DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Cold Mountain

Discussion in 'DVD' started by DaViD Boulet, Jun 30, 2004.

Tags:
  1. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]


    COLD MOUNTAINStudio:MIRAMAX Year:2004RunTime:154 minutesAspect Ratio:16x9 encoded 2.35:1 OAR Audio:DD 5.1 English, DTS 5.1 English, 2.0 French Subtitles:Spanish, FrenchSpecialFeatures:Feature commentary by director and editor, Deleted Scenes, several documentaries, storyboards, more...ReleaseDate:June 29, 2004




    The Feature...


    Cold Mountain is a magnificent film. Written and directed by Anthony Minghella (who also directed The English Patient), it demonstrates yet again his superb talent in the art of movie-making. My biggest compliment for the film is that the primary leads, Nicole Kidman, Renee Zellweger, and Jude Law, don't get in its way. That being said, if I had my way, I would have chosen lesser-known (or better yet, unknown) actors for these roles as it would have helped audiences approach this film "fresh". But even with well known leads and the mental associations that they inevitably bring (you know, where you find yourself comparing an actor's performance in this film to a performance in another), the cast is a success. All three of the leads I've mentioned demonstrate their true acting abilities with aplomb, as do the host of secondary and supporting actors and actresses. The Chemistry is real, and the sense of real relationships between these actors on-screen is believable.

    Cold Mountain is something of an epic. The story is graphed onto a tale of journey, spiritual war between good and evil, and the hope for resolution. My mind kept drawing allusions to the Lord of the Rings trilogy as we see Inman (Jude Law) struggle to be true to his calling to return to Cold Mountain and resist temptation along the way. Cold Mountain is a story of faith and commitment to, and through, the end.

    This film also contains one of the most beautiful love-scenes I've ever beheld on film. While not pornographic, the imagery is unabashedly sensual, powerfully emotional, and sublimely artful. I found myself moved by the love dynamic between Kidman and Law. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how genuine their performances are in this drama.

    I'm sure lots of you have words to share about this film. Let's hear them.



    Picture...


    SHIT.

    What a beautiful movie and what an ugly DVD image.

    Something must be going terribly wrong over at MIRAMAX. I'm seeing the same problem now with several of their recent DVD releases: Station Agent (to be reviewed shortly), English Patient, and now Cold Mountain. The prognosis is identical with all three titles: Excessive high-frequency filtering (loss of real film detail), coupled with excessive HF boosting (EE ringing), and a strange, pasty, digitally-processed looking result.

    Allow to quote our own Robert A. Harris' words regarding his perception of the image quality of this disc:


    Quote:



    While not as horrific as the DVD presentation Gangs of New York, which is totally impermissible and needs to be replaced, Cold Mountain on DVD is not at all filmlike, having seemingly gone through someone's equipment somewhere who was intent on making the film as ugly and electronic looking as possible.

    As represented by the current DVD, Mr. Minghella could just as easily placed a low-end mini-dv camera in John Seale's hands, and come away with a DVD which had no loss in quality.

    Hopefully, whoever created this DVD has a career ahead of them in music.






    His comments EXACTLY reflect my own impressions. I comport with him entirely on this issue.


    Now, there's been quite a bit of discussion on the forum about the image quality of The English Patient, which I similarly deride, and Cold Mountain. Many of you, including some other well-regarded reviewers, have impressions that differ (greatly or slightly) from my own. For these reasons I want to be thoroughly clear exactly what is the context of my opinion that causes me to judge the PQ of this title so harshly, especially if you're viewing the DVD on your own HD display and not finding anything objectionable that parallels my assessment. Please read my comments carefully. If anyone posts "DaViD says the picture sucks but it looks fine on my 40" plasma so I don't know what he's talking about" it will be clear that they did *not* bother reading what I'm about to say. [​IMG]


    Picture Reviewing Philosophy:


    Movies are designed by their creators for large-scale viewing in a projected environment. Ideally, one would watch the film projected either via 35mm (70mm etc.) or digital HD -- whatever the intended source -- on a very large screen enabling a comfortable viewing angle of around 30 degrees. That's like sitting about 1/2 to 3/4 of the way back in a normal theater, and it's this perceived "size" of the image that starts to trigger your peripheral vision which is a big part of what makes a movie a "movie" and why there's often an emotional component of seeing a movie on the big-screen in the theater that's just missing in the home-theater environment (for most of us). This is the way movies are intended to be viewed by design. As home-theater enthusiasts, that's something we need to care about and be aware of, even if we can't achieve the ideal in our own home-theaters.

