What's new

Did THX ever have that "discussion" about the EE on Phantom Menace DVD??? (1 Viewer)

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
It's not a compression artifact exactly...Mosquito noise is a little more grainy.

I do know what you're talking about and I've seen it myself.

Long story short...it's most likely a by-product of some form of vertical-domain edge-enhancement. EE becomes more pronouces as the pixel-transitions in the image rise higher and higher in frequency: The most dramatic transition you can get is going from all dark to all light pixel...and that's exactly type of thing that's happening in the 16x9 frame when the black letterboxing bars of the 2.35:1 image suddenly transition into the picture area of the active 2.35:1 iamge.

Many folks here and at AVS (avscience.com) have theorized about these mystery "lines" you see running parallel with the top (bottom?) of the letterboxing bar in the 2.35:1 image and that's the best that anyone has come up with. It's possible that many MPEG2 encoders in existence impart some level of HF emphasis...however mild...and so just because the technician swears *he* didn't apply any EE doesn't mean it wasn't applied at some point during the signal chain. Signal processing...even that which happens inside a particular MPEG encoder...should be confused with "compresion artifacts" which describe artifacting from the data reduction/decompression process of the MPEG algorithm.

Keep in mind folks that a transfer could have very little "vertical domain" EE applied (this type of EE shows up along *horizontal* lines) and see very little in the actual picture...but *still* get a visible artifact along that masking bcs of the extremely HF transition at that point in the 16x9 image.

I'd love for Bjoern to chime in this thread and contribute his thoughts!

-dave :)
 

Greg_R

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
1,996
Location
Portland, OR
Real Name
Greg
I think what is just as frustrating to me is I'll pick up a DVD that has been out for a while, notice that the video is horrible, and go looking for some reviews of the disc... only to find out that most of the reviewers thought the disc was good!?!?
Unfortunately most software sites are guilty of this (including HTF). We should start by having HTF reviewers (and members) recognize EE before we go off and criticize the studios...
 

TedD

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
698
when it's projected to replicate a THX-recommended 30 degree viewing angle (1.5 screen width distance).
A correction to a commonly misunderstood and mis-quoted THX recommendation follows:

30 degrees in NOT the THX recommended horizontal viewing angle, 36 degrees is the THX OPTIMUM recommended horizontal viewing angle from the seat that is the greatest distance from the screen.

26 degrees is the minimum horizontal viewing angle, but again, it is from the seat that is the greatest distance from the screen.

In other words, to be compliant with the THX recommended horizontal viewing angle, you should have a 36 degree horizontal viewing angle in your HT, from the back row of seating. BTW, this measurement applies to the full 2.40:1 screen width.

Here is some supporting documentation:

http://www.cinemaequipmentsales.com/athx2.html

Ted
 

Eric F

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 5, 1999
Messages
1,810
I tell you, I just finished watching Ep1 in preperation for AOTC on HBO-HD tommorow night (if the crop job is too much I'll pop on the DVD). I think The Hulk DVD (the last thing I watched) was a better transfer. Lol.
 

Bill Burns

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
747
This is a wonderful discussion -- David and others are contributing great info here. I'd just like to throw my voice into the ... well, what should be a cacophony ... saying that edge enhancement is the bane of my DVD enthusiasm. :) I have spent an unbelievable amount of time (perhaps 20 hours) precisely, obsessively fine tuning my flat Wega 32" 4X3 display (which has an anamorphic mode) in both User and (gasp) Service Menus (the latter for the brave only, of course, as changing the wrong values can permanently damage your set -- I found one setting, as an example, which created an intense, white image with diagonal pink lines across my display; I had it off in less than a second, as fast as my thumb could hit the button to change the value to the number representing "off," but had I fiddled around, confused, that image would have quickly compromised my set's ability to reproduce black level, causing burn in and other trouble ... just as one example; so I bespeak the powers of the Service Menu, which is intended only for use by professional calibrators and the manufacturer, with a very big caution flag -- only enter such a thing if you're willing to ruin your set and blame no one but yourself :); that said, I've entirely eliminated red push without reducing proper saturation; I've greatly minimized geometry trouble; I've minimized overscan to precisely 3% top and bottom, 3 1/2-4% left and right; I've corrected image positioning; and other tweaks, all by virtue of the SM. Research yielded that the "Movie" mode automatically turns off SVM, so my inability to find that control in the SM was happily unimportant ... and then the User Menu, over the course of years, has been fine tuned with lighting conditions to precise levels of all values therein -- all of this with Avia) ... phew ... catching my breath :) ... and all of this said, there are DVDs that look unthinkably good. I've just rewatched The Mummy Returns for the first time since SM adjustments, and it's astoundingly film-like ... but there are titles (Die Another Day's in the player right now) where, despite all my dedicated, sometimes risky, very time-consuming work, just don't look like film, because they contain obvious edge enhancement! I usually make a point of mentioning edge outlines (black lines I usually call "edge enhancement") and haloing (bright outlines without "trace" lines or black lines, which I usually call "edge halos") in my disc recommendations and discussions, because pound for pound, these anomalies remains the worst offense in video quality from major studios on brand new pictures.

