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

[Charles J P]

Jeff, it seems like your basic argument is that we couldnt possibly comprehend why this type problem on transfers is A) out of the technicians control and B) apperently not correctable by a reasonable quality control process, but you havent really said why. You just keep going back to old arguments that we have since dropped. No, we dont expect the mastering facility to install 25 100" projection units yet that is your argument for why it cant be done. What, they cant go pick up a Panasonic DVD player and a couple 27" - 32" televisions???

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I never said you couldn't possibly understand. I explained it fully, Here's an overview:

1- DVD is QC'd on studio monitors which provide accurate rendering of the image

2- DVDs are run on simulation software which tests as many areas of the disc for compatibility as possible. Therefore if you want compatibility with as many players as possible, you can't do just one. As for buying 27" TVs, as I have said before, they are viewed on studio monitors for the most accurate rendition of the signal as possible, and they don't really come much bigger than 20-25". Bigger than that and you move into the $30-40,000 units that people saw in Sony's DVD facility on the last HTF meet.

I really wish that the people in the industry could comment on this, unfortunately most of them are forbidden to discuss on HTF and other boards.

As I said, ask Mr. Ling. He runs/owns his own consulting business for DVD, he is more qualified than I am to answer to specifics of equipping a studio.

 

[Charles J P]

DVDs are run on simulation software which tests as many areas of the disc for compatibility as possible. Therefore if you want compatibility with as many players as possible, you can't do just one. As for buying 27" TVs, as I have said before, they are viewed on studio monitors for the most accurate rendition of the signal as possible, and they don't really come much bigger than 20-25". Bigger than that and you move into the $30-40,000 units that people saw in Sony's DVD facility on the last HTF meet.

OK, but obviously the quality control people are NOT WATCHING the movie. It must be a cant see the forrest through the trees thing. What were they looking at when the QC'd TPM??? How can you say that a title that looks so bad was really QC's? If I have a car, and 6 months later all the wheels fall off, the engine blows and the transmission falls off, would you say, well Ford cant be blamed for that, they QC'd the car.

 

[nousername]

I'd like to ask Van Ling why I (and others) see EE on The Phantom Menace on my ISF calibrated 36" Sony XBR, and why I also see it on my 13-year old 9" Sony TV. I am not sitting very close to either one of them. Is there something wrong with me and my friends, or is there something wrong with my equipment? (I don't think it's me, because I've also seen the EE on several 20" and 27" TVs as well.)

I'd also like to ask him why the trailers for TPM look sooooo much smoother and film-like than the main feature itself. What did they do differently in the transfer process between the two?

Next, I would like to know what equipment they used to assess the quality of the TPM DVD before shipping millions of copies to the public. Surely there must be at least one home theater enthusiast among their staff that could have caught the EE before mass production began.

Lastly, is it possible that some copies of TPM have EE and others don't? Is it possible (or even plausible) that they changed master copies in mid-production (or something like that) with no announcement? That may explain why some don't see the EE while for others, it's as plain as day. If this is true, I doubt if they'll ever admit it for fear of a major backlash (and possible class action lawsuits). I for one would never sue, but I would like to purchase a copy of TPM that doesn't have EE. In other words, if an EE-free Region 1 TPM DVD was shipped today, I'd definitely repurchase, although I'd understand it if others cried foul and demanded free replacements.

Just a few thoughts...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

1- DVD is QC'd on studio monitors which provide accurate rendering of the image

If that were true they could see the EE which apparently they don't. It would also mean they could tell when they DNRed all the detail and resolution out of an image that looks like mush on any revealing system of moderate scale (Heathers THX 16x9 DVD...which looks like a blurry undefined mess compared to the 4x3 lbxed Image disc!!).

BTW, for a display to fit your description it would need to not only display a *minimum* of 480 progressive (interlacing artifacts are *not* part of film nor are they necessary as DVD can render a true 480-progressive image from film-source material), but also full 16x9 resolution and a shadow-mask fine enough that at a 35 degree viewing angle no visible pixel structrue from the shadow mask (which obscures fine detail) would be visible.

If the monitor contributes *any* video artifacts of its own at a 35 degree viewing angle (such as visible "screen door" from a shadowmask or interlacing artifacts) then it is NOT an "accurate rendering of the image". I'd love to find out the specs for those monitors. If they *do* produce artifact-free renderings of 480P 16x9 DVD images...and the technicians STILL can't get it right...then apparently some folks need to retire and call it quits.

The problem is that apprently far too many technicians and "experts" mastering our DVDs *think* that sitting 4 feet from a 4x3 interlaced 25" monitor that happens to be calibrated to 6500 kelvin is an accurate representation of the image on the DVD. They are WRONG and they need to change their attitude about what "DVD image quality" is about. That's what this thread is all about...that's why the guys at THX screwed up and certified a disc loaded with ringing from electronic HF emphasis...because they DON'T KNOW these things and have a backwards-NTSC-world idea about what mastering video is about...not a forward 16x9 480 *Progressive* viewpoint.