    While a DVD can't contain enough picture fidelity to equal a quality 35mm film-print projection at a 30 degree viewing angle, a well mastered DVD can come astonishing close to replicating the effect...so close that without a back-and-forth comparison, one can enjoy the "film like" experience without constantly being reminded that one is viewing a facsimile. Here's my position: If a DVD meets this "film like" goal, then it is properly mastered/authored. If the DVD imparts artifacts or a signature not part of the original film image that becomes obvious (and therefore a distraction) at a 30 degree viewing angle, then the studio did NOT deliver a properly prepared disc.

    It sounds a little arcane to try to talk about viewing "angle" since most of us don't use protractors to measure our HT systems. But since viewing angle directly correlates with the width of the image and the distance from which it is viewed, it's easy to translate viewing angle into a screen-width/viewing distance ratio. You get an approximate 30 degree viewing angle around 1.5 screen-widths away from an image. Because DVD software can't compete with the detail of real film, it tends to be more satisfying to view from a 1.6-1.7 screen width distance. However, if you start getting much farther back...the viewing angle shrinks and the "movie effect" is diminished. A viewing distance of 2.0 screen-widths or more and whether you've got a front-projection system or not, the effect begins to become more "TV like".

    A well calibrated/designed front projection system can produce a satisfying image with good DVD software at 1.5 screen widths, and at this viewing angle any flaws in the DVD mastering/authoring become unavoidably clear. Because film was intended to be viewed at this relative "size", I believe strongly that this is the context in which it should be reviewed/judged. If it looks good here, it will continue to look good no matter how small the screen or how far the viewing distance. However, if it looks bad here, then the DVD has failed in its mission to present the film in the highest-fidelity possible given the format's potential, which means the DVD can not produce an image that can be satisfyingly viewed in a manner that tries to replicate "film". In such cases it is helpful to step back from the screen to determine at what screen-width distance the flaws may become invisible...helping others to gauge whether the image will look satisfying on their own HT display. However, even if a DVD looks "fine" on 99% of the rear-projection HD displays viewed from 2 screen widths, if it looks bad on the 1% of displays viewed within a 30 degree angle of vision, then the DVD offers objectively poor picture quality because that's the way the FILM was meant to be watched.




    Thanks for indulging me on my philosophical soapbox. But it's not just hyperbole. I'm trying to help HTF, and the DVD community, establish a framework of picture quality evaluation that has grounding in principles of "hi-fidelity". At the very least, I hope my comments help you understand where *I* am coming from when I review these titles, so that you can put my comments in context. I hope this also helps ease the knee-jerk reaction of contradiction when we see so many people all offer up completely different picture-quality impressions of the same DVD title.

    So get back to Cold Mountain dude...

    My impressions:

    Viewing from a 1.5 screen-width distance from my 8-foot wide 2.35:1 image, Cold Mountain looks more like video than film. The image has been severely filtered for all HF detail. Not quite to the level of Kill Bill vol1, but severe enough that I did a double take and had to play some familiar reference DVDs just to convince myself that there wasn't something wrong with the DVD player/projector system. In addition to this heavy HF filtering, there seems to be some sort of digital processing going on that results in shimmer in a number of scenes. When the camera pans up or down, or when an image is slowly zoomed in or out, there's a very "digital" looking shimmer that takes place. In the early scene where we see the horse-drawn carriage coming towards us up a hill while the camera slowly pans down displaying the vista of the mountain range, the shimmer is very obvious. It doesn't look like MPEG noise exactly...more like some really heavy DNR. I'm tempted to think that some not-so-smart tech at the console thought "hey, let's help clean up the picture by pressing the DNR button". Definitely speaks to a "this one goes to eleven" mastering philosophy whatever the case.

