What's new

DVD Review HTF REVIEW: The English Patient (2-disc Special Edition) (1 Viewer)

MikeEckman

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 11, 2001
Messages
1,085
I'm all for seeing a new movie and I like complex stories, but all the mixed opinions on this movie makes me nervous to purchase it blind. Why is it that thedigitalbits raved about the transfer and David called it crap? I dunno, maybe I'll rent this.
 

MikeEckman

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 11, 2001
Messages
1,085
I'm all for seeing a new movie and I like complex stories, but all the mixed opinions on this movie makes me nervous to purchase it blind. Why is it that thedigitalbits raved about the transfer and David called it crap? I dunno, maybe I'll rent this.
 

Felix Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,504
Location
South Florida
Real Name
Felix E. Martinez


Wow, that stinks re Cold Mountain. I will post my thoughts on English Patient when I get it.

You want to get bowled over? An older title with *tremendous* detail is The Sweet Hereafter. Go rent (or better yet, buy) it when you get a chance. That's the way to do it - and there's a bunch of other stuff on the disc, too.

Sorry to get OT - now back to our scheduled programming, English Patient...

Cheers,
 

Felix Martinez

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 27, 2001
Messages
1,504
Location
South Florida
Real Name
Felix E. Martinez


Wow, that stinks re Cold Mountain. I will post my thoughts on English Patient when I get it.

You want to get bowled over? An older title with *tremendous* detail is The Sweet Hereafter. Go rent (or better yet, buy) it when you get a chance. That's the way to do it - and there's a bunch of other stuff on the disc, too.

Sorry to get OT - now back to our scheduled programming, English Patient...

Cheers,
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Mike,

Differences in subjective Picture Quality impressions have to do with:

* Equipment
* Calibration
* Viewing Distance Relative to Screen size (viewing angle)
* Personal Perception (some people are bothered by things that others are not)

This is why I go to great pains to describe my system and exactly what I see and how it appears so others can get an idea how things might translate to them in their own environments.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Mike,

Differences in subjective Picture Quality impressions have to do with:

* Equipment
* Calibration
* Viewing Distance Relative to Screen size (viewing angle)
* Personal Perception (some people are bothered by things that others are not)

This is why I go to great pains to describe my system and exactly what I see and how it appears so others can get an idea how things might translate to them in their own environments.
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
And then there's that little bit about helping the Nazis out, but what's a little crypto-national socialism when there's bathtub nookie to be had?

Oh, to be funny just once...
 

Rich Malloy

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2000
Messages
3,998
And then there's that little bit about helping the Nazis out, but what's a little crypto-national socialism when there's bathtub nookie to be had?

Oh, to be funny just once...
 

Andrew Bunk

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,825
Maybe this is why I hardly ever perceive EE on the discs I watch. I'm watching on an ISF calibrated 57" 16:9 set. Now, when one says screen length, I assume that means the horizontal width and not the diagonal size. In the case of a 57" 16:9 set, the screen length is about 50", or 4' 2".

I measured from where my eyes are when I'm on my couch to the screen, and it was about 9', so that would be more than double. I thought Open Range and Kill Bill both looked great. Is TSOM The Sound of Music? If so I haven't seen that on my set.

As far as some other renowned EE offenders, I thought Phantom Menace looked pretty good. I will admit that I finally noticed EE in a significant way while watching Gangs Of New York. I can imagine how annoying this must be to those who are able to see the EE without looking for it. I guess I'm thankful that I haven't developed that keen of an eye yet.

I've never seen The English Patient and I was planning on buying it blind. I think I still will-hopefully the film will suck me in enough that I won't notice the transfer flaws.
 

Andrew Bunk

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,825
Maybe this is why I hardly ever perceive EE on the discs I watch. I'm watching on an ISF calibrated 57" 16:9 set. Now, when one says screen length, I assume that means the horizontal width and not the diagonal size. In the case of a 57" 16:9 set, the screen length is about 50", or 4' 2".

I measured from where my eyes are when I'm on my couch to the screen, and it was about 9', so that would be more than double. I thought Open Range and Kill Bill both looked great. Is TSOM The Sound of Music? If so I haven't seen that on my set.