And if projectors are out of the question for whatever reason...

As I stated earlier...just run the DVD image on well calibrated PC monitor scaled to higher resolution so the image could be viewed at a close distance to view how resolution and detail (and artifacts like EE) would appear on a revealing large-screen system. You get your high-resolution image at a good viewing angle and you don't need a projector or 56" HDTV to do it.

And Jeff, no one is saying that they can't keep their video monitors as well to judge color accuracy and black level if those monitors are optimized for that criteria.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

Is Van Ling a Representative of the THX company?

 

[Grant H]

I asked before and maybe nobody knows since we're all WS advocates, but since the possibility of there being copies of TPM that don't have EE was hinted at above:

Has anyone seen the Full Frame version that was released later and confirmed if it too has Edge Enhancement?

 

[Cees Alons]

(Not able to answer the FF version question.)
I'm not fully convinced yet that all haloing seen on TPM is EE. Background projection ("blue screen") may lead to a comparable effect. Same for adding CGI.

Cees

 

[RobertR]

I'm not fully convinced yet that all haloing seen on TPM is EE. Background projection ("blue screen") may lead to a comparable effect. Same for adding CGI.

That theory is contradicted by the reports that the haloing (or WHATEVER people choose to call it) is not visible on the trailer.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Cees,

Bjoern has done extensive testing and compared Region 1 to Region 2 disc as well as full-length feature clips to scenes contained in the "extras" such as trailer clips.

Bottom line...EE is a variable that changes when the film-source material remains constant.

It's an electronic artifact that's been introduced into the image. Many of us saw this film projected in the theater and I never saw *anything* that looks remotely like the "ringing" I'm seeing on this DVD.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

edit

 

[dpippel]

Compare The Phantom Menace with Attack of the Clones. Same filmmakers, same studio, same production company, same director, same use of blue/green screen effects, same effects house (ILM) doing the CGI and other effects work, probably the same DVD mastering and production facilities. One transfer is loaded with EE and the other is reference with NO EE WHATSOEVER. The fact that AOTC was shot with digital cameras has no bearing on the discussion.

So in the case of TPM, if these ringing artifacts were something inherent in the filming, effects generation or post production processes and this dreck was present in the theatrical prints, don't you think someone would have noticed? Just imagine how bad things would have looked enlarged to gargantuan proportions at your local multiplex. They weren't there. They are not in the film. This is a problem that's being introduced somehere in the process of producing the DVD.

Again, I find it very interesting that there is so much effort being expended here to try and justify or explain away this problem instead of getting it resolved.

By the way Cees, this isn't directed at you personally. I'm just addressing your points.

 

[dpippel]

If I'm remembering correctly, in a previous chat here Mr. Ling flatly denied that there was any kind of ringing or EE problem with the DVD release of The Phantom Menace. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If this is indeed the case then perhaps he's the wrong person to be addressing this issue.

 

[dpippel]

If anamorphically encoded DVD transfers are not being QC'd by being viewed in 480P on a properly calibrated HDTV display, then there's an obvious problem, isn't there? Bigtime.

 

[Cees Alons]

Doug,

If anamorphically encoded DVD transfers are not being QC'd by being viewed in 480P on a properly calibrated HDTV display, then there's an obvious problem, isn't there? Bigtime

Not sure what you mean. It should be QC'd on a 720 x 480 monitor. Everything that is added is not on the DVD. So, if that's what you intend to say: agreed.

Cees


PS And I wouldn't exactly call TPM "dreck" when I watch the image as produced by the Sony VPL-W400 on my 105" screen.
C.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Cees,

I think their point is that at this stage to suggest that the problem is "film related" or "in the prints" is moot. That's been considered and put to rest. It's an electronic artifact taking place post-film-tape transfer (as is exhibited by the different levels of ringing present in various DVD incarnations of the same source-film material).

If we were just seeing ringing on the DVD for the first time your comments are warranted and bear discussion. But at this stage, those concerns have been addressed (it's not in the film prints).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It should be QC'd on a 720 x 480 monitor. Everything that is added is not on the DVD.

Yes and no.

720 x 480 does not represent a fine-enough pixel-addressed image to get a "smooth" picture at that magic 30-35 viewing angle. There is too much quanitzation error.

While it's true that 720 x 480 is what is on the disc...scaling it to higher resolutions for display can be thought of as "oversampling" the video points to render a more "analog" video signal free from digital harshness. We do that with audio and don't consider it an assult on the integrity of our 16/44.1 digital music fidelity...even though we *are* adding new information to the signal no one would suggest that listening to a raw 16/44.1 signal would sound good enough to the ear.

Same is true for 720 x 480 on a big screen...there's no reason why we can't think of "oversampling digital video" the same way we think of oversampling digital audio.