    In addition to the generally "dull" sense of detail (which reminds me of some independent movies I've seen that were shot on video-cam and then transferred to film. RAH's comments really hit the nail on the head with that one), there's some less-than-subtle EE going on in the image. Most of the time the "ringing" isn't so distracting only because the image is so soft that there aren't many hard-edge transitions for the ringing to latch onto. But what this electronic emphasis does is take whatever fine-film-grain that is left over from the filtering, and turn it into a kind of digital "noise". While "ringing" bugs the heck out of me, now that I'm starting to have the chance to compare DVD titles to their D-VHS counterparts (Master and Commander in HD was a revelation), I'm starting to realize that one of the most destructive effects of HF emphasis is this sense of "noise" that happens when the EE interacts with the film's natural film-grain. It's starting to change the way I watch DVDs...so much of what I thought was "natural grain" I'm now realizing is really digital noise from HF emphasis. Real film-grain is fine, and it's comfortable on the eyes. But digital/electronic noise is NEVER fine. Especially when it is 100% avoidable and only there because some video tech knows less about high-quality images that you and I.

    Does anyone else find it ironic that first the studio would filter out all the real detail and then boost what's left ofer with HF empasis to add noise to "fake" detail? I've seen some PERFECT compression jobs with films with all their natural detail...and film-grain in tact (Criterion's Charade which I'll post a review of soon) so folks it is NOT something that they "have" to do in order to compress the film...

    From 1.5 screen widths, compared to just about any other "decent" DVD on my shelf, the description of "Shit" very fairly characterizes what I'm seeing as this DVD in no way convinces me that I'm experiencing anything close to "film".

    And how sad because what a stunningly beautifully filmed movie this is!

    Good? Well, curiously color seems spot-on, despite the "pasty" affect on people's faces from the digital processing. Colors, especially greens, are vibrant and lush when appropriate and subdued and somber when necessary. One gets the distinct feeling that in terms of hue, this is the way the film source material really looks. Contrast and black level also seem good, and the only thing getting in the way of more satisfying shadow detail is the digital "noise" which tends to ruin the sense of depth and naturalness and consequently affects one's perception of contrast as well (curiously).

    Conclusions?

    If I back up to about 2 screen widths, the image starts to look "ok" but still lacks the depth and subtlety of better discs. I think that many folks, because of the good color/contrast, will find the image quite pleasing from their usual viewing distances of 2.5+ screen-widths (what's normal for most folks with direct-view, plasma, and even RP HD sets). However, for those of you with really revealing displays that allow closer viewing distances within a 2-screen-width ratio or those of you with front projection systems with seating that naturally allows this angle of vision, more than likely you'll see what I'm talking about.

    Is Cold Mountain the worst DVD on my shelf? Of course not. But This is a major title from a major studio and it deserves a reference presentation on DVD that preserves the "film like" quality of this visual masterpiece for a proper film-scale viewing angle. It doesn't by a long shot. MIRAMAX has dropped the ball. I hope someone who cares over there figures out what's going wrong and fixes it before more films fall prey to the problems that have affected recent titles like Station Agent, English Patient, and Cold Mountain.



    Picture: 3/ 5
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]




    Sound...


    MIRAMAX may be visually challenged but they seem to have their audio ducks all in a row. The audio presentation on this Cold Mountain DVD is first-rate. My only complaints have more to do with the general mixing style which seems to be a bit front-heavy for the most part, but the fidelity of the presentation is first-rate and I would assume faithful to the film's design.

    There are some rather realistic cannon/gun/explosions in this movie. And some very eerily-real sounding "distant thunder"...so much that I had to pause the movie to make sure it wasn't real thunder I was hearing outside my window. Dialog is clear, and the score presentation is very natural with an easy sense of dynamics though I wasn't overly impressed with the sense of depth (front/back) to the sound. Surround use was present on occasion, but rather minimal and I felt it was a little bit of a let-down, especially after having reviewed the English Patient which is a similar "drama" film that makes such profound use of the 5.1 soundfield.

    One thing to be careful for...late night viewers may want to use headphones or engage dynamic compression because there are many times in this movie where gun-shots ring out with real ferocity...and if you're worried about sleeping family members (or in my case, neighbors) you'll find yourself turning the volume up/down so you can hear the dialog without the gunfire blowing holes through the room. This is NOT a criticism...on the contrary this is a GREAT example of the proper use of dynamic range in a 5.1 mix and I applaud the mixers. Just don't be deceived by the "drama" genre of this film and get lulled into thinking the audio is all about dialog...there's some dynamic content in there that for select moments will take this film to a boni-fide "action" audio level.

