'FINAL FANTASY' dvd, absolutely INCREDIBLE! (1 Viewer)

[Sean Oneil]

This transfer was definitely grainy, and I don't think that the original renders had layers of compression grain thrown in on purpose, and I do not remember there being grain in the theater either.
I don't want to bash this transfer, as it can look stunning in some scenes ...In fact, all of it looks great! But I would not be surprised to see a superbit release of FF before too long.
This transfer would benefit tremendously from the reduced grain that a higher bitrate tends to show -and a DTS track would also be welcome.
The sound on the current mix is great, but it is not the Titan AE like presentation that I witnessed in the theater (which was shown in DTS at ear bleeding levels).
If they make a superbit, I am buying.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

OK Phil, based on your assurances and the statements that it has a lot of similarities to anime (which I usually like) I went and picked it up. We'll see this weekend whether that was $20 shot.

------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[Luis Gabriel Gerena]

"This transfer was definitely grainy, and I don't think that the original renders had layers of compression grain thrown in on purpose, and I do not remember there being grain in the theater either."
Yep, this transfer looks aweful! Its so grainy that I have time trying to concentrate in the movie. I tried it in my Toshiba 36" and while a little better than with my FP, it's still grainy and there is NO EXCUSE for that. Most films I have look cleaner than that. I don't know what went wrong here but it looks like a badly compressed PC game intro movie. Hopefully I'll be able to return it and get something else. Thee is a thread about the transfer pq at the AVSforum and the consencus is that PQ is really bad.
For the friend who said that it is reference quality, the sound yes...the picture no way.

 

[Bjoern Roy]

I got my Final Fantasy 2 days ago. I wouldn't say the transfer is bad, but its not really good, either.
This is a typical non-Superbit Col/Tri transfer and it shows:
- The picture is slightly soft, the improvement with a SB release would be identical to all the SB titles i have reviewed.
- EE. Usually, the 1.85:1 transfers from them have less EE than the 2.35:1 ones. But this one has at least as much as the usual 2.35:1 transfer from Col/Tri. Similar to the non-SB Crouching Tiger, to give you an idea.
- Heavy grain. Its obvious that this is rendered on purpose in post-production to give it a film look. I don't remember it being this strong in the theater, though, but its doubtful they deliberately increased it on the DVD release. It would have looked much better on a low resolution format like DVD, if they used the digital frames prior to adding grain for the transfer.
- This is mostly a dark movie. A strong amount of grain, especially in dark parts, increases the entropy considerably. This is turn means heavy MPEG artefacts, if the bitrate isn't high enough. And unfortunately, on this title, the bitrate is rather low, both peak (due to multiple soundtraks) and average (due to extras on the disc, although they could have placed on the second disc!). This yields heavy MPEG artefacts (blocking and mosquito noise) in a lot of scenes. My biggest complain about the transfer.
Its like the opposite of a Superbit transfer. Lets call it 'Bitstarve DVD'(TM)

The nice part is that all the problems mentioned would be eliminated with a Superbit transfer:
- They open the detail throttle on SB discs, removing the slight softness.
- Less EE, see 5th Element.
- The higher bitrate would handle the grain much better, thus reducing the amount of MPEG artefacts considerably.
Ok, when is the SB version out

This is by no means a 'bad' transfer. But it could have been much better.
------------------
"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Bjoern's Place (my HT in action, DVD reviews, SPL measurements...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
[Edited last by Bjoern Roy on October 26, 2001 at 10:16 AM]

 

[Bjoern Roy]

btw. Both Toy Story transfers and Dinosaur are MUCH better. And not because they have poppy colors, but because they don't have any of the problems above. They are indeed reference transfers, all the improvements that Col/Tri calls 'Superbit' are already incorporated in them and then some (even less EE than the SB titles).
------------------
"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Bjoern's Place (my HT in action, DVD reviews, SPL measurements...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
[Edited last by Bjoern Roy on October 26, 2001 at 10:22 AM]

 

[Peter D]

Considering all of the gushing reviews I'd read about the image quality, I was really surprised at how poor it was. Beyond the question of grain (whether it was intentional or not, it was very distracting), there was a lot of noticeable MPEG banding. Far from reference quality.

 

[Tom-G]

I just purchased this DVD today. I'm surprised that people find it grainy. The picture quality is very nice. Have you people calibrated your system?
The 5.1 sound is outstanding! If you like the movie, this is a DVD well worth getting.
------------------
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. --Roger Ebert on The Phantom Menace
AIM: Aureus91 / DVDs / ICQ: 58566493

 

[Jeff Kleist]

EE. Usually, the 1.85:1 transfers from them have less EE than the 2.35:1 ones. But this one has at least as much as the usual 2.35:1 transfer from Col/Tri.

