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

[DaViD Boulet]

Sure, errors are "enlarged" as you say...but not disproportionately...the entire image is enlarged, so to speak.

In the sense that reducing quantization noise (in a perfect world such scaling would be done using integer multiples on the principle of preserving all original sample points as you suggest...even if the real-world difference is negligible to the eye. Heck in a perfect world we'd be watching native 1920 x 1080P DVDs!) makes low-level detail more easily visible, any errors or artifacts in the DVD transfer also become more apparent.

A good DVD doesn't contain such artifacts to distract at a 1.5 screen width...I guess that's my real point!

-dave

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

I think it is fairly safe to say that DVDs from Disney (Buena Vista, Miramax, and Dimension - Pixar has been a thankful exception) have notoriously been given very substandard, or at the very least dumbed down transfers that reveal themselves on higher resolution and greater D:W ratio set-ups.

Do you think this might change (at least in regards to Miramax) now that the Weinsteins and Disney seem to be at an impass and may very well result in the end of their decade long relationship next year?

I guess I'm not so confident as like Pixar, Miramax has been given an extraordinarily long leash and reportedly has a great deal of control over video production.

Still, considering the long running battles between Miramax and Disney over disputed profits and profit sharing, perhaps Miramax has not had enough of an incentive to invest in a higher standard of DVD production? or is this a marketing decision and not a budgetary one that still believes that their largest market prefers over filtered EE transfers? I hope this is not the case.

Worst case scenario, I think it is fairly safe to say that once they begin to release HiDef DVD they will know who their main target audience is and will offer the "cleanest" possible transfers.

Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Clause.


Oh, and as this is The English Patient thread, I too really enjoy this movie. I have not watched this DVD yet, but I am certainly looking forward to it. On the other hand, there is a wonderful episode (#151) of Seinfeld that really does a marvelous job poking fun at the movie. A must watch for any fan of either.

 

[Cees Alons]

And there we can fully agree! They shouldn't, period.


Cees

 

[Robert Holloway]

Hi David,

Good to see you again.

Can I add a few comments as I've been active on AVS for a while now. FWIW I have a JVC SX21 getting data from a Bravo DVD through DVI. It's then projected through an ISCOII lens onto a 120" Da Lite hi power screen.

Big high quality front projection systems are torture tests for DVD's. That is one of the many reasons why I like your reviews as I know we have "similar" eyes

Many people do not realize just how much bigger a 100" or 120" diagonal screen is to say a 65" RPTV. It is not as many claim, the difference in the diagonal. It's the acreage covered that is key as this impacts light, detail, sharpness and the physical area the image is covering.

A 65" RPTV covers +/-1888 square inches, whereas David's 100" screen covers 4263 quare inches or David's screen is over twice as large.

Big screen have a huge impact on the revelation of picture defects - and sadly - on the equipment as well :-(

Rob
Aa 100" screen

 

[Gary Tooze]

Native resolution screen captures, using a consistent system, are a wonderful way of viewing. Also you are using a virtual multi-standard TV with viewing on a non-interlaced computer monitor. It is HTPC viewing and easy to spot flaws (cropping, moiring, aliasing, propensity for overscan etc.).

You can utilize a software program (ex. Paint Shop Pro, Adobe etc.) to zoom into captures many times to check EE etc. ... and of course for comparing DVDs it is the best.

I highly recommed this. I was able to identify EE in both the new Saving Private Ryan and The Great Escape that few other reviewers mentioned.

The images are HERE and HERE

You don't need to blow up an image onto a 120" screen to detect flaws.

My take,

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Actually it is quite the opposite. It is amazing how many people don't realize that a smaller screen can produce a larger image without sacrificing your foot lamberts or requiring a high gain screen (and all the sacrifices in PQ that might require) to gain some of it back.

I know, this is starting to sound like...



But let's start with an easy question.

Which image is larger. A 65" screen or a 120" screen both with a D:W (viewing distance to screen width) ratio of 1.5?

 

[Robert Holloway]

Nils,

This feels like anotther AVS debate A good thing.

I think most people who invest in big screens - and a 65" screen is a big creen - do it to recreat a cinematic experience. The joy of being immersed and absorbed in the film, the way the creative talent intended.

Most people would argue that it's pointlesss buying a big screen if the source material and projection technology was so bad that you needed to sit far away, because you lose the impact.

I watch 104' wide screen (120 diagona) from 150" from the screen. However, the system is so good that I can easily watch at 100". Unfortuantaley my wife won't let me reconfigure the room :-(

I have lieterally read and contributed to hundreds of threads on AVS that have discussed screen size to viewing distance. i always ask why this is important. Ultimately it's about great PQ and a big cinematic experience, to use non technical terms.

The desire for big screen providing stunning pictures drives us to invest in specific screen types, hi end PJ's like David's, special cabling, DVI outputs and decent source equipment. then we get onto line conditioners and lose our minds

Now to my point.

