APOLLO 13 -- DTS or DD version: which is better? (MERGED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[Ted Ross]

Man, I must have bought a fake version at Walmart. I have the DD version i I thought it was one of the worst transfers I have seen in a while-it looks like a dupe from a tape!

 

[Dave H]

When Apollo 13 came out, it was reference quality.

For today's standards, it has certainly dropped. I think the current transfer is still pretty decent, but a remastered version would be nice. Compression artifacts are noticable - a common trait with those late 90's DVDs. Considering how slow Universal has been at re-releasing certain titles, I think it will be a very long time (if ever) we see a new transfer.

 

[Holadem]

Just adding to the chorus of praise for this DVD. I am no extra man, but Lowell commentary is a must-have for fans of this film. If I must only have one version, I would take this one over anything (HD-DVD, DVHS, Holodeck version, whatever) without the commentary.

--
Holadem

 

[JeremySt]

Yeah but this DVD is old by DVD standards. The obvious response to this is "less compresion sounds better" but IMO, both DVDs are nearly identical on sound. I own the DTS verion, but I think I'll pick up the DD version for the extras. The DTS version may have slighlty worse picture, but the PQ on the DD version in nothing to write home about. Both are pretty soft, fuzzy, and grainy.

Time for an Ultimate Edition with new transfer and sound mix!

 

[Chris Purvis]

that's my point - people are often saying things like "dts is better" or "if there were only more full-bitrate dts titles"

This thread seems to support the view that dolby digital done well is just as good sonically, even when compared to full-bitrate dts.

 

[Dan Kaplan]

This thread seems to support the view that dolby digital done well is just as good sonically, even when compared to full-bitrate dts.

Hmm, I wouldn't quite agree with that. A solid DD track holds up well against a rather uninspired DTS track in this case, but that doesn't really tell us anything. Apollo 13 wouldn't rank in the top half of the soundtracks in my collection...

To quote a coach I worked with for a few years, "you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t." I suspect full-bitrate DTS isn't all that meaningful if the material isn't overly dynamic in the first place.

Dan

 

[greg_t]

Apollo 13 did win the Oscar for Best Sound in 1996. I suspect the dvd's may be dumbed down somewhat as the DTS LD is very dynamic and likely most accuratly reproduces the theatrical mix. This film only released theatrically with a DTS digital soundtrack. There was no Dolby Digital theatrical release. The other contenders for best sound that year were Batman Forever, Braveheart, Crimson Tide, and Waterworld

 

[Aaron Garman]

Apollo 13 did win the Oscar for Best Sound in 1996

Actually, the ceremony was held in 1996, but the film was a 1995 release, as were the other films mentioned.

AJG

 

[greg_t]

Yeah, they usually hold the Oscars the year after the releases.

 

[Matt Malto]

You can pick up the CE Edition at Media Play this week for $5.99 if you buy Catch Me If You Can ($15) at the same time. Good deal!

 

[greg_t]

After all of this talk about the great extra's, I went out and picked up the Dolby Digital version of Apollo 13. I was curious about the feeling that the DD video is better than on the DTS. I did some back and forth comparing between scenes. Just to state the obvious, I'm not a videophile and this comparison is not very scientific.

My setup
Panasonic XP30 with Farjouda DCDI chip in progressive scan mode into a Pioneer Elite 530 Widescreen set via BetterCables Silver Serpent Component. Elite RPTV set to Reference Theater Mode to disable unneccesary video enchancments, such as SVM, and tweaked with Avia. Screen mode is Full to use the anamaphoric enchancment on the dvd's.

First, I checked the video bitrates of both DVD's using a free program called DVD Bitrate Rate Analyzer. The program can give you video bitrates at any point in the movie and an average bitrate. These were the results of the average bitrate of each:

Dolby Digital DVD: 5.82MBPS
DTS DVD: 7.41MBPS

Clearly, the DTS DVD has the advantage as far as bitrate is concerned.