Granted, I'm getting into a philosophical discussion about all this but just want to keep everything thinking in new (and better) directions. The best way to consider the 720 x 480 pixels of a DVD image is as a form of "compression" to help fit it onto a red-laser DVD. I consider scaling to HD resolution the "decompression" that expands the image back into a silky-smooth, highly resolved image free from the blocky and edgy contours you'd see with the raw image.

I think that as high-resolution displays become more common and scaling software improves more and more, this will become the general attitude towards 720 x 480 software over the next few years.

-dave

 

[Cees Alons]

David,

I agree that "it", the way we see it, is not in the film prints / tapes.
However, I also think that different areas on that film are not "equal" and as such there is "something" that is in the films (or: there may be something, etc..), leading to different results through the digital process and it's subsequent viewing. This includes the MP3 compression and any processing by line-doublers, frame rebuilding circuits, HD expanders, etc.
We need to know what causes it to help getting rid of the errors. I, personally, find it interesting that so many people seem unable to see the artifacts, so I'm wondering if they're simply right and they aren't visible by their equipment. And if so, what causes it (or: what causes it to be visible with other equipment).

There's no doubt that bad EE artifacts exist and there are several DVDs where no-one who saw it disagrees. But, strange enough, there are other DVDs where there are contradictory statements.
Now, simply throwing one opinion (observation) aside, like Doug does by "refusing to discuss it any further, it's now proven", isn't a very scientific approach.
Van Ling states that TPM doesn't have an EE-problem. So, I like to find out why do some people see it. And I like to find out that, without simply saying that Mr. Ling is wrong (or whatever way one can try to dismiss an opinion).

The reason I'm not convinced that proper QC will solve all problems is, because we haven't established yet that they always could see it at all.

Also, if they do QC a DVD, I want them to use a "clean" method, which is why I would advocate a 720 x 480 monitor.

Again, I agree with you that better resolutions should work and that viewers should be able to use better-res equipment, but anything they see extra is NOT on the disc. They should indeed be able to see the image that IS on the disc in the best possible way. And smart resolution upgrades should be possible (although I have doubts about the benefit of some absurdly high audio sampling rates).

But the QC'ers aren't consumers. The QC-ers should look at the pixels on the DVD (and if they need it: they can magnify the pixels in a straightforward way, e.g. looking at 5x5 representations of the pixels) without unnecessary extra digital processing! Because no assumptions should be made in the QC phase about the post-processing at the consumers side.

IMO.


Cees

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Cees,

all excellent points. Agreed that at it's core, viewing a 720 x 480 DVD image in "pure" form is a good call if there's any concern that scaling algorithms could introduce visible artifacts of their own.

However...that better be a 480 *progressive* display as interlacing artifacts certainly aren't part of the film-sourced DVD signal either

I also think that different areas on that film are not "equal" and as such there is "something" that is in the films (or: there may be something, etc..), leading to different results through the digital process and it's subsequent viewing. This includes the MP3 compression and any processing by line-doublers, frame rebuilding circuits, HD expanders, etc.
We need to know what causes it to help getting rid of the errors.

I'm not sure many would dispute these excellent points. Even on Bjoern's website he's not concluding exactly *how* those artifacts got there...just that they *are* there and that they aren't part of the film prints.

However, it's important to note that contrary to what some have suggested they are *not* the "haloing" that sometimes appears from too much MPEG compression. That would be Mosquito noise and it looks quite different and is noisey/crawly in nature...it doesn't render smooth-edged contours quite like what we're seeing here.

I think when most of us say "EE" we simply mean "ringing" that is electronic/video in nature. This would include *anything* that produces such an artifact not present in the film print itself. Whether a technician turned a dial labeled "edge enhancement" or whether some high-frequency boosting was added by an MPEG encoder without anyone's knowledge (or other similar scenario) or whether some DNR algorithm exaggerated the contours of sharp objects...the ringing is an *electronic artifact that has been introduced somewhere during the DVD mastering process* and could be fairly called "EE" in a general sense. Edge Enhancement isn't a technical term anyway, so it's reasonable to use it in general discussion this way.

And yes...good to keep an open mind to find out exactly how it got there and how we can fix it.

Problem is that it's not HTFers with the closed-minded problem...it's the THX and studio folks who have said things like "no EE was added" and "it must be in the film prints" and other such nonsense. If they want to play semantic games and call "EE" only *intentionally* added ringing that's a shoddy way out of being accountable for an image that was certified with their stamp of approval. And for THX to even *suggest* that the ringing on the Phantom Menace (and Die Hard DVD!!!) was "in the film print" shows an astonishing level of ignorance, dishonesty, or both.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

However...that better be a 480 *progressive* display as interlacing artifacts certainly aren't part of the film-sourced DVD signal either

The ones my friends use are progressive and have 16:9 "squeeze" modes for anamorphic discs