As far as some other renowned EE offenders, I thought Phantom Menace looked pretty good. I will admit that I finally noticed EE in a significant way while watching Gangs Of New York. I can imagine how annoying this must be to those who are able to see the EE without looking for it. I guess I'm thankful that I haven't developed that keen of an eye yet.

I've never seen The English Patient and I was planning on buying it blind. I think I still will-hopefully the film will suck me in enough that I won't notice the transfer flaws.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Andrew,

That's exactly right. When I talk about "screen width" I'm talking left-to-right (not diagonal) regarding a 16x9 aspect ratio screen.

So yes, you sit a little over 2 screen-widths away from your set. At that distance, you're in the 'sweet spot' for DVDs that have minor ringing applied...they should look sharp without any obvious signs of contouring to distract you. When I walk to the back of my HT room (a little over 2 screen widths away from my 7-foot wide 16x9 image), artifacts like EE disappear--and I'm seeing the same "size ratio" that you're seeing. Of course, had those same titles been mastered PROPERLY without any unnecessary filtering and ringing, they would have looked equally good from the >2 s-w distance and they would ALSO look good for viewers who sit 1.75-1.5 screen widths away.

I know that sounds really close to many of you, especially if you move up closer to your display to try to replicate the same viewing angle with a normal/mid/large-sized television to see what I'm talking about. But don't be fooled, that viewing angle still is not as close as one might view in a theater...so don't be mislead into thinking that 1.5 screen-widths viewing distance is unrealistically "close" because regarding film-material it's actually father than the 35 mm film frame would have required. Many folks watch DVDs at home with a viewing angle more narrow than they would experience in the back-row of a theatrical movie-house...something that was necessary with lower-resolution sources like VHS and laserdisc but finally can be abandoned with well mastered DVD material.

Next time you watch a 2.35:1 film (or even 1.85) in the theater, think to yourself how close you'd have to sit to your display at home to get the same "sized" image in your field of vision. That's a very illuminating concept to entertain, and it gives you a whole new appreciation for the resolution of projected film material. To give you a quick idea, it would be like putting you head about a foot away from your computer monitor. That's the type of viewing angle that we take for granted in the theater...and it was the way our movies were designed to be experienced.

Interestingly, it seems that people just don't sit closer than about 8 or 9 feet no matter what size their display. When I was watching on my direct-view 34" 16x9 monitor I would sometimes try to sit 1.75 screen-widths away to really critique the image quality for reviewing but I couldn't force myself to sit there to actually watch the film...it felt wrong and at that distance the display's own artifacts like shadowmask became evident (very view displays are designed with such large viewing angles in mind).

If you've got a high-resolution rear projection set with a @4 foot wide screen that produces a clean image when viewed up close, in order to maximize viewing angle, in theory you could sit 6 feet away from your set which would be about the same as me sitting 12 feet away from my screen. But sitting less than 8 feet away from a display just feels too "crowded" to most people's sense of space, so it usually works out that those with viewing angles approaching 30 degrees tend to be front-projection folks with much larger screens. (essentially, keeping the same "comfortable" distance from the display but just making it larger to compensate).

Such large-scale display/projection systems are becoming more and more affordable. My DLP PJ runs about $4200 on the internet...a price that many folks are paying right now for rear-projection *TVs*. There are many good-performing HD projectors that come in closer to $2K. That's obtainable by many enthusiasts right now, it's just that front projection isn't "on their radar". I hope that forums like HTF help raise awareness about these issues. There was a time when none of us knew about progressive-scan, 16x9, or even DVD for that matter. Technology is bringing films into our homes in a manner that more and more closely replicates the experience the director intended. When a studio drops the ball and prevents this from taking place because of needless mastering shortcomings, it's my job to say something about it!

Getting off the soapbox now... ;)

-dave
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Andrew,

That's exactly right. When I talk about "screen width" I'm talking left-to-right (not diagonal) regarding a 16x9 aspect ratio screen.