If there is a specific difference in the nature of what I've been calling "edge enhancement" versus what I've called "edge halos," and if my terminology is screwy to begin with (as it may well be -- edge halos are undoubtedly just another form/degree of enhancement), I'd welcome that info ... but I don't see either in the movie theatre, and so I really shouldn't see either at home, not on a format with the precision of DVD. As David has said earlier, there's more to a DVD than it has "any right" to claim, given its resolution -- at my screen size, I usually sit about seven or eight feet away in a completely dark room, but I've cozied up to within two or three feet of the set to admire detail, and DVD is bloody fantastic, folks. There are transfers that best all but the 70mm theatrical exhibitions I've seen for readily apparent detail and color intensity/depth, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, I've been seeing (in the seven theatres within easy driving distance of my house, among them major and minor cineplexes and one arthouse theatre) a picture or two every single week for more than a decade now (my intense love of theatre-going became a weekly tradition around 12 years ago, whereas it was sporadic before that). That's a lot of movies, guys. And yet I've seen DVDs that best all but a few of the films I've seen theatrically for their precision of detail and saturation. That shouldn't be true at NTSC/SDTV resolutions (nor PAL); it shouldn't even be true at the consumer High Definition resolution sets. But it is. DVD is magical -- and all that stands between me and absolute bliss in this six years and counting love affair (1997-present) is bloody edge enhancement! :D "Fidelity to source," as many have said, including David, in a marriage with the highest, rather than a middle or, heaven forfend, lowest common denominator of home presentation parameters. Make a disc look great at 10' and it's going to look great at 32". Make it look great at 32" and who knows if it's going to look great at 10'. In the former scenario, everyone wins. In the latter, some folks lose.

After six years, and with 42% (projected to reach 87% by 2007) of American households owning DVD players (this was just reported on FoxNews a few nights ago, and other sets of numbers may undoubtedly be found from alternate reports), why a commitment by all product providers on DVD to a maximum fidelity not only to the source, but to the potential of the medium, is not observed ... well, it's troubling, because it seems to suggest either 1) carelessness, or 2) a perception by studios and other content providers of a demand on the part of the public for a product of lesser quality that better compensates for poor equipment and poor equipment calibration. This reminds me of a company that brought out SVHS cables seven or eight years ago (I've forgotten the name now), and specifically tweaked the frequency range and character of those cables to alter source signals in a way that "compensated" for poorly calibrated television sets. This was reported in Widescreen Magazine at the time. Thus the folks most likely to use SVHS cables at the time (big screen enthusiasts) would be the least likely to appreciate, or even want, the cables, because material would look worse through them than through properly constructed competitor cables! Material would look a little better, though, on uncalibrated sets straight from the factory, with saturation and contrast through the roof. Sheesh.

Consumer awareness leads to consumer advocacy. Consumer advocacy leads to industry change (this is a business, after all, and they want our entertainment dollars, thus it's in everyone's best interest to make a product consumers want both available and the best it can be in the version made available). Many studios are doing just that, but for those who continue to market to a lower standard because they feel it isn't "worth it" to make a product to a higher standard that only a portion of its audience would appreciate ... hmph. For shame. :thumbsdown: That sort of thinking won't get them far. Consumer demand (fostered by thoughtful companies and organizations, such as Criterion) lead to OAR presentations on home video, and to laserdisc itself (on which that call was spearheaded), and then to specialized boxed sets with supplements, and of course to DVD itself. Stereo versus mono (from stereo sources) on phonograph records, CDs versus vinyl, SACDs and DVD-Audio versus CDs .... Millions of consumers around the world are still perfectly satisfied with VHS tape as a home video medium. When DVD launched, it launched to test markets here in America, not nationwide, and many studios sat it out for quite some time, because many doubted it would be worth the investment. Now there are Hollywood producers and directors saying DVD may save the entire motion picture industry from bankruptcy! Films are tanking at the box office but making steady profit on the format some studios (no names) were saying represented a business "they're not in" as late as 1998-1999 ... looking at the history of these things, one truth cannot be denied: when a technology, and a product for that technology, meets the highest standards of fidelity and care, everyone benefits down the road. When, aside from fiscal concerns/limitations (which are very real), a product is treated with less care because a need for care is not properly recognized, everyone loses.

