Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: Speed Racer (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

"What it is," in this case, does not fully utilize the capabilities of the Blu-ray format. Would you be as forgiving of, say, a Blu-ray disc that presented a film in 480i video? I'm sure that Speed Racer sounds good for what it is, but I think the omission of a lossless track from a release on a format that fully supports lossless audio is a valid criticism.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It is a valid criticism, but that doesn't mean Cameron who viewed and listen to this disc on his own setup has to downgrade the audio if he thinks it sounded like a 4/5 rating. It's his honest opinion based on his actual experience with this disc on his HT setup and that's exactly what I expect from any review. After that, it's up to me to decide whether I'm going to buy the disc or not. Right now, I've decided on the latter which was a decision I made a long time ago. However, if this release goes on sale with a great price, I might change my mind because I enjoyed this film when I watched it in a movie theater, but I'll cross that bridge when I have to.

 

[Citizen87645]

Thanks Michael.

 

[Michael Reuben]

No one has said otherwise. That very criticism is noted in Cameron's review.

M.

 

[cafink]

Jason said otherwise. His comment that "you review what it is, not what you want it to be" suggests that features absent from the disc--a lossless audio track, in this case--shouldn't be considered in a review. I disagree.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Jason said no such thing. His comment has to be read in context. It came after a number of people complained that Cameron should have downgraded his evaluation of the existing audio track because of something that was not included.

If Jason meant what you claim, he would have said that the lack of a lossless track should not have been mentioned in the review. He did not. Unlike other people in this thread, Jason understands that a reviewer is entitled to write his review as he sees fit, and that a good reviewer like Cameron does his best to give an objective evaluation of what's there rather than fixating on what isn't or what might have been.

M.

 

[Loregnum]

You may want to use the correct "their" before calling other people idiots. Just a suggestion.

As for the disc, I am hoping Warner will double dip this with a lossless track and I will wait for that. if it doesn't come then I will probably pick this up later.

 

[mike caronia]

Did a blind buy of Speed Racer and absolutley love it.
Best looking disc I've ever watched in my home. Jaw dropping visuals.
The sound is OK. Would have been nice to have the full punch of a lossless release, but I'm still glad this is in my collection.
The Wachowskis really have created something beautiful to look at.
And I agree with an earlier post about this becoming a cult classic, I missed this when it was in theaters...mostly because I don't go to the movies anymore...but word will get out around the anime/gaming community and this film will be loved for years.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Personally, I don't think they should, specifically. I think the existence of lossless and other high-quality audio tracks has raised the standard of excellence in the last couple of years, and you should measure everything against that standard. However, I don't think that "lossless" should be considered magical in and of itself. If Speed Racer has a high-quality Dolby Digital track, enough so that a reviewer listening to it says "hey, this sounds really good, right up there with some of the best soundtracks being put on disc", it would be dishonest not to say it sounds really good. Sure, a hypothetical lossless track may sound better, but Cameron's reviewing the real disc, not an imaginary one. If he chooses to mention that there is no lossless track, so the disc could theoretically be better (and may be improved in a future release), that's one thing - but the track should be assessed for its actual quality, and not graded as less than that. Good is good, no matter how it's achieved.

As an analogy, when I review a movie, I don't criticize an actor's good performance because I think someone else should have been cast in the role and that hypothetical performance would likely have been better. It's unfair to what is actually on the screen, and not helpful to the person reading the review. Ultimately, that's what a review is for - telling someone whether the product is worth your time/money.

 

[RickER]

Thanks for the review Cameron. This is coming from NetFlix, probably tomorrow, for me. I never saw this in theaters, but still wanted to see it for myself. I cant speak for lossless quality, cause my setup doesnt support it. Would i like to have it for the future, sure! But, it is an interesting discussion on how do you grade what isnt on the disc. If you ding it to hard, then people would think the audio sucks, and that might not be so. Just because you have to listen in plain 5.1 doesnt make it suck. I have DVDs that still look great, even if they are not HD. So the lack of HD doesnt make something suck either. Hard call, the bar may be pretty high for some, and not high enough for others. But its not your problem, call em as you see them sir. I will form my opinions, but still want to know yours.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's the crux, isn't it? The complaints are coming from people who had already decided -- sight unseen and sound unheard -- that this disc wasn't worth their time or money because it lacks a lossless track. So they really shouldn't care what a reviewer has to say.

M.

 

[Ron-P]

Maybe I'm in the minority then as I gave this a rent fully aware of it lacking a lossless track, all the bad reviews and that it tanked at the box office. My family and I all loved it. But, it's not worth owning due to the very underwhelming audio.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm sure there's more, but that should make the point.

Of course, Ron, if I were like you, I'd just tell you to quit nitpicking and watch the movie. But that's not how I operate.

M.

 

[Ron-P]

Very well done Michael, and yes, I sure do remember all my posts, but, thanks for the reminder. I was hoping to prove myself wrong and gave it a rent, no luck, the audio track is quite lacking and it's blatantly obvious when compared to lossless audio tracks.

