DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Finding Nemo (TOTALLY RECOMMENDED) (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

Yep. Welcome to the Disney-fication of Pixar. :rolleyes

 

[Aaryn Chan]

Maybe you didn't set your player to NC-17+

 

[Yumbo]

I see dead people

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

I do my best to avoid large public forums (HTF Local Meets is my only exception - due to the fact that we all know each other), but I've been reading early reviews and some of the posts from those claiming the transfer for Finding Nemo was sub-par and I just can't bite my tongue any longer.

I have reviewed this DVD and put it through the various screening torture tests, and all I can say is that I'm glad I don't see all the artificial artifacts that a small minority of people claim to have witnessed.

What are my credentials? Since '91 until THX was sold, I reviewed films as well as DVDs (post '97) for Lucasfilms' THX. I have an extensive front projection dedicated HT system as well as access to numerous reference level HT systems. I have over 1000 DVDs in my personal library, and have professionally reviewed numerous films and DVD titles.

In my opinion, the DVD for Finding Nemo is absolutely reference quality for both audio and video!

I suspect the folks at Pixar are having a few chuckles by the fact that many of the reported artifacts are not artificial and have nothing to due with the quality of the transfer, but were in fact done purposefully (as explained in several posts in this thread).

The other problem is that no matter how perfect a DVD transfer is, there will always be people that want to stand out from the masses and will suggest errors even when there aren't any. If/when challenged they will always fall back on the ol' - "I can see these errors because I am better trained at seeing them, and that I have more advanced equipment."... *sigh*

I think David's review is excellent, and while there are some VERY minor compression artifacts, this is most certainly a reference quality transfer, and I suspect even those that claim otherwise will use it to show off their systems.

Switching gears. Did anyone notice something different in the Pixar short "Knick Knack"? Big time change from the original!! The beach girl and the mermaid both used to have more "generous" proportions if you know what I mean. I'm talking beach balls here. That's part of what made it so darn funny. I'm a little dissapointed that they changed it and I don't condone it but I understand why they did what the did. However, I would've rather seen one of the other un-edited shorts than one that had been changed for PC reasons.

You are correct. Pixar did 'deflate' the ladies' assets, but it was not for PC reasons. The culprit for the change was the MPAA who would not allow the film to get a G-rating if it included the opening short as it was in its original 'form'. Despite internal opposition, Pixar decided it was more important to include 'Knick Knack' then to keep it in its original state, so they decided to give the ladies breast reductions. Unfortunately this meant they had to re-render code that was over fifteen years old and ended up being an extremely time consuming project.

Here a couple before and after shots:

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Nils,

Thank-you for sharing your valuable thoughts (and provacative pictures ).

I think David's review is excellent, and while there are some VERY minor compression artifacts, this is most certainly a reference quality transfer, and I suspect even those that claim otherwise will use it to show off their systems.

I agree whole-heartedly. I mean with the part about this being a "reference quality transfer"!

Indeed, aside from some *very minor* compression in a few scenes and minor color-banding in one or two as well, this really is a knock-your-socks-off-blow-your-friends-away reference disc that might cause our Super-Bit Fifth Element discs to collect dust for a while.

Saw this movie *again* but this time at my boss' house on his X1 DLP PJ. While the resolution of his projector (@ 576 vertical with 16x9 material) isn't quite up to HD standards and shows some pixel structure/screen door at 1.5 screen widths, at the same time it's a truly astonishing picture for only $999. Colors were vibrant beyond words, detail was excellent and the image was notably sharp. In fact, my complaints about a relative "softness" were more or less negated by watching this film on the X1 (which had no hint of ringing from any sort of artificial edge boosting). Also worth mentioning, while the "banding" I noted was still visible in the same scenes, it seemed that MPEG noise was much less evident overall. I'm now very curious as to the source of the MPEG noise. Is my boss' DVD player doing a better job with MPEG decoding?

