for the RT look. I found my setup had it too bright, but then I didn't calibrate for the title. I use a Sony W400Q LCD front projector.

I wasn't too worried about it at the time so I just let it go. But normally Criterion puts the color bars on the title so that you can calibrate for that specific transfer. Are the bars on there (haven't looked yet myself) and did any of you calibrate with them and still get a washed out look or other color problems?

BTW, I thought the DTS sounded pretty good. Dialog wasn't drowned out like DD sometimes does for my system.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Just wanted to take a sec and say THANKS for such an educational thread! I've always known what Edge Enhancement was (sorta), but now I feel like an expert!

 

[Mark_Wilson]

I'm not usually distracted by artifacts/ringing but the last two titles I bought they stood right out(Jimmy Neutron/RT). In most of the outdoor shots almost all horizontal items have Ringing (EE for lack of a better term). This on a 55" Mits HDTV fed from a Panny H1000 prog. scan player. I've done the simple VE calibration and sharpness is at 0 and SVM disabled. Its gets ISF'd next week. I watched Pearl Harbor DC last night and wasn't distracted by any EE/Ringing.

I haven't watched Rushmore yet but this made me wonder if BV is doing the transfers and not Criterion.

 

[ChrisMatson]

I watched RT last night and thought the picture quality was very good on my 36XBR450.

 

[Michael Reuben]

although I wasn't into HT then, I'm unaware of EE complaints with laserdisc

The big issue with LD was video "noise" -- vibrating colors, esp. reds and browns, unstable edges, etc. Since DVD generally eliminates those issues, other elements become more noticeable. In fact, I suspect one of the reasons we have EE was to compensate for the high levels of video noise on analog formats.

M.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I found Pearl Harbor: DC to have a huge amount of edge enhancement on horizontal lines; in the cropdusting sequence, the plane looked like it had multiple wings very close together! I thought it was very distracting.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The only times someone can point EE out clearly is, like Vince did, blow it up to abnormal proportions.

This is not a personal attack by any means. But I do want to take this opportunity to make a general statement about home-theater:
It's time we stop thinking of a 27" TV as "normal" and a front-projection system as "abnormal". This is HOME THEATER. If you don't have a 25-30 viewing angle when you watch your movies then your movies are TOO SMALL.
It's just fine that most of us watch our movies on "too small" displays (myself included). But we're getting by on a compromise. Movies were designed to be viewed *big*. The front projection guys (or those with a decent RP set who can get a good image with a 30 degree angle) are the only one's doing it *right*. It's what the rest of us should be aiming for as prices fall and technology improves.
Oh...and a well mastered DVD can look just stunning with a 30 degree viewing angle. Not as 3-D or detail-rich as a true HD image...but very VERY watchable.
EE, ringing, and other video artifacts are not inherent problems with 720 x 480 format...they are problems with mastering and compression and they can be avoided if care is taken during production.
Oh...and DVDs aren't NTSC. R1 DVDs are 720 x 480, 480I/P, 4x3/16x9, component digital video discs that are *standard definition* digital.

 

[Chad R]

It's time we stop thinking of a 27" TV as "normal" and a front-projection system as "abnormal". This is HOME THEATER. If you don't have a 25-30 viewing angle when you watch your movies then your movies are TOO SMALL.

But NTSC was not designed with that large size in mind, that's all I'm saying. Yes, movies were designed to be shown big, but on 35mm film. NTSC was designed in the 30's I believe, and never was it conceived that anyone would want to blow up that signal to the sizes we do today.

My thing is with EE, is that I don't see it. I don't go out of my way to look for it. I have a 27" TV with component inputs and just don't have the problems most do with it.

For instance, on Vince's 'Never Cry Wold' example. That looks more like a source problem than EE. The print used to source the disc was probably bad, and that has been known to play havoc with MPEG encoding.

Call me naive, but I believe Van Ling when he says EE was not added to TPM. I believe David Prior (was it him?) who said that no EE was added to "Die Hard 3". Much of what I can see people complaing about as EE in these movies are just high contrast, something NTSC has struggled with forever.

And David, you never came across as personally attacking me, just questioning my argument which is fine. I may be wrong, and probably am. I just think we're all too quick to say EE these days.