Nitpicking is one thing but when you only get 50% of an HD disc, that's a bit bigger. The audio is equally as important as the video, and when you only get one and not the other, that's beyond nitpicking. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Michael Reuben]

By the same reasoning, when the video is compromised by DNR, you're only getting 50% of an HD disc. (I don't really think that, but I'm borrowing your terms for the sake of argument.) So it's way beyond "nitpicking".

Fortunately for all of us, the DNR issue was picked up and brought to the attention of key studio personnel by so eminent an authority as Robert Harris. So your early dismissal of it is a moot point, except that it cracks me up to see you shaking your fist now that your own ox is being gored.

But let's get back to where we started:

• I said the people complaining about Cameron's review made up their minds when this disc was announced without lossless.
• You said you weren't one of them.
• Your own words prove otherwise.

I think we're done.

M.

 

[willh51]

I'm late to this discussion but I am absolutely in favor of reviewing what is there and not what is not. Yes, it sucks and is annoying (I see they are continuing the trend, too, for some upcoming titles) but if the DD gets a 4/5 then so be it.

 

[Josh Dial]

True (perhaps to a point, read on). However, the argument could be made that given the prevelence of HD audio tracks on BD in the past year (or is it slightly less?), a release with only an "SD" audio track (am I using the correct term?) shouldn't have the benefit of being compared only to its audio brethren. In other words, is it fair to compare SD audio tracks to HD tracks, when the latter are so widespread now? Some would argue that it is indeed fair.

I would liken this to years back, when anamorphic enhancement had become the norm, yet some releases still were released without the "16x9 treatment." Although I don't have any specific links (they were most likely lost in the server issues), I can remember a great many reviews which deducted marks from non-anamorphic transfers, simply due to the fact that 16x9 had become the norm, and it was silly to expect anything less (heck, I think people are still complaining about the Abyss).

Now I'm not saying I think releases with non-HD audio tracks are a waste of plastic, but perhaps given how common HD audio is now, they don't deserve to be graded on a seperate, "fair" scale, where they are compared to one-another. Rather, perhaps it's time for marks to be deducted simply because they aren't lossless, no matter how good they otherwise sound. In effect, they would be working from a maximum score of 4/5 (or whatever the scale), rather than a 5/5 -- and a good, but somewhat lacking track would receive a 3/5, rather than a typical 4/5.

Far be it for me to suggest how someone reviews releases (and I'm not, especially given Cameron's great record of reviews). However, I think the debate is open regarding the inclusion of HD audio as a standard feature of BDs, and the comparison of SD to HD tracks might not be as fallacious as it appears.

cheers!

Josh

 

[Michael Reuben]

No, you're not. According to Cameron's review, the 5.1 track on the Speed Racer Blu-ray is encoded at 640kbps. That is a substantially higher rate than you will find on almost any standard DVD with 5.1 audio. Those were typically encoded at 448 kbps (or even 384 kbps).

While standard DVD is theoretically capable of carrying DD at such a rate, it was almost never used.

Moreover, I do not understand, and do not accept, the casual equation of "HD" with "lossless". HD video isn't lossless. HD broadcast audio isn't lossless. What authority has suddenly decreed that Blu-ray isn't "truly" HD unless the audio is lossless? (Note that this has nothing to do with whether or not lossless is desireable. Anyone who's read my recent Blu-ray reviews knows my sentiments on that score.)

M.

 

[Jason Seaver]

That doesn't seem right to me. The grade should be against the prevailing standard - a non-anamorphic DVD transfer would likely get a lower score because it would not be as good on that absolute scale, and there's no reason to penalize it twice.

Similarly, when reviewing the audio quality of a BD, the question should not be "how good is this compared to other DD640 tracks", but "how good is this compared to other tracks?" Most lossy tracks will, likely, naturally cluster below the lossless ones, anyway. If it still manages to rate 4/5, or very good, then it's 4/5.

When reading a review, or looking to buy a movie, I don't care about the math used to put the movie on the disc - that's a matter of idle curiosity or discussion of how it could perhaps have been better. I care about what's actually hitting my retinas and eardrums, and that's what the review should be focused on.

 

[Josh Dial]

Fair enough. However, and I again I'm simply bringing up the potential for debate (though this might now be best left to a seperate thread). No "authority" will ever make such a statement, and I was never implying it was the case. However, would a major studio such as Warner even dream of releasing a new movie on non-anamorphic DVD? I don't think so. In the future, let's say two years from now, would a studio dream of releasing a BD without some lossless audio option? Maybe, maybe not; nobody knows - that's why it's the future

However, is now the time consumers start demanding (I don't mean in the pejorative sense) lossless audio, just as they once demanded anamorphic? Some members of the forum say yes, others say no.

Personally, I'm not sure either way. In the past, with reference to this disc specifically, I have stated I wouldn't purchase without lossless audio. However, in my case, it wasn't a cut-and-dry "no lossless=no sale," but rather the proverbial straw for a release I was on the fence over to begin with (not a fan of the anime, but a fan of the directors, etc). In the end, I still maintain it's an interesting debate