If the DVD is sub standard, it makes this investment pointless.

My original point was that big screen hi end systems ruthlessly expose poor DVD PQ more than 26 CRT TVs. That is why I like David's reviews.

What fun
Rob

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Rob,

I think you may be missing the "big picture" (excuse the pun), but I'll try and do my best to explain.

I've been involved in custom HTs for a very long time and one of the biggest mistakes clients make is thinking bigger is better and often get caught up in the specs of their projectors and want the largest possible screen.

The reason this is almost always a very bad idea is the same reason that the answer to my question above is neither - they are both producing the exact same viewable image size. The size of the image as seen by the viewer has nothing to do with the size of the screen, but rather how close you sit to the screen as it relates to the size of the screen.

In fact, how about this. Let’s say your D:W ratio on your 120” set-up is 1.6 – guess what? The 65” screen with D:W of 1.5 sees a larger image – without all that loss of lumens.

I attempted to clarify this important understanding of the difference between screen size and viewable image size here and here.

Bottom line:

The only time it is advisable to use a large screen is when the desired D:W puts the seating at an undesirable location in the room or with extra wide (+6 seats) or extra deep (+4 rows) where you want to minimize the difference in D:W for the seats farthest from the “money chair”. Other than that, large screens are always a compromise in PQ and with the exact same equipment, a smaller screen (at least to a point – as too much foot lamberts can cause a new set of problems) will always provide a better PQ than a larger one and yet be able to display the same size viewable image, if not even larger.

Feel free to check those two links, and maybe they will help further explain.

BTW: I have quite a bit of hands on experience with the SX21 and it is a superb projector, but I can assure you, if you used a 92" screen you would not only see a remarkably more vivid picture thanks to the huge jump in FL, but you'll also see an improvement in contrast and shadow detail.

I realize this means you would have to move your seating up a couple or so feet to maintain the same image size, but the difference will likely shock you. We set-up a SX21 on a clients 110" screen and when we projected it on only 90" of the material, re-masked it, and moved his seat up - his eyes got as big as silver dollars. It was that much of a difference.

In this case, size really doesn't matter. Or dare I say... smaller may in fact be better?

 

[Robert Holloway]

Hi Nils

Nice post. I think we are actually agreeing with each other.

I agree that bigger is not necessarily better. However, it is desirable. Hence why we search out decent theaters for movies. Hence why we are all in a frenzy over the Sony Qualia 004.

I actually moved from a 100" Stewart Studiotek 130 screen to a 120" DaLite Hi Power after I purchased my SX21. Believe it or not my wife was pushing for a 150" screen! I currently have 3 of these screen in the house, that's another story. Properly (William phelps) calibrated, in a dark room this PJ can prodice amazing and very bright results at this screen size on the Hi power. of course, the apparent resolution, brighness and contrast will be better at 92"

I completely agree with the FL discussion. I also agree that on paper sitting 1.5x from the screen of a 65" is the same as sitting 1.5x from a 100" screen.

However, emotionally, it is not. I know that sitting 6 feet from a 100" screen will provide an amazing experience on a high end system that can resolve an image to cope with that closeness.

One of the reasons I purchased the SX21 versus David's DLP is that the image is IMHO more film like. It has a 1400x1050 pixel count which is 50% more than that of the 1280x720. It also has better fill characteristics. That said, I've seen some amazing DLP (Dwin, InFocus, Sharp and Marantz) set ups.

This is a long winded way of saying the following:

1) We agree that 1.5x of anything at a relational distance is on paper the same

2) If you have the $$ to set up a big screen HT theater it can be amazing with DVD.

3) Below par DVD's can undermine the whole thing and big screen HT's are more rvealing than smaller TV's.

4) Size is not always better - I agree.

Best regards
Rob

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Oh no, not this argument again!

 

[John Alderson]

You know, looking at those pictures of TEP on DVD Beaver, I was hard pressed to spot the EE on the new edition. In fact, the shots of the original edition (which I own) kind of confirmed what I've always thought--that this is a very good non-anamorphic transfer.

I won't be double dipping on this one... I'm sure it looks better, but I don't watch this one often enough to justify it.

 

[Paul.S]

Man, I wish it worked this way. But there is so much historical precedent for this not being the case.

-p

 

[Jon Robertson]

A quick question about the supplements - am I right in thinking several of the featurettes on the second disc, such as the ones about the real Count Almassy and Saul Zaentz, are simply excerpts from the "A Passionate Journey" documentary found on the Criterion LD?

 

[Gary Tooze]

To get back to this point. I have watched the film on three different systems and in all 3 I saw the ringing on the vertical lines. It manifests itself in a kind of strobbing on normal tube tv's... and I saw more in the beginning of the film than in the end.

Thanks for the great review DaViD.

Cheers,

 

[Felix Martinez]

I noticed this as well. I figured I was just getting more and more into the film...

Cheers,