OK Bjoern, I've got you this time. This was a direct digital transfer, there is no EE in the process! I agree that the grain, though I think it was intentional, and the artifacts were very prevelant. Lots of blocking and banding.
I think you need a new projector bulb or something, because this time I KNOW you're seeing things (And yes, I confirmed this with my friend who works at Sony, they just took the original files and brought them down to 720x480, no processing, just conversion). He said that a Superbit release is reliant on sales of the original.
Jeff Kleist

 

[Peter Rohlfs]

I saw FF in the theater, my dvd is on the way in the mail.
As to the success/failure issues:
I have a friend who played the FF games. He hated the film because it didn't have the characters of the game in the film. I haven't played the games but I do know they involve a guy with spiked blond hair and a all too big sword
and a fetching gal in suspenders. It is my understanding that this movie has nothing to do with the video games and that is why the fans of the games didn't come out for it.
The movie is dark from beginning to end. This is why I believe alot of people get bored. A more upbeat story would have helped.
----------------------------------------
I thought the CGI was incredible. But if this had been done live action or as an anime I would have said it sucked.
You would have thought that Titan A.E. would have taught the lesson impressive animation with a dud plot makes a box office flop.
Peter

 

[Bjoern Roy]

Jeff,
quote: OK Bjoern, I've got you this time.[/quote]
Is there something personal between us two that i am not aware of? Are you trying to proove somehow that everything i write is nonsense? Let me know.
quote: This was a direct digital transfer, there is no EE in the process![/quote]
You have to be kidding. The only thing a direct digital transfer does is skip film. Some of the usual consequences:
a) There won't be any dirt in the transfer.
b) No film grain.
In the case of FF, they added film grain on purpose, so there goes advantage b).
The following effects are all in the digitial domain anyway, so they apply to direct digital transfers as much as for film telecine based transfers:
- edge enhancement
- filtering/softening hoz./vert.
- compression, inducing artefacts
These are exactly the 3 problems i have with this transfer. Why would this be ANY better on a direct digitial transfer?
quote: I think you need a new projector bulb or something...[/quote]
That was completely unnecessary.
On top of that, just like on the TPM thread, you keep on talking about display equipment. The things on TPM and FF can be seen on screencaptures, there is no display equipment involved. How hard to understand is that?
quote: ...because this time I KNOW you're seeing things...[/quote]
Thanks.
quote: ...(And yes, I confirmed this with my friend who works at Sony, they just took the original files and brought them down to 720x480, no processing, just conversion).[/quote]
I don't doubt that. It simply confirm what we videophiles have suspected for some time now. Namely, that its the Sony MPEG encoder that softens the picture (to reduce entropy) and adds some EE in a pre-process step before compression.
Drop that attitude or at least try to open your eyes on these issues.
Bjoern
------------------
"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Bjoern's Place (my HT in action, DVD reviews, SPL measurements...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
[Edited last by Bjoern Roy on October 26, 2001 at 03:32 PM]

 

[Romier S]

This is a bit off topic so......
Glen,
I think you should definitely give Akira another try. It can be a little convoluted to watch the first time through but you pick up more of the story and more of the small tidbits as you go. Its a fantastic movie with a very spritual stroy to tell.
Also Jeff is correct above Akira is only in the movie for about 1-2 shots, you probably did mean Tetsuo. To each their own I guess. I personally love Akira and it will always be one of my favorite anime's ever.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The grain is not from the transfer, it was intentionally put in there. I have screenshots and trailers from long ago (including ones not on the DVD) that have the same grain in the same spots, so it was intentional, whether it looks bad or not.
Had the movie been based at all on one of the games (which are individual games in themselves) then it would have sucked. If the games have no connections (other than some themes and names) then why should the movie not follow suit? Besides, just because it had no connections doesn't mean it will suck. Making a movie based on the games would be redundant since we already have a way of experiencing them (plus they take at least 30 hours to go through).
If they make a SuperBit, it will be better, but as-is, its still great. If you think that some scenes aren't reference quality, then show other scenes.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I'm sorry if it seemed as if I was attacking you, no offense intended. The point that I've been trying to make is that all of your examples have been manipulated. Show the RAW source material. DVDs are not meant to be scaled, but watched in their native 720x480 resolution. By doing so, you're aggravating the inperfections that are present in the transfer. I'm not usually this adament, but I can't help but wonder what you're seeing that I'm not on standard playback.
I'll email you some captures I've done, and you'll see that they look nothing like what you've made. and yes, I've captured the same shots
I'm using a Pinnacle DV200 capture through a JVC GRDVL-9800 compressor using Sony's iLink chips
Jeff Kleist

 

[Bjoern Roy]