In any case, point is: The movie was GORGEOUS and everyone watching it was in utter and complete awe.

REFERENCE picture and sound to be sure (the Vandy subs got quite the work-out!)

 

[Michael St. Clair]

One thing to keep in mind is that some people can see things in 'realtime' that others can only see in still frame. I remember during the 'Beauty and the Beast' debate that some screenshots with horrible mosquito noise were posted. A few people admit the artifacts are severe in a still-frame but that they didn't notice while watching. Then they even ask if some of us watch the film a frame at a time to catch such problems. Some of us don't have to, and yes, we do still notice. Why this upsets some people who don't 'see' this way, I have no idea.

Saw this movie *again* but this time at my boss' house on his X1 DLP PJ.

I see rainbows on an X1 (less than on older DLPs, though). And some people don't. I wonder if it makes them mad that I see them, or if they feel the rainbows aren't really there.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I see rainbows on an X1 (less than on older DLPs, though). And some people don't. I wonder if it makes them mad that I see them, or if they feel the rainbows aren't really there.

Agreed that those not bothered by various artifacts (Rainbows, MPEG noise, EE whatever) need to be tolerant of those of us who are. After all, video projection that statifies the most discriminating viewer satisfies everyone else as well...so it's a win-win.

I see rainbows on the X1 too. Even the Infocus 7200 was too rainbowy for me.

I can tolerate the *occasional* rainbow on the Sharp 10K or BenQ 8700. Anybody want to help contribute to my "projector fund"? I promise it will make my reviews much more valuable to everyone!

dave

 

[Reagan]

Nils,

Thanks for the input. I, for one, wish you'd chime in more often.

-Reagan

 

[Philip Hamm]

You are correct. Pixar did 'deflate' the ladies' assets, but it was not for PC reasons. The culprit for the change was the MPAA who would not allow the film to get a G-rating if it included the opening short as it was in its original 'form'. Despite internal opposition, Pixar decided it was more important to include 'Knick Knack' then to keep it in its original state, so they decided to give the ladies breast reductions. Unfortunately this meant they had to re-render code that was over fifteen years old and ended up being an extremely time consuming project.

Guess I'll have to keep that big ol' Toy Story LaserDisc box set around for a while.

 

[BruceKimmel]

Thank you Nils - There are times when you just scratch your head at some of the things that are written. This transfer really is as good as it gets, I think. I've asked repeatedly for these people to tell me what they think is perfect so I can watch - I ask repeatedly for someone to put up a screenshot of one of these "problems" they see in the Nemo disc - all for naught.

Anyone who watches a DVD a frame at a time is a dope, IMO. Would those people watch a 35mm print a frame at a time if they could and if they could WHY would they? I used to be highly amused by so called "audiophiles" but they are not a patch on the butt cheeks of these so called "videophiles".

I have no doubt the folks at Pixar are chuckling over this - I think the one thing we know about Pixar is that they would not release a less-than-perfect DVD with such "artifacts" as have been reported here and on other groups by a minority of nitpicking videophiles.

Has there EVER been a DVD released in which not one person has comlained about something? Doubtful.

 

[Micheal]

I just have one question for Nils, why did they use Edge Enhancement?
For what's it's worth, I think the transfer is "reference" quality.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Anyone who watches a DVD a frame at a time is a dope, IMO.

That, or a film student or (especially) an animation student.

But seriously, only some people need to watch a film a frame at a time to see such artifacts.

For those interested in the Edge Enhancement, here's a couple of example pics comparing to Monster's Inc (less edge enhancement). Of course, it'll stand out much, much more on a 100" screen.

Monster's Inc

Finding Nemo

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I have no doubt the folks at Pixar are chuckling over this - I think the one thing we know about Pixar is that they would not release a less-than-perfect DVD with such "artifacts" as have been reported here and on other groups by a minority of nitpicking videophiles.

