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

The title pretty much says it all. I have heard some reports that there is a substantial amount of edge enhancement on this title, and I'm curious now that some members have the disc in their hands just how bad it is. This is probably my most anticipated title of the year, and I would hate to see it futzed up. I'm in Australia at the moment, and don't quite have access to see it firsthand!

I don't think it's as bad as has been said--- however I watched it back to back with anchor bay's "NEVER CRY WOLF" which has to be the worse example of edge enhancement I have ever seen.

There was something "not quite right" about the RT transfer- the titles looked a bit washy on my projector-- the whole thing had a slightly filtered look to it. I don't think it's unwatchable- I just thought it could have been better.

-Vince

I didn't notice it at all and I usually pick up on it since I have a Wega, which is very sharp.

I thought it was pretty bad. I watched it right after Jimmy Neutron which had some annoying EE. RT was way worse. Its not TPM bad but close.

Mark, Do you have a specific scene where you see it the most? I'd like to go back over it tonight, maybe do some captures.

-Vince

I didn't notice a lot of EE on my set, but I did notice inconsistant color thanks to Chas' red jogging suit. For half the film it was a brilliant red, later on it was washed out.

I am a little disappointed in the video. It just seemed overly saturated and murky.

Anyone notice any artifacts in the transfer?

There were a couple reviews that made mention of the artifacts, but I don't think anyone has confirmed or denied it yet.

No particular scenes come to mind. Each chapter stop is a shot of the 'chapter' from the book, the EE is pretty bad around the letters on the page but its not the worst scene by far. I'll try and find a real bad scene tonight.

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

i don't remember any of this in my viewing of the dvd yesterday either...

I watched it last night on a fairly old low end Mitsibishi 27 inch at my mom's place. I noticed some shots SEEMED muddy and washed out as well. One in particular was with Gene Hackman on the roof. I actually wouldn't want to say the transfer stinks as I am obviously not viewing it on optimal equipment. I just don't trust my eyes or that POS TV well enough to form an accurate opinion yet.

See, this is again where this whole issue gets a bit murky for me. Since the beginning of DVD, I've notice some pixelation around titles, specifically dark on light backgrounds, which I've always attributed to limitations of the mpg encoding process. Essentially these hard lines would be the hardest thing for the encoding scheme to handle- and as soon as they're blown up the compression artifacts on these types of edges become apparent.
What I saw on the title sequences for RT seemed exactly identical to the same artifacts I've seen on almost every DVD since the format was introduced. It's that slight noise you find around almost any hard blac on light background lettering. I did not think this to be "edge enhancement" as it is traditionally accepted - and I didn't notice it in many other places other than on the titles.
Maybe this is the "artifacting" issue some reviewers have pointed out, while others are referring to it as "edge enhancement". That's the problem I believe, that there appears to be some amount of confusion on exactly what picture flaws are caused by what- so everything gets lumped into categories where maybe it doesn't belong- thus confusing everyone involved.
When I think of EE, I think of a title like NEVER CRY WOLF, which I watched just before RT. Here's and example where titles have double lines because the EE is so bad--- Looks like someone deliberately used the Photoshop bevel feature:
[c]
[/c]
Another shot from Never Cry Wolf, again I don't think anyone can debate that this title is a great example of what edge enhancement looks like:
[c]
[/c]
But then we have the titles from RT, which don't have quote the same look:
[c]
[/c]
Here is a title clip from X-men, which is considered a ref quality trasfer by many. Look at the halos and blockiness around the titles- speficially on the right where it's set against white. I have never seen any complaints about X-men and edge enhancement- yet that same MPEG artifacting with titles seems to be there:
[c]
[/c]
Here is a title clip from JFK, another I have never seen any complaints about edge enhancement regarding- yet that same MPEG artifacting with titles seems to be here as well:
[c]
[/c]
-Vince

Thanks for all of the replies, guys. Seems like the jury is still out on this, everywhere I've gone nobody can agree on the quality of the transfer! But I'm with you Vince, I've ALWAYS noticed that titles look murky even on the finest quality transfers. Something I've just come to expect at this point!

