"Elizabeth" video quality (1 Viewer)

[Sean Patrick]

i remember hearing how great this transfer was, but last night i finally got around to watching the dvd of ELIZABETH and I was quite disappointed. I am hopeing my tv's calibration isn't out of whack, but i noticed more compression artifacts than i would have expected (especially in the opening credits - there seemed to be subtle "waves" of compression, i thought the camera would pull out to reveal that it had been panning over a shot of something)...and the black level in most of the medium-key scenes seemed very bad with little shadow detail. Only bright shots looked good. I know this was a relatively grainy movie (or was it?)..but the overall picture quality of the dvd itself was lacking to my eyes. It could have also been excessive edge enhancement adding to the murkiness of dark scenes, but whatever it was it really bothered me.
i noticed the MACROVISION ENHANCED announcement of the dvd menu (that was unusual to have it announced like that!)...i know many people say that macrovision is NOT visible to the eye under proper viewing situations but the opening credit problem i mentioned sure looked to me like some kind of inherent encoding of something in the video, some sort of algorithm.
any comments welcome
thanks

 

[Mike Broadman]

It's a shame if this is the case. I liked Elizabeth (I'm a sucker for the historical type stuff) and I remember liking the way it looked when I saw it in the theater. I was considering purchasing, but now, hmm, I dunno

 

[Sean Patrick]

well don't take my post as the last word on this - i posted it to se if what i'm seeing jives with what others who have the disc see - i suspect it is not. i either have a suddenly out of whack tv and/or component connection or this dvd just looks plain disappointing. i am also concerned that what i am seeing is macrovision artifacts.

 

[Andy W]

Hello Sean. My wife and I love this movie, and we have watched our DVD of Elizabeth several times.
I have read reviews of this DVD that criticized the picture quality while other reviewers have praised the transfer. (It’s been so long ago, I can’t remember specifically where I saw the reviews though.)
I am one who thinks the picture quality is very good. I never saw the movie in a commercial theater, so I can’t comment on the DVD’s accuracy of colors, film grain, and shadow details (and sometimes lack of shadow details) versus an actual film print.
Yes, some scenes were undoubtedly dark, but I was not distracted by this, thinking the director was trying to convey a natural (candle) lighting effect. If there were compression artifacts and poor shadow detailing on the disc, I never noticed it upon several viewings. Perhaps my hardware is lacking. We have a Sony 61XBR48 (a 61" 4:3 analog RPTV), which has been ISF calibrated. We watch DVD movies in a darkened room. Our DVD players are both Toshiba, models SD-3107 and SD-1200. Certainly we saw some anamorphic downconversion artifacts common to Toshiba DVD players, but none of the artifacts you described.
Elizabeth appears to be one of those DVDs where some people think the transfer is good and others don’t. Go figure.
By the way, I thought the soundtrack was excellent – very well recorded music, well integrated use of LFE and surrounds, full bodied and intelligible dialogue, and an excellent three dimensional soundstage effect throughout. I also got a wonderful sense of large spaces with scenes that were played out in grand halls.
Regards.
Andy

 

[Marc Colella]

I remeber reading reviews of the slight dissapointment in the video transfer of the Elizabeth DVD.
I don't consider it reference quality, but on my 40" widescreen - the picture was really good. There was nothing at all distracting about it.

 

[Carlo_M]

Remember that Elizabeth is a fairly old DVD, probably 1998 or so. Back then it was considered a great DVD transfer. Now it's middle of the road. I do not, however, remember seeing the artifacts that Sean described, although it's probably been a year since I watched it. My eyes are fairly sensitive to those kind of things though, so I would have thought I'd seen it if there was a major problem. I'll take a look again when I have a chance.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Remember that Elizabeth is a fairly old DVD, probably 1998 or so.

The film was released in 1998. The DVD was released in May 1999.
It's been a while since I watched it, but I remember thinking that the image was quite good and accurately reproduced the theatrical look of the film. But it's entirely possible that I became so engrossed in the drama that I didn't focus on the image.
M.

 

[Greg Krewet]

And just a reminder, that the miniseries of Elizebeth
made by PBS in the early 70's will be available in Oct.
I believe this will have a commentary by David Starkey
a noted Tudor-Stuart expert.
Best
Greg

 

[Justin Doring]

Well I don't have a 100" Stewart screen, a Faroudja scaler, and dual Vidikron Vision Ones, but on my 40" 16:9 Toshiba and Sony 9000ES progressive scan DVD player, Elizabeth looks magnificent. It's one of the best looking and sounding DVDs I own. (Of course I love the movie, so that might be influencing my observations.)
------------------
"Home is where the theater is!"

 

[Bill Cowmeadow]

I have the DVD in question. I own two DVD players, Hitachi and Philips. The transfer is flawless on the Philips player, but there are noticable artifacts whe veiwing the film on the Hitachi, mostly in the scenes with shimmering backgrounds; fog, sheer curtains etc. I know the player can make all the difference with this particular title.
Bill

 

[Jim Ferguson]

I first saw this movie on my Toshiba TW65H80, and most recently on a 110" CRT front projection system. The quality always seemed quite good except that it seemed softer than necessary. I didn't notice compression problems, but I did feel that small details were excessively blurry.

 

[Yumbo]

eh,
looks pretty good to me.
soft if you wish.
------------------
Yumbo - IMDVD