Bruce,

The mosquito noise and "banding" in the scenes mentioned are real artifacts and part of the DVD encoding. One does not need to be a videophile of the highest-degree to see these artifacts, though their visibility is dependent on the video system (resolving capability of the display as well as relative viewing angle will affect this).

The banding issues are obvious to most people on most systems in the scenes mentioned (like the light in the trench) and no one has had difficulty seeing them in any of the four different video systems in which I've now viewed the DVD.

The Pixar folks deliver some very fine DVD images. But to suggest that they are "perfect" or that those who notice encoding issues are seeing things that aren't there is not accurate. If the Pixar folks care as much about their product as we do (a likely event) then I'd hope that rather than chuckling at us they are intending to make sure that their next DVD displays fewer of the anomolies that many videophiles (other than myself) have noticed on this release. Even Nils noticed some *minor* issues but didn't think they were that serious. I don't think they're serious either, but here at HTF we hold every DVD to the theoretical best-standard possible. It's what helps DVD mastering (those who perform such tasks) get some feedback to improve things. Do you think that the studios would have begun to back-off the EE dial had folks at HTF not been so critical of the ringing on Phantom Menace?

As long as folks are able to put these things into perspective, there's not a problem. A much worse case would be everyone just pretending that every DVD is "perfect" which would then help perpetuate a practice of poorly (or even "average") compressed/mastered discs...or at least not get us any closer to our theoretical goal of replicating the feature film.

As usual, don't let me forget to mention that the "problems" with the video of this title are MINIMAL at best and in no way (IMO) impede one's enjoyment of the film.

 

[BrettB]

Regarding the boobies,

The culprit for the change was the MPAA...

This post from the Nemo DVD Discussion thread indicates otherwise.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I've asked repeatedly for these people to tell me what they think is perfect so I can watch - I ask repeatedly for someone to put up a screenshot of one of these "problems" they see in the Nemo disc - all for naught.

Perhaps you should pay more attention.

Both Micheal and Michael have posted links showing some of the artifacts we are talking about.

 

[Aaryn Chan]

They didn't resize the boobs, they chopped them off!

It's not like their wife didn't know about the boobs chopped off.. even I know it!

 

[BruceKimmel]

Well, one of the Michaels posted the links AFTER my last post - while I'm prescient, I'm not THAT prescient. I'll look for the other link, which I assume is within this thread.

I certainly understand that people here hold DVDs up to the highest standard - I've just never really seen anything like the anal behavior I've witnessed here. I can see when a transfer is bad, I can see major atifact problems when I'm watching a less than wonderful DVD - I don't watch frame-by-frame, I watch the bloody movie, the way the filmmaker intended me to. The Nemo thing just baffles me - if I don't see these problems as I'm viewing in real time then they don't exist for me.

 

[Bjoern Roy]

I was just about to take some time off my schedule to post a few pics here showing the problems on this DVD. But Bruce, seeing your polemic, bordeline insulting, posts and attitude, why would i bother?

My prediction is that once i post shots, the usual

"cant see this on my rig, must be your setup"
"if you need to zoom in to see it, its a non-issue"
"thats not an artifact, its intentional"

comments are going to bring us back to square one.

Are you really open minded enough to actually 'listen'? If the answer is 'yes', i will try to get something together.

Regards
Bjoern

 

[Rob Tomlin]

The Nemo thing just baffles me - if I don't see these problems as I'm viewing in real time then they don't exist for me.

And if others do see them in "real time", they do exist for us!

You continue to be "baffled" even though many people have described in detail the (admittedly minor) problems with the transfer...some even posting links to screenshots that you requested.

Are you disputing that others are actually seeing these artifacts, or do you just think that we are making them up?

Talk about "baffled"!?!?!

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Bjoern-

You have rightfully earned much respect here and on other forums regarding your analysis of video displays and software.

I would be very interested in reading/seeing what you have to say about this transfer!