I know I'm gonna get ripped for this, but here goes.

I've followed these EE threads for some time, and I have to agree with Vince. The only times someone can point EE out clearly is, like Vince did, blow it up to abnormal proportions.

I agree that what people are seeing is either limitations to the MPEG encoding, or to the NTSC sgnal itself. I know people have line doublers and progressive players, but it's still in teh end NTSC video which is criticized for its poor resolving power.

The majority of people I've seen complain about EE are those with projectors or RPTV's. I think all most people see (and I'm not completely discoutning the presence of EE) are just the flaws in the system blown up. NTSC wasn't designed to be blown up so big.

Isn't one of the reasons we're all so stoked to get HDTV's is because NTSC can only look so good?

this is Bjoern Roy's web site about edge enhancement. he usually rings..... into these posts when they pop up.

I just finished watching the film and I found the EE to be of the type that you'll notice if you're looking for it but it doesn't really intrude or draw attention to itself. Shots against the blue sky show some obvious EE but on the whole I thought the film didn't suffer from any overly obnoxious EE.

I'm not suggesting that you're wrong, but there are some flaws with that argument. Namely- on some discs, like NEVER CRY WOLF as shown above- I could readily see the "edge enhancement" artifacting even when it isn't blown up to "abnormal proportions". I could clearly see it on my 32 inch TV screen- and can easily see it on a 17 inch computer monitor. This is absolutely a prime example of filter enhancement applied to the master, probably in the telecine process.

I only chose to blow this up to make is readily obvious to any observer- but I would argue that it wouldn't take a videophile or a picky watcher to spot the ringing halos on this disc.

The second point I'd make is this. While it's easy to say edge ehancement is a simple issue of NTSC being blown up to a larger size- the fact is that it simply isn't present at all times.

I have discussed with Bjoern here on this forum what I think the true souce of "edge enhancement" is- but I think to act as if it is a necessary evil of NTSC signal is to give up a bit too easily. It is absolutely preventable, and to act as if it is an enevitable side effect of NTSC is to accept an evil that need not be accepted. There are many NTSC discs which look beautiful and have no unescessay enhancement added.

The problem is that too many middle grounds for artifacting exist. The term "edge enhancement" has become a catch all for edge artifacting- and I think this is a source of confusion both for those of us who seek to maximize our home theater experience and for those who attempt to figure out what the hell we're talking about (FOX/Ling and the TPM denial).

I hesitate to brand anything "edge enhancement" just because there is a slight haloing to an edge in the frame. I have seen DVDs from DV sources that have never seen film (let alone the telecine process which is the supposed source for "edge enhancement") and these discs have displayed the same adaptive haloing that Bjoern highlights on his site.

Edge enhancement is absolutely a real and preventable artifact-- not simply a side effect of big projections sets (although I wasn't into HT then, I'm unaware of EE complaints with laserdisc). My point is, and has been that by making certain statements about what an artifact is, and what causes it- we close the door to other possibilities which might help prevent the problems.

-V

I watched this DVD the other night while keeping in mind all of the alleged defects in the transfer. On my well-calibrated 36" Wega I noticed NO edge enhancement. The colors are indeed warm and saturated, but then Anderson mentions on the commentary that this was the look he was after. None of it ever looked washed-out. There were a few instances of jaggies appearing, and I probably noticed them only because I was looking for them.

This is a fine looking disc and that, while probably not "reference quality," is much better than the nit-pickers imagine it to be.

Well, this all sounds promising, and puts me more at ease. Sounds to me like it is authored the same way as the Criterion Rushmore and as Michael said, it's only there if you are really looking for it. I remember back in the day a few people saying Rushmore was an "EE mess," and I didn't agree at all. It only makes me really angry when it gets to Phantom Menace levels!