Jeff,
quote: I'm sorry if it seemed as if I was attacking you, no offense intended.[/quote]
Ok, great!
quote: The point that I've been trying to make is that all of your examples have been manipulated. Show the RAW source material.[/quote]
Yes, all the samples are scaled. And thats how it should be. Please, read the section 'Screenshot1-0-1' on my review page again. It covers exactly why looking at the raw capture 720x480 is a bad idea. If there is a part in there that you don't understand or agree with, i am glad to discuss it.
Have a look at my latest posts in the TPM EE thread (Page 5) . I have provided a little experiment. Could some people provide feedback on it?
And yes, i would be interested in your screenshots. But let me tell you, thats a terrible complicated way to take screenshots and there is a LOT more processing in your chain than in mine.
Regards
Bjoern
------------------
"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')
Bjoern's Place (my HT in action, DVD reviews, SPL measurements...) | 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
[Edited last by Bjoern Roy on October 26, 2001 at 05:05 PM]

 

[Luis Gabriel Gerena]

"I just purchased this DVD today. I'm surprised that people find it grainy. The picture quality is very nice. Have you people calibrated your system?"
May I ask what equipment do you have cause as stated before the bigger the display the easier it is to find artifacts. In this movie's case I can see the grain even on my Toshiba 36" so its pretty obvious and a real pain.

 

[James D S]

quote: OK Bjoern, I've got you this time... This was a direct digital transfer, there is no EE in the process![/quote]
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...
Be gentle on him, Bjoern, he means well.

Not having seen this movie at the theaters, I didn't know exactly what to expect from the visuals apart from the screenshots I'd seen. When I watched the DVD, I assumed the grain was intentional, which it is, but I still found it rather odd that a film who's main (only) draw is its visuals, would "degrade" the image to appear like what they purposely avoided - film.
After watching the movie again, thinking that I might have concentrated too much on the visuals and not enough on the story, it came off a little better (the story). But, in the end, it was still not satisfying.
But I agree with the header - the DVD is incredible.
[Edited last by James D S on October 26, 2001 at 06:07 PM]

 

[Brian Lawrence]

While I only have a 32" inch set and was not able to detect much grain or mosquito noise, I was able to see ringing effects of EE with reletive ease. I'm happy with the disc but I can see where those with larger displays might be dissapointed.

 

[Julian Lalor]

OK, getting away from a critique of the film itself (for the record, though, I enjoyed it notwithstandings its mystical mumbo-jumbo and what I still think are fairly unconvincing CGI humans - they barely open their mouths and most seem to have overbite problems, as well as almost no facial expressions- I don't think Meryl and Kevin have anything to worry about here) was anyone else let down by the special features on Disc 2?
The making of documentary so annoyed me that I had to switch it off 15 minutes in. First, what was with the endless techno music in the background? Did they accidentally walk on to the set of a porno movie? Further, whilst the fact that the supplements are predominantly anamorphic (and for that I *am* grateful), the documentary is completely ruined by that huge blue semi-transparent border which takes up a good 25% of the screen (and will reduce many of the interview participants to insects on smaller 4:3 sets). Have they ever heard the expression: too much information? I have never seen such a noisy screen.
Another gripe is the cutaways which occur within in the body of the documentary, which send you off on to a completely different mini-story. Some of these have commentary, but you have to remember to press your audio button when the blue light shows up on screen (I forgot and so watched many of the half-completed scenes in silence). Not only do they ruin the flow of the documentary (some go for 5 or more minutes) you don't seem to be able to access them independently of the documentary. Which means you have to really watch that horrible thing twice to get all thw information you from both.
The outtakes are a joke (they've obviously seen the Toy Story outtakes, but the lack of genuine, inventive humor is all too apparent by their virtual copying of many of Toy Story's far better outtakes). The editing worshop is hopeless (here's a clue: have a look at the editing workshop on the Criterion Bram Stoker's Dracula LD to see how it is done). Simply allowing the viewer to re-arrange final scenes is not what editing the scene is about. It's as much (if not more so) about chosing the most appropriate take (which, admittedly, doesn't apply to this film).
After that, I simply gave up. I learnt almost nothing about how this ground breaking movie was made due to the frustration of dealing with overblown gadgetry. There's much to be said for the old maxim: Keep It Simple Stupid! As annoying as those two or three minute grabs are on many of the Disney animated SE's (Tarzan, Toy Story and Dinosaur come to mind), I was actually longing for even these in this DVD.
Disc 1, however, is excellent and has a whole other mini-movie (a la Heavy Metal) of storyboards, if this is your thing. I haven't listened to the commentaries, but there are three.

 

[Stacey_V]

Great thread.....very informative!
------------------

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Received this disc in the mail today from Netflix. After reviewing this thread, it will probably be impossible to enjoy the movie since I will be looking at it with everyones comments fresh on my mind! Is there too much grain? Is there EE? Is the sound good? Do the CGI of humans look realistic? Is the movie itself any good? So much to think about!