    Oh yeah...DTS. I almost forgot... [​IMG] As with the English Patient, the DD and DTS tracks are VERY close in sound. And just as with that title, the improvements I hear with DTS are subtle, but real and would motivate me to use the DTS as my exclusive audio track. The DTS is just a tad more open, airy, and natural. And vocals sound more "round" and less flattened with a greater sense of resolution without sounding brighter. Basically the usual things that distinguish "high end" audio sound from "good" audio sound. Listen and be your own judge.

    There's also a 2.0 French mix and one can use the audio button on their remote to toggle between all three feature soundtracks (5.1 DD, 5.1 DTS, 2.0 DD) as well as the audio commentary track. Bravo to MIRAMAX for enabling this feature. I love the freedom to switch on-the-fly.


    Sound: 4.5/ 5
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]




    Special Features...

    Disc 1 contains feature commentary and disc 2 is loaded with bonus material. Be warned...when you pop in disc 2 to view the special feature content, you are treated with "auto play" (forced) trailers like those you normally find at the beginning of a Disney feature film DVD. Odd that they are here on the special-features disc. In any case, you can easily bypass them one at a time using the skip-track on your remote or hit the "menu" button to go skip them all and go directly to the special feature content.

    Disc 1:

    [*]Feature Commentary with Director/Writer Anthony Minghella and Editor Walter Murch: On par with Minghella's commentary for English Patient, his comments here are insightful, substantive, and interesting. He tends to speak much more than Murch but occasionally Murch has something to contribute as well...of equal value. Minghella is clearly a true artist, and listening to him talk about his work is like taking a trip to a special effects lab to see how the miracle on the screen is conceived and assembled. His sensitivity for the medium of film and for the creative talent that others contribute to the effort of movie making is refreshing and makes this commentary track more than worth the additional 2 hours of your time.[/list]
    Disc 2:

    [*]Climbing Cold Mountain: A documentary that takes you through each step of making the film. It deals with details concerning every level of production starting with adapting the novel to the screen. It also includes many interviews with much of the cast/crew talent. I was very impressed with this feature. It goes into intense detail about many of the facets of sets and shooting...one example is the tunnel that was used early in the film to carry dynamite used for the large explosion during the primary featured battle scene. I had not been aware that this scene was actually based on a real Civil War encounter, but this documentary discussed the historical facts behind the event and how the stunt was carried off for the film. That's just one example of many in this feature that really added to my appreciation for the depth of care that went into making this film. This feature isn't shy in content or in length...it tops out at about an hour and 15 minutes!
    [*]Deleted Scenes: There are 11 deleted scenes with a total running time of about 23 minutes. Graciously, there is a "play all" option so you don't have to constantly toggle back and forth with the remote after each deleted scene. I have to say, as long as this movie was, most of these deleted scenes were sequences I would have preferred to see inserted back into the film. Many of them do a substantial job of fleshing out more character depth, or providing greater context for situations that just help the pieces fit together more smoothly. I felt that I appreciated the film much more having "imagined" these scenes back in place. Hopefully the next time we get a chance to buy Cold Mountain on home-video (HD?), along with improved image quality maybe we'll find some of these wonderful scenes back in the feature where (in my opinion) they belong.
    [*]The Words and Music of Cold Mountain: Any movie that has Alison Krause sing a haunting theme-song is fine by me. [​IMG] Contains over 90 minutes of performances and discussion about the music and the talent behind this film. First thing to say is that this feature is 16x9 WS. That's right. What a pleasure to watch on the big-screen. It seems to be downresed from what I would assume would have been a 1920 x 1080i HD source. Audio is 2.0 DD with Prologic decoding flag.

    Most of the musical performances are well worth the time, and some of the dramatic reading (by the actors from the film) of the novel is evocative. But there's a *lot* of time spent intermixing scenes from the movie (hey, just watched it, don't want to watch it again 5 minutes later) and at times I found it hard to endure. Keep the remote handy so you can FF through the barren stretches and get to the good stuff you want. My favorite element was when the cast got together to sing the spiritual from the church scene. Spell-binding.
    [*]A Journey to Cold Mountain: A more brief on-the-scenes look at the making of with a heavier emphasis on cast/crew interviews. Interesting and worth watching for fans of the film or any of the cast members.
    [*]Sacred Harp History: And exploration of the film's musical influences and roots. I found this feature to engage my interest and worth the time.
    [*]Storyboard Comparisons: Detail the concept and the finished result for three scenes: The Siege of Petersburg, The Swanger Torture Scene, and Sara's Cabin. Always interesting to get a taste of how thought-out and deliberate the result is that you end up seeing on the screen, even when it looks and feels fluid and natural.