So yes, you sit a little over 2 screen-widths away from your set. At that distance, you're in the 'sweet spot' for DVDs that have minor ringing applied...they should look sharp without any obvious signs of contouring to distract you. When I walk to the back of my HT room (a little over 2 screen widths away from my 7-foot wide 16x9 image), artifacts like EE disappear--and I'm seeing the same "size ratio" that you're seeing. Of course, had those same titles been mastered PROPERLY without any unnecessary filtering and ringing, they would have looked equally good from the >2 s-w distance and they would ALSO look good for viewers who sit 1.75-1.5 screen widths away.

I know that sounds really close to many of you, especially if you move up closer to your display to try to replicate the same viewing angle with a normal/mid/large-sized television to see what I'm talking about. But don't be fooled, that viewing angle still is not as close as one might view in a theater...so don't be mislead into thinking that 1.5 screen-widths viewing distance is unrealistically "close" because regarding film-material it's actually father than the 35 mm film frame would have required. Many folks watch DVDs at home with a viewing angle more narrow than they would experience in the back-row of a theatrical movie-house...something that was necessary with lower-resolution sources like VHS and laserdisc but finally can be abandoned with well mastered DVD material.

Next time you watch a 2.35:1 film (or even 1.85) in the theater, think to yourself how close you'd have to sit to your display at home to get the same "sized" image in your field of vision. That's a very illuminating concept to entertain, and it gives you a whole new appreciation for the resolution of projected film material. To give you a quick idea, it would be like putting you head about a foot away from your computer monitor. That's the type of viewing angle that we take for granted in the theater...and it was the way our movies were designed to be experienced.

Interestingly, it seems that people just don't sit closer than about 8 or 9 feet no matter what size their display. When I was watching on my direct-view 34" 16x9 monitor I would sometimes try to sit 1.75 screen-widths away to really critique the image quality for reviewing but I couldn't force myself to sit there to actually watch the film...it felt wrong and at that distance the display's own artifacts like shadowmask became evident (very view displays are designed with such large viewing angles in mind).

If you've got a high-resolution rear projection set with a @4 foot wide screen that produces a clean image when viewed up close, in order to maximize viewing angle, in theory you could sit 6 feet away from your set which would be about the same as me sitting 12 feet away from my screen. But sitting less than 8 feet away from a display just feels too "crowded" to most people's sense of space, so it usually works out that those with viewing angles approaching 30 degrees tend to be front-projection folks with much larger screens. (essentially, keeping the same "comfortable" distance from the display but just making it larger to compensate).

Such large-scale display/projection systems are becoming more and more affordable. My DLP PJ runs about $4200 on the internet...a price that many folks are paying right now for rear-projection *TVs*. There are many good-performing HD projectors that come in closer to $2K. That's obtainable by many enthusiasts right now, it's just that front projection isn't "on their radar". I hope that forums like HTF help raise awareness about these issues. There was a time when none of us knew about progressive-scan, 16x9, or even DVD for that matter. Technology is bringing films into our homes in a manner that more and more closely replicates the experience the director intended. When a studio drops the ball and prevents this from taking place because of needless mastering shortcomings, it's my job to say something about it!

Getting off the soapbox now... ;)

-dave
 

Reagan

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
546
Real Name
Reagan
David,

Great review and great rants (as always). As for titles with copious EE, what's TSOM?

Edit: Nevermind. Just figured it out.

What galls me is that after all these years, top line studios are still putting out DVDs that are over filtered, over compressed, and edge enhanced (Pulp Fiction and Unbreakable annoy me the most given that they represent 2 of my top 25 movies).

I won't be buying this one.

-Reagan
 

Reagan

Supporting Actor
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
546
Real Name
Reagan
David,

Great review and great rants (as always). As for titles with copious EE, what's TSOM?

Edit: Nevermind. Just figured it out.

What galls me is that after all these years, top line studios are still putting out DVDs that are over filtered, over compressed, and edge enhanced (Pulp Fiction and Unbreakable annoy me the most given that they represent 2 of my top 25 movies).

I won't be buying this one.