By the way, I watched Royal Tenenbaums last night and had no problem with it. It looked great to me. The movie wasn't half as good as "Rushmore," but it looked great.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

I don't remember any of this in Ron's review.

No offense to Ron, who seems like a nice guy and definitely does the HT community a service as one of the owners of this site, but he seems to think that pretty much every recent transfer looks great. He often calls discs "reference quality" even though my personal experience and that of other reviewers says otherwise. And I don't think I've ever seen him complain about EE on a disc (though admittedly I've only been reading his reviews for the a few months).

I think part of the issue here is that some people are just more sensitive to these types of artifacts and flaws than other people. It may be due in part to equipment and viewing distance, and maybe even eyesite; but I think it's mostly just the fact that some people don't notice it. Maybe it's my background in computers, but I can spot digital artifacts very easily, and I also tend to notice (and get annoyed by) EE.

 

[GaryEA]

It's time we stop thinking of a 27" TV as "normal" and a front-projection system as "abnormal". This is HOME THEATER. If you don't have a 25-30 viewing angle when you watch your movies then your movies are TOO SMALL.

DaViD, does this mean that until I have the disposable cash to buy a large screen, rear projected television, I don't qualify to participate in discussions of this nature? Or how about HT and DVD in general? After all, I'm watching films on a screen that's too small. :rolleyes
Your argument about screen size seems appropriate in regards to EE, but becomes moot in other categories, such as the collective interest in the format, or in a film's release. I understand that there are certain criteria when it comes to reviewing DVDs, and screen size may be one of them. For some people.
At the same time, I'm not gawking at the screen looking for imperfections - I'm watching the film. If an imperfection catches my eye, it will bother me, but such matters are secondary. When a review goes into detail about blemishes, EE and the like, I pass by it. I want to know if the film is presented well, complete and worth my purchase.
Simply put, I watch films in a manner you would regard as "too small", and in my opinion, the normal/abnormal comparisons is silly, even if I owned a 55" screen. Each person has the equipment they can afford, that they enjoy and that they can maintain.
I've got a love of film, and a library of films that I love.
This is what I constitute as HOME THEATER.
I didn't take your post personally, but I did feel that an honest, contrary opinion was in order.
Take care,
Gary

 

[Jay Sylvester]

Vince,

I agree with you on the artifacting problems around the titles. I think it's a limitation of MPEG encoding, not deliberate edge enhancement. I was watching Black Hawk Down on my projector last night. Looking at the edges of the white captions during the blue grainy scenes at the beginning, the same type of artifacting is present. And that's a very clean, artifact-free transfer overall.

Block-style compression schemes don't work well with solid colors. If you look at a JPEG image with solid colors in it, it's easy to pick up on the blocky artifacts, yet the same image saved as a GIF won't exhibit this problem (banding is usually a problem with GIFs).

My concern is that these types of artifacts will only get worse on HD-DVD if we use MPEG4 and higher compression ratios.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Quote:

I've got a 34" direct-view TV that is "too small" to properly experience films the way the director intended. It doesn't stop me from enjoying my DVDs and it doesn't stop me from participating in discussion so I wouldn't expect it to stop you either.
I'm just honest that just like with P/S or with audio that's not mixed like it is in the theater on home-video, on a screen as small as mine with the viewing distance I have, I'm not experiencing the films to in a way that preserves the sense of impact or visual involvement that the director intended. It's not an opinion. It's a simple fact. A movie that clearly illustrates what I mean is Moulin Rouge. Watch it in the theater or on a projection system. Then watch it on a TV from 12 feet away. It's not the same experience at all as the visuals don't involve you or absorb you the way they can with a 30 degree angle of viewing.
That's the whole point of what I'm trying to say:
Just like those with 4x3-limited displays aren't "bad" for watching DVDs without taking advantage of 16x9 resolution and just like those with ProLogic systems aren't "bad" for not enjoying true 5.1 decoding of sound mixes, neither are those of us (like me) with small displays "bad" for not watching our movies with a 30 degree viewing angle on a large screen.
We just shouldn't have to pretend that we're not missing something the director intended to make ourselves feel better about our small screens. Instead, we should be excited that front projection technology is improving at a drastic rate while prices continue to fall.
I only used the word "abnormal" because that's what a previous poster was saying when they refered to EE only being visible on a screen that's "abnormally large". If the word abnormal sounds too judgement laden then replace it with this new syntax:
Rather than "Normal" or "Abnormal" consider the following:
Reference: the original film audio and video presentation/experience as intended by the director.
Compromise: the inevitable reality of deviation from the "reference" that we all experience given the limitations of the studios mastering abilities, format limiations, financial restrictions, and home-environment concerns.
Viewing movies on a small screen is a compromise; just like listening to a 5.1 soundtrack downmixed on TV speakers or watching a 16x9 anamorphic image downconverted for a 4x3 screen. Being enthusiasts and movie lovers, our goal should be to try to obtain as close to the "reference" point as we can given our abilities. At the very least, we should be able to honestly recognize our systems as compromised given the level of reference quality that can be acheived.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