We can and should request that visible edge artifacts/halos/outlines not present in the original photography remain just as absent from high fidelity home video sources, such as DVD, and the industry, as a whole, can and should rise to meet this challenge. Most of it has, as said above, but for those who haven't (among them, clearly, MGM, but there are others -- even on my exceptionally beautiful copy of WB's Christopher Nolan remake of Insomnia, I must unfortunately say that I do notice minor edge haloing artifacts, greatly reduced from the dark-line "enhancement" seen on Die Another Day, but present nevertheless ... and yes, this is visible from eight feet away on a 32" display calibrated by Avia to ensure the set is adding nothing to line edges -- I find haloing and edge lines tend to favor the right side {screen right, meaning the "actual" left side, mirror-reversed} of objects and people in medium and long shots, particularly against bright backgrounds, suggesting the intent is to "make them stand out" ... then there are transfers like Goldfinger, where it frankly looks like Chuck Jones is tracing the actors with a pencil! ... so, if perfect can be had without undue cost, let's not settle for even near-perfect, much less poor) ... there's no better time to do right by this glorious format.

The above is a somewhat jumbled train of thought on this, but I hope the enthusiasm it hopefully suggests for the format also suggests just why this issue is so important to film lovers -- the very people who most embrace the medium. We love film, and because DVD can, remarkable, look like film, we're disappointed when it doesn't. I guess that's the simple summation. :D Let's fix this problem (and while we're at it, fix non-anamorphic 1.66:1 DVDs, non-OAR presentations, and also those DVDs mired in 2D when the films they present were intended for 3D), that repeated complaints are no longer necessary, and praise is on every thoughtful lip. It's extraordinary that we can own films at all, much less so cheaply, enjoying libraries that only studio heads and major (i.e. wealthy and connected) stars might command in the early days of Hollywood. But with all due appreciation for the fact of home video, and then the fact of the DVD format, let's not lose sight of just how good this technology can look and sound, and precisely what is required to achieve that quality. In the spirit of a recent film title: "Down With EE," where EE is visible edge haloing or outlining.
 

nousername

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 26, 2001
Messages
614
It doesn't matter. I believe the point David is making is that if the image quality is rendered to the high standard he suggests, it will ALSO be good for those with smaller displays. He's saying that we should NOT settle for a lower quality standard, any more than we should settle for audio that's "calibrated" for a Bose Wave Radio.
Amen to that...
 

Andy_MT

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 23, 2001
Messages
486
it'd help if online reviewers would stop giving high PQ grades on titles that they've noted themselves have this obnoxious flaw present. if a dvd has a debilitating amount of edge de-enhancement (or any for that matter) then don't give it a 4/5, give it a 3/5 or less. just as you wouldn't reward a puppy for peeing on your carpet, don't reward studios by giving them high marks when they've failed to deliver a quality product.

there's no excuse these days. dvds can look good on both big and small screens without any help from our friend, EE.
 

Charles J P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2000
Messages
2,049
Location
Omaha, NE
Real Name
CJ Paul
I agree, I've seen way too many reviews that are basically like "except for the slight edge enhancement, this movie is reference video material". WHAT!!?!?!?! Dont do that. That is very misleading to people with large decent displays, and like Andy said, it rewards the studios for a substandard product.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
Well, I'm sorry but not all of us who review discs can afford 10 foot screens to blow up our discs on. If I don't see haloing, I say I don't see it. If you see it, you're welcome to write your own review. I can spot it just fine, but even PUTTING MY EYE UP AGAINST MY TELEVISION SET, looking exactly at the spots Bjoren points, out, I see NO EE on TPM or Kiki. Maybe it's my TV, I don't know, but it's calibrated with Avia, and gives me a fantastic picture on my discs.

I call them as I see them, and you can't ask anything more of any critic.
 

