HARRY POTTER - too much compression? (1 Viewer)

[Dick]

My widescreen HARRY POTTER doesn't look as good as most recent films on DVD. It seems to exhibit compression problems - on vertical pans (even horizontal ones) the picture seems to get more pixilated than what I am used to seeing. The feature dis is silver, too - and though the box says "Dual Layer," I thought all dual layer discs were gold. Is there even a layer change, or did Warner actually squeeze the entire 154-minutes onto a single layer (which would certainly explain the visual problem I note above). This issue may have already been covered in another Potter thread, but I don't remember seeing it. Am I the only one who notices this?

 

[Damin J Toell]

I thought all dual layer discs were gold.

Not anymore. For a while now (6 months? more?), dual-layer discs have been appearing in both silver and gold.

DJ

 

[Malcolm R]

There is a layer change, poorly done, but it is there. It is near the end of the scene with the troll in the girls bathroom. Just as Professor Quirrell has shooed the kids out of the room, and the troll grunts startling Quirrell, the layer changes. Why they couldn't have delayed this a couple seconds and changed during the edit between scenes is beyond me.

Do the people who master these discs choose the layer change, or do they just kind of have to let it happen where it happens? I've seen some pretty bad changes recently. It would seem so simple to me to have it at an edit, between scenes, but it always seems to be in the middle of the scene. In HP, it ruined one of the jokes.

 

[gregstaten]

Do the people who master these discs choose the layer change, or do they just kind of have to let it happen where it happens?

It depends on the authoring software. If they authored on Sonic Scenarist (arguably the most popular system out there) or Sonic DVD Fusion, then they can pick the layer change point. However, if they authored on Apple DVD Studio Pro, then they cannot pick the layer change point - the software picks it for them.

Note - I'm not sure about the other authoring packages, especially the proprietary Panasonic and Sony ones.

-greg

 

[Guy Martin]

I think that the main problem is that Harry Potter is full of bright colors, smoke and night scenes with lots of background motion, aka the stuff of compressionists' nightmares. Even a high bitrate dual-layer disc can't quite handle it, although FWIW I think the DVD looks pretty much as I remembered the movie from theaters. The only other possibility would've been to split the movie across two discs.
- Guy

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Don't forget it was lit by a 3 legged monkey (at least the opening) so that couldn't have helped

 

[Damin J Toell]

Don't forget it was lit by a 3 legged monkey (at least the opening) so that couldn't have helped

I'm sure that the various crew members (who may possibly be HTF members) involved in the lighting of the film would appreciate the personal insult.

DJ

 

[Michael Reuben]

Not to mention the cinematographer, Oscar winner John Seale. But hey, what does he know?
M.

 

[Malcolm R]

Not being the AV expert that many of you are, the only scene that really bothered me visually was at the very end, where Harry is on the stairs approaching Quirrell/Voldemort. The stairs were flickering, which was quite annoying even to a semi-critical eye.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The stairs were flickering, which was quite annoying even to a semi-critical eye.

Flickering isn't typically a result of compression issues. I haven't watched the Potter disc yet, but what you're describing is sounds more like a product of either (a) downconversion of an anamorphic image by a DVD player, or (b) aliasing caused by an interlaced display. I'm not sure whether either or both of these applies to your setup, but it's something to consider.

M.

 

[Adam_WM]

Here's what I don't get. JFK (Oliver Stone Collection) is 205 minutes. It is on one disc and has a commentary. It looks damn good with no problems that I can tell. How come Harry Potter sucks?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I think that the main problem is that Harry Potter is full of bright colors, smoke and night scenes with lots of background motion

If Moulin Rouge can be compression free anything can.

Warner did a good, but not great job on the compression of this disc. They should be told this so they can improve their performance on the next disc.

The shimmer etc. is also visible on 16x9 displays...so it must be a matter of poor downconversion from HD resolution or poor mastering at 480P resolution (you see it even with a 3-2 pulldown 480P DVD player). No excuse for that, EVER.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The shimmer etc. is also visible on 16x9 displays...so it must be a matter of poor downconversion from HD resolution or poor mastering at 480P resolution (you see it even with a 3-2 pulldown 480P DVD player).

Too bad. In the back of my mind, I was considering that as yet another possibility, but hoping it wasn't the case.

M.

 

[SteveA]

How come Harry Potter sucks?

It sucks? I thought it looked pretty good. Sharp and clean with bright, vibrant colors. If you want to see a horrible transfer, try watching "The Phantom Menace" on a large 16:9 display sometime!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Steve,
Agreed!

 

[Adam_WM]

It sucks? I thought it looked pretty good. Sharp and clean with bright, vibrant colors. If you want to see a horrible transfer, try watching "The Phantom Menace" on a large 16:9 display sometime!

Well, I don't have a 16:9, but on my set, The Phantom Menace is not bad at all. Anything other than the daytime scenes in HP is rather noisy, don't you think? Special attention should be paid to solid blacks and fog, IMO.

 

[Dick]

But now compare the HARRY POTTER trailer to same scenes from the actual feature... the trailer looks gorgeous, but the feature has all the aliasing and pixelation.

 

[terry deto]

was it the lighting that made faces more orange in hp?

 

[Josh Dial]

In support of what was said above, the first fifteen minutes on the movie were lit terrible, and looked very grainy even in the theatre. Simply because one is an oscar winner does not make them an expert, incabable of making poor choices, and thinking such is a logical fallacy.

cheers!

Josh

 

[Michael Reuben]

Simply because one is an oscar winner does not make them an expert, incabable of making poor choices

I never said otherwise (and if there's a "logical fallacy" anywhere, it's in thinking that I did). My point was simply that the cinematographer of Harry Potter has significant experience and credentials, and is certainly someone with more credibility on matters of cinematography than any of the participants in this thread.

M.