This is a sticky point for me, in a few senses.

1) I have read repeatedly from sources whom I find to be far more technically adept than myself that DVD is not actually encoded as a 480p stream as a rule of thumb- and actually is mostly a raw 480i with flags that allow reconstruction more easily.

2) The pixel structure is not in a true 16x9 aspect- rather is a 4:3 anamorphic giving a full res in one direction but a trucated in the other. At it's core it is a 4:3 native.

In the digital world a 29.97 720x480 frmae is given the label NTSC. If you were to pull the raw feed directly off the disc, I would assume this is exactly as you would find the video. It sounds like DVD fits the description.

-V

 

[Mark_Wilson]

I found Pearl Harbor: DC to have a huge amount of edge enhancement on horizontal lines; in the cropdusting sequence, the plane looked like it had multiple wings very close together! I thought it was very distracting.

You're right, went back and watch the beginning. I had watched the first disc last week and only got around to Disc 2 last night.

Re: Ling and TMP, its always been my opinion that either that particular Telecine has 'enhancement' as a default enabled option or the operator was lying(CYA) or didn't understand the question.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

1) I have read repeatedly from sources whom I find to be far more technically adept than myself that DVD is not actually encoded as a 480p stream as a rule of thumb- and actually is mostly a raw 480i with flags that allow reconstruction more easily.

Well, I think that's only partly true. The fact that 480i frames are stored on the disc is more like a form of lossless compression, because the flags allow the player to perfectly reconstruct the original progressive frame. You end up with the exact same picture that you would have gotten if they stored the progressive frames on the disc, assuming the flags are correct, which is occasionally not the case (though recent releases are much better than the early days of DVD).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Exactly Jeff. Whether the fields are stored separately or not is irrelevant. If a 480P DVD player can reassemble them back into the original digital 480P frame...then you've got real 480P.

Quote:

Actually, a 30 field-per-second 4x3 720x480 digital, component interlaced signal is part of the Standard-Definition digital format. And since DVD can do even better with film source material...storing the images as 24 frame/48 fields per second in 16x9 format...that should make it even more clear.
NTSC is defined as a composite signal that is 480 (525 with overscan) interlaced 30 field-per-second in the 4x3 aspect ratio.
DVD does better than that.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Check out the Image City Lights disc.

The entire film is mostly contrasty images (like Charlie Chaplin's bowler in front of a white background).

There is NO EE whatsoever, but it is slightly soft.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It was an unnamed source at fox that denied the DH3 issue.

Vince is correct, although the unnamed source was reported to us by Fox's Peter Staddon, who made specific inquiries after reading some of our criticisms of the DH3 transfer.

M.

 

[Bjoern Roy]

First, some comments Re:Tenenbaum EE.
Similar to the characteristic on the TPM transfer, the Tenenbaum has more vEE (vertical ringing, visible at horizontal edges) than hEE (horizontal ringing, visible at vertical edges).
As a point of reference, I would rate the vEE on most horizontal edges as bad as on Pearl Harbor. Vertical edges (hEE) are mostly much better.
Its not as bad as TPM, but far from perfect. I am from the 'picture says more than 100 words' sort of people, so here we go:
Link Removed
The sniplet at the top shows the EE in Phantom Manace, the lower one is from Tenenbaum. Obviously worse in TPM, but quite annoying in Tenen as well. At least on my setup.
Everyone has to decide for yourself whether this is a disturbance to them.