Andy_MT

Second Unit
Joined
Jun 23, 2001
Messages
486
you do NOT need expensive equipment to determine whether a DVD looks good or bad. this is actually all you need : -

1. a pc (or mac) ... doesn't have to be high-spec'd.
2. dvd drive
3. good dvd software
4. good (crt) display.

and that's it. nothing else. playing a dvd on pc is very unforgiving. any flaws are immediately visible. and you can't blame the flaws on the equipment. if you see haloing, that's because it's on the dvd. if you see noise, that's because it's on the dvd.

and the point of this exercise ? if a dvd looks good on this kind of set-up, it will look good on any display (big or small). now it's not a perfect solution (as most people don't watch movies on their PCs), but i do believe it yields the most accurate results when assessing PQ.

sorry, but watching dvds on a telly (from normal (or any) distance) doesn't cut it for assessing dvd PQ. in my experience, some if not all (standard def) tvs mask the flaws.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
And since DVD is designed to be viewed on a TELEVISION, and since computer monitors are not reference, it would be flawed to review based on a computer image
 

Eric F

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 5, 1999
Messages
1,810
Jeff- It really depends. Are you saying DVDs weren't designed to play on high-end equipment?

I have a Panasonic DT-M3050w HD Production monitor- it is a multiscanning monitor yes, but it is specifically designed for video sources. So are you saying my impressions of PQ is irrelevant? There is such a huge variety of display devices today it's hard to quantify just what PQ is. On top of that, PQ is a very subjective thing.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
My point is that DVD is an NTSC source. Designed to be viewed on NTSC televisions, and has a native resolution of 720x480

If you are viewing it on a non-NTSC display, or blowing it up to proportions it's not designed to be viewed at, and you don't like how the picture looks, that's not the medium's problem, that's YOUR problem. Scaling via computer is a kludge. It mostly works, but not all discs look great doing it.

I'm sure you'll be much happier with HD sources and DVHS, which ARE designed with large-scale in mind
 

nousername

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 26, 2001
Messages
614
Well, I'm sorry but not all of us who review discs can afford 10 foot screens to blow up our discs on. If I don't see haloing, I say I don't see it. If you see it, you're welcome to write your own review. I can spot it just fine, but even PUTTING MY EYE UP AGAINST MY TELEVISION SET, looking exactly at the spots Bjoren points, out, I see NO EE on TPM or Kiki. Maybe it's my TV, I don't know, but it's calibrated with Avia, and gives me a fantastic picture on my discs.
Well then maybe you should qualify in your reviews what your setup is.

I have an ISF calibrated 36" Sony direct view HDTV set with a Panasonic RP82 DVD player, and EE is VERY evident on SW:TPM. The viewing distance is 8 feet away, and several visitors who have viewed the disc have commented that the picture looks artificially sharpened. I have also viewed SW:TPM on other, smaller calibrated direct-view CRT TVs with the same results.
 

Walter Kittel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 28, 1998
Messages
9,770
If you are viewing it on a non-NTSC display, or blowing it up to proportions it's not designed to be viewed at, and you don't like how the picture looks, that's not the medium's problem
And this has *what* to do with Edge Enhancement? Watching a film on a large screen does not somehow modify the source signal, it merely makes the flaws more readily apparent. I have a bunch of titles that really look stunning on a 96" screen; but SW:TPM isn't one of them, due to the EE.

BTW, assuming that Scooter was still using a VPL-W400Q when you viewed SW:TPM on a 20' screen - the same model of FP I have - the W400Q does not have enough light output to really do justice to an image on a screen that large. Perhaps the reason you didn't see EE is due to this fact. I really don't know, because in a dark room on my screen, the EE on SW:TPM with this FP is very noticeable in the scenes listed on Bjoern's web site, amongst other places on the disc.

- Walter.
 

Michael St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 1999
Messages
6,001
The ringing I see on Bjoern's site is the same ringing I see on my ISF-calibrated 53" HDTV which is the same ringing I see on my 27" interlaced Wega (with SVM turned off and sharpness turned down to nothing).

The disc has a lot of ringing, and that is not subjective. It is a fact.

The fact that the trailer has notably less ringing on the same shots only further illustrates this fact.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
I watched it on his 10ft basement screen as well
And you say you didn't see it. Therefore....what? You're claiming it doesn't exist? It's not a problem? The people who do see it on displays that are explicity designed to include DVDs as a display source are imagining it? They need to shut the hell up?
 

dpippel

Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Supporter
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
12,293
Location
Sonora Norte
Real Name
Doug

Oh come on. This is getting out of hand. I can see the EE on Kiki's Delivery Service and The Phantom Menace just fine on my 57" ISF calibrated HDTV. There are plenty of other people here who are seeing it. It's been documented with hard evidence. If *you* can't see it on your set Jeff then I'd say that it's *your* problem.

I'm sorry, but this whole thing is getting under my skin. The EE is there. Really, it is.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,813
Messages
5,123,610
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top