-Reagan
 

PhilipG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2000
Messages
2,002
Real Name
PhilipG

I sit about 3.5 feet away from my 32" set (which is about 2 foot across). But then again, my room is small. :)
 

PhilipG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2000
Messages
2,002
Real Name
PhilipG

I sit about 3.5 feet away from my 32" set (which is about 2 foot across). But then again, my room is small. :)
 

Andrew Bunk

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,825
Well, back in the VHS dark ages, I used to pull my 19" TV up to about 2 feet away from my couch to watch the Star Wars SE's in widescreen...
 

Andrew Bunk

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,825
Well, back in the VHS dark ages, I used to pull my 19" TV up to about 2 feet away from my couch to watch the Star Wars SE's in widescreen...
 

Elias A.

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 1, 2003
Messages
72
Excellent review, David. I'm very discouraged about your impressions of the video quality, though. Excessive filtering and EE seem to be standard operating procedure over at Miramax these days. I thought Gangs of New York, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Kill Bill all looked extremely soft and suffered from terrible ringing.

By the way, for reference purposes, I'm watching movies on an 83 inch (diagonal) front projection screen via component inputs, sitting about 1.5 screen widths from the screen. I never used to notice things like EE on my old Mitsubishi 46" 16X9 set, but now that I have a front projector I see it all the time, and it's very distracting. In fact, I would say that EE is probably THE major video flaw that still plagues modern DVD's. It's especially frustrating when you realize that most of the time, EE is intentionally added in order to make the picture look "better".

How is it that Disney can produce reference quality discs like Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo, and then generate crap like Kill Bill? Are the transfers done in separate facilities using different crews? That's the only explanation I can think of. It's especially disappointing on The English Patient, since I've been looking forward to a proper special edition for years. Now I'm not sure whether to get this version or hold off until a better one is released, which may not be until the advent of HD-DVD. Even then, there's no guarantee that the studio will fix the EE issue. When will they learn that EE isn't necessary on anamorphic DVD's?:angry:

Disney seems to think that they don't have to try very hard to properly master their DVD's, since most people will never notice. Needless to say, this kind of "lowest common denominator" thinking is doing an extreme disservice to everyone since people will eventually upgrade their equipment and realize just how poor the image quality really is. Maybe that's their ultimate plan: issue poorly mastered DVD's now, then later issue "fixed" versions to force people to rebuy the same titles. OK, I'm probably just being paranoid, but it wouldn't surprise me.:)
 

Elias A.

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 1, 2003
Messages
72
Excellent review, David. I'm very discouraged about your impressions of the video quality, though. Excessive filtering and EE seem to be standard operating procedure over at Miramax these days. I thought Gangs of New York, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Kill Bill all looked extremely soft and suffered from terrible ringing.

By the way, for reference purposes, I'm watching movies on an 83 inch (diagonal) front projection screen via component inputs, sitting about 1.5 screen widths from the screen. I never used to notice things like EE on my old Mitsubishi 46" 16X9 set, but now that I have a front projector I see it all the time, and it's very distracting. In fact, I would say that EE is probably THE major video flaw that still plagues modern DVD's. It's especially frustrating when you realize that most of the time, EE is intentionally added in order to make the picture look "better".

How is it that Disney can produce reference quality discs like Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo, and then generate crap like Kill Bill? Are the transfers done in separate facilities using different crews? That's the only explanation I can think of. It's especially disappointing on The English Patient, since I've been looking forward to a proper special edition for years. Now I'm not sure whether to get this version or hold off until a better one is released, which may not be until the advent of HD-DVD. Even then, there's no guarantee that the studio will fix the EE issue. When will they learn that EE isn't necessary on anamorphic DVD's?:angry:

Disney seems to think that they don't have to try very hard to properly master their DVD's, since most people will never notice. Needless to say, this kind of "lowest common denominator" thinking is doing an extreme disservice to everyone since people will eventually upgrade their equipment and realize just how poor the image quality really is. Maybe that's their ultimate plan: issue poorly mastered DVD's now, then later issue "fixed" versions to force people to rebuy the same titles. OK, I'm probably just being paranoid, but it wouldn't surprise me.:)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,818
Messages
5,123,879
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top