    [/list]

    Coming Together...


    A beautiful epic film that everyone should see. A really disappointingly mastered DVD in terms of video for anyone attempting to replicate a "film" experience in their HT. Viewers who watch from more than 2 screen widths may not fare as badly. Audio is first-rate, and extras are plentiful--among them a very engaging commentary track. Do I recommend this movie? Yes. Do I recommend this DVD? No. But though I wouldn't "recommend" it, I wouldn't stop you from buying it either. But if you find any of the video artifacts as distracting as I do and feel a sense of disappointment, you might want to share your comments with those responsible for the disc. Who knows, it might be a breath of fresh air for those customer service folks who spend all day logging complaints about "black bars" on people's TVs...

    signing off--
     
  2. Peter McM

    Peter McM Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 1999
    Messages:
    963
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    610
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    Real Name:
    Peter
    I gotta tell ya, David--between this and English Patient, I don't know if I'm so anxious anymore for Miramax to give Sirens the anamorphic, special edition treatment it deserves.
     
  3. Felix Martinez

    Felix Martinez Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Location:
    South Florida
    That is one great review, David. I even think that para on your image philosophy should be a FAQ for everyone to refer back to now and again.

    Cold Mountain is sitting on my shelf, ready to be viewed. Not expecting much...

    Cheers,
     
  4. CraigF

    CraigF Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,800
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Location:
    Toronto area, Canada
    Real Name:
    Craig
    Thanks for the review David. Even though I watch at greater than 2 screen-widths, there's something about these overly-processed presentations (other DVD's) that bothers me. I can't define it as well as you can, "lifeless" is the best I can do.

    Bottom line is I'll wait to get CM and TEP, see if there's any improved release in the next year or so.

    OT, but are you reviewing The Barbarian Invasions (from Miramax in the U.S., I believe) by any chance? If so, a quick/early heads-up would be much appreciated.
     
  5. Robert_eb

    Robert_eb Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This has to be the best review I've ever read on this forum or any other (print media included)! I sit 1.5 screen lengths away from my 47 inch panny and the picture quality that you described was dead on. It had that digital look which was a huge distraction from what was otherwise a engaging film. What really bothers me is this is all intentional and avoidable.

    I think Miramax is staring to become the bottom feeder of dvd image quality which is a shame. If they gave the same effort in transferring these films to dvd as they do on the quality of films they finance and produce, they'd have the best looking transfers around!



    I did the exact same thing [​IMG].
     
  6. MikeEckman

    MikeEckman Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How can you begin the Picture quality part of the review with the word "Shit" and say things like "what an ugly DVD image", "Excessive high-frequency filtering...excessive HF boosting...and a strange, pasty, digitally-processed looking result", "severely filtered", "dull sense of detail", and "this DVD in no way convinces me that I'm experiencing anything close to film"....yet you still give it a 3??

    You made some pretty harsh comments about the transfer, which leads to me to wonder what would you consider a 1 or 2?
     
  7. Reagan

    Reagan Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real Name:
    Reagan



    David,

    This is the question that has been on my mind ever since I opened my eyes to the filtering/EE problem. I just don't understand why it's done. Certainly the combination of the two can't help with compression. Filtering detail alone, yes. But not the two combined.

    -Reagan
     
  8. Shane Martin

    Shane Martin Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 1999
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm sure David and I both could name several that would fit below this. 3 is pretty generous.

    For me its a renter at this point.
     
  9. Malcolm R

    Malcolm R Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    13,517
    Likes Received:
    1,096
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Malcolm

    I had the same thoughts. I expected to get to the bottom of the section and find a rating of .5 or something. [​IMG]
     
  10. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    RE: the score of "3"...

    Well, given that it looks "ok" from a 2+ screen width distance, and that I know that 90% of the viewers (and reviewers) out there will say "what a pretty transfer" I figured a "3" was resonable in the broadest context.