I sampled several scenes back and forth, such as the early scene where Jim and his wife are in their yard looking at the moon. Also the launch scene, and the landing. To my eyes, the DD dvd seems sharper, but seems to be more grainy in some scenes, like the Yard scene with Jim and his wife. The DTS looks softer but the grain is not as apparent. I'm not a videophile, so there are probably things that I missed, but I wonder if they didn't increase the sharpness on the DD version due to the lower video bitrate? I would love to have Bjoern Ray check both of these and get his views on them.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Greg, I think those bitrates you gave are total bitrates, not just video. As this is full bitrate DTS I believe the video bitrate is higher on the DD version.

 

[Benjamin.D]

Hi!!

I'm going to very soon be upgrading to DTS capable equipment and I am an owner of the Apollo 13 Collector's Edition disc. I'm going to be joining Columbia House again for some more free selections after I fulfill my current membership. Should I use one of my selections to get Apollo 13 DTS to go with my current version? I know there have been threads about this before but I've read conflicting reports overs the DTS tracks' superiority over DD 5.1. Some say it's incredible and some say it's not any better. Please help!! (I'm not going to sell my current version)

Ben

 

[Dan Kaplan]

There was a very recent discussion about this, and the consensus sort of surprised me (I was in agreement): the DTS version is not worth it. No apparent improvement in sound quality, none of the very worthwhile special features, and supposedly lower video quality. As I said in the other thread, I almost always prefer a DTS track when available, but this is one case where it definitely appears to be over-hyped. I actually "downgraded" to the Collector's Edition as a result...
Since you plan on keeping your CE, I see no point in getting the DTS version. You'll watch it once and realize it offers nothing your other version doesn't... Better to throw the $7 at another Columbia House title.
Dan

 

[Rob Gillespie]

The DTS one sounds a little better, but not much and the video quality is definitely softer. Plus, you lose all those fabulous extras. Not worth it IMO. Spend the dough on something better.

 

[David Von Pein]

Thought this was funny.....
Noticed this customer review at Amazon for the Apollo 13 DVD. (There's another review with similar nonsense as well.) ......
>> "The biggest disappointment is the way this movie was converted to WIDE SCREEN format. Wide Screen format, when viewed on a standard TV is supposed to give you more to see, but of course a smaller picture due to the black strips at the top and bottom.
With most wide screen formats (like Castaway for instance) I lose about 25% of the screen to the black bars - no big deal, you see more of the original movie.
But, with Apollo 13 the wide screen black bars take up literally 50% of my screen. And, to top that off you are NOT actually getting more in the picture. I compared my old Full Screen VHS version side-by-side to the Wide Screen DVD version, and I literally lost half of the view. There was very little gained on the outer edges. Very poor - it looks like they actually took the Full Screen version and covered it up with black bars.
Looking back, I still think I would buy this because of the documentary film.... but beware of how much you lose with the Wide Screen format. If I want to watch the movie, I actually use my VHS tape instead of the DVD.
5 STARS for the movie itself, and the Extras - but because of the lost images in wide screen format, i give it 2 stars in the end."

 

[Magnus T]

And for anyone to think that they are actually LOSING image content when watching a 2.35:1 scope ratio film is ludicrous!

No, it's not. Welcome to Super-35, baby!

 

[David Von Pein]

No, it's not. Welcome to Super-35, baby!

Still, it's the same AR (2.35:1), with much, much MORE of the original camera image area being displayed on our TVs via the DVD...certainly not LESS (as some people seem to want to believe). Correct?

 

[Magnus T]

No. You're actually getting less. However, you're not getting the director's intent.

 

[David Von Pein]

No. You're actually getting less. However, you're not getting the director's intent.

You meant to say that with a WS Super-35 transfer, we ARE getting the Director's intent. Right?
I will amend my orig. thought to:
We're certainly not LOSING any relevent image information via a Super-35 WS transfer, per what Ron Howard wanted the audience to see.