    A 1 or a 2 would have been a DVD with all the same problems...plus being non-anamorphic...plus lots of MPEG artifacts...plus some scan-line aliasing...plus poor contrast... [​IMG]

    Anyway...the number is just "there" but it's the detailed description of exactly what I'm seeing that I hope really benefits folks.

    -dave
     
  11. Paul Hillenbrand

    Paul Hillenbrand Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 1998
    Messages:
    1,750
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Real Name:
    Paul Hillenbrand
    If 3 stars is "shit" =[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] = above average, what would you call an average 2(1/2) [​IMG] disc?[​IMG]
     
  12. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,889
    Likes Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    I think this is an extrememly well-written review that really goes into detail about what's wrong with the transfer, I dunno why folks have chosen to quibble over how the reviewer asigns his "stars".

    Vincent
     
  13. Paul Hillenbrand

    Paul Hillenbrand Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 1998
    Messages:
    1,750
    Likes Received:
    485
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Real Name:
    Paul Hillenbrand
    Vincent_P wrote: Some people just look at the "stars" and don't read the review. [​IMG]

    Paul
     
  14. Manus

    Manus Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Maybe if they had not used up space supplying a dts track ( given that there isn't that much difference between them ) , then they may not have made such an a*se of the picture quality ?


    M
     
  15. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plenty of other titles out there have DTS and manage to keep picture clarity at a film-like level. Problems like this can only result because someone at the wheel just doesn't have a clue...

    -dave
     
  16. ChrisBEA

    ChrisBEA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for the review. As for the film proper, I didn't think it was all that great, The leads do get in the way because they had no chemistry, Law and Kidman were awful together, the only good acting performance was from Zellweger. I may rent this down the line, but it's not a keeper.....
     
  17. Rob Tomlin

    Rob Tomlin Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2000
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I posted my impressions on another thread before finding this one. This is what I said:

    Watched this last night on my 123" diagonal front pj system (Dwin High Def DLP with DVI enabled DVD player).

    I agree that this was not a transfer that would stack up against the best transfers that we have come to expect from studios like Warner. It lacked a certain "depth" and "solidity" to it, for lack of a better word, that top transfers have.

    That being said, I definitely do NOT think that it is deserving of being referred to as a "Shit" transfer!

    Overall the picture was quite watchable. There was some minor edge enhancement. I only noticed some ringing on a couple of occassions. The bottom line is that I was never "distracted" by a lack of picture quality or a large amount of artifacts.

    Yes, the picture was a little on the soft side, but I have seen much worse. I didn't see this in the theater, so I don't know how soft it would have looked on film.

    I would give this a rating of at least 3.5/5, and perhaps even a 4/5.

    If you enjoyed this movie, I certainly wouldn't avoid from buying it because of any concerns over picture quality. It is definitely watchable.

    Oh, and the DTS soundtrack was fantastic! The movie was pretty darn good too, although it was a bit slow near the beginning.
     
  18. Rob Tomlin

    Rob Tomlin Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2000
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also posted that Widescreen Review had just posted their review on their website.

    They gave it a rating of 4.5 and said:



    Bottom line: watch the DVD for yourself and make up your own mind. But again, I certainly would not avoid buying this DVD because of concerns over the video quality (if you like the movie).

    Dave-

    Thanks again for an excellent review. Although I didn't notice many of the same problems that you complain about, you did an excellent job of describing your system and picture reviewing philosophy!
     
  19. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Rob,

    curious what your general viewing distance is from your screen. Could you measure and post back a screen width/distance ratio?

    Thanks!

    dave [​IMG]
     
  20. Rob Tomlin

    Rob Tomlin Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2000
    Messages:
    4,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dave-

    Already measured it several times! [​IMG]

    I sit exactly 14.5 feet from the screen.

    If I recall correctly, my screen is 107 inches wide (just an inch under 9 feet).

    Based on the above, I would get a viewing angle of approximately 34.1 degrees. I am sitting 1.6 screen widths from the screen.

    THX recommends a viewing angle of 36 degrees. In order to acheive that viewing angle, I would need to sit 13.7 feet from the screen (less than 1 foot closer than I am now).

    Of course my back row of seating is more than 2X screen widths, and the picture does look better from back there, at the obvious penalty of a smaller viewing angle and slightly less immersive experience.

    Believe me, I studied the issue of viewing distance and viewing angle at length when designing my dedicated theater and prior to purchasing a screen. I am quite happy with the results! [​IMG]
     

Share This Page