I can't be the only one who's noticed some problems with the Punk Drunk Love DVD..... (2 Viewers)

[Daniel Becker]

There have been a few threads on this movie already but none of them have seemed to mention the image quality issues this supposed "Superbit" has. I recall someone mentioning some edge enhancement but i've noticed several flaws beyond that.


Here are two more you'll notice in the first 5 minutes of the movie! In the first outdoor shot after the piano has been left you get a shot of Sandler staring at the camera and you can see the sky behind him. For some reason i'm seeing some grainy sky textures right there. Also, right after the female character arrives in her car watch as they begin to talk face to face. You'll clearly see some film artifacts that fly across the screen! 40 year old movies like North by Northwest don't even have these problems and they call this a Superbit!?! I also find it interesting that not one single review i've read has pointed these problems out. I noticed them on my meager setup within minutes.



Dan.B

 

[Rich Malloy]

Are you talking about film grain? If so, it's inherent to the medium and should be reproduced on DVD.

Digital artifacts are another story entirely, but I didn't notice any of those on my smallish monitor. Perhaps someone with a big screen can comment on that.

 

[Daniel Becker]

I noticed the film dirt on a 36" HDTV.






Dan.B

 

[Michael Reuben]

Also, right after the female character arrives in her car watch as they begin to talk face to face. You'll clearly see some film artifacts that fly across the screen!

Did you see the film in the theater?

Those are anamorphic lens flares. They're part of the film element, and they're supposed to be there. The cinematography for Punch-Drunk Love makes deliberate and creative use of such phenomena throughout the film.

M.

 

[Matt Stone]

Those are anamorphic lens flares. They're part of the film element, and they're supposed to be there. The cinematography for Punch-Drunk Love makes deliberate and creative use of such phenomena throughout the film.

Bingo, we have a winner.

I'm beginning to wonder if PDL should have used a disclaimer before the film ala Three Kings.

 

[Daniel Becker]

Yes, I saw the film in theaters. Yes, I know the effects your talking about. I'm talking about plain ol' dirt that is clearly visible and passes right by during the talking scene. I put my dvd player in slow-mo and watched the piece of dirt fly by the screen! I saw it in real-time and then I watched in slow-mo to confirm what I thought I had seen. No, it wasn't an "effect" used by Anderson.



Dan.B

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm talking about plain ol' dirt that is clearly visible and passes right by during the talking scene.

That's different than what you first described.

Film is an analog medium, which means it's subject to all the physical flaws that typically afflict such media. This has nothing to do with the "superbit" concept, which, at least in theory, relates to how the image is transferred to DVD after it enters the digital realm.

M.

 

[Daniel Becker]

I know that flaws are still possible with Superbit Michael. However, as far as I know Superbit's as well as most current day movies just don't have problems with film dirt. Am I wrong? Most movies released on dvd nowadays seem to have mostly eliminated that problem and movies that have film dirt present are in the minority. Right?


I don't claim to be a videophile veteran but isn't it considered a "flaw" for current day movies to have pieces of "film dirt" fly across the screen on a dvd release?



Dan.B

 

[Michael Reuben]

Sure it's a flaw, but it's the kind of flaw that's inherent in the medium of film. I see it all the time, in theaters and on DVD.

M.

 

[Felix Martinez]

I myself was surprised by a number of instances of plainly visible mosquito noise. The most visible moment was an unusual amount of noise around a doorknob (I think it was one of the shots at Emily Watson's apartment). For a 90 minute film with extras on a second disc, this was certainly surprising. BTW - this was viewed on a 92 inch screen.

Cheers,

 

[Daniel Becker]

I guess I am just puzzled as to your defense of PDL's image flaws Michael. You seem to be acting like the things i'm complaining about are not actually worth complaining about.


I'm just pointing out that a) not a single review mentioned these problems and b) it's labeled with the Superbit title when it's clearly not a real Superbit and it's image quality is mearly average when compared to the dvd's the are released every day. Many films released on DVD these days do not have film dirt present on their DVD release.



Dan.B

 

[Paul_Stachniak]

I thought the transfer was gorgeous.

My only gripe with the DVD, is that it doesn't Label it's DTS track as ES, so I listen all the way through once without activating my center chaednnel.

 

[Michael Reuben]

You seem to be acting like the things i'm complaining about are not actually worth complaining about.

As best as I can tell from your descriptions, I don't think they are.

M.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I'm just pointing out that a) not a single review mentioned these problems and b) it's labeled with the Superbit title when it's clearly not a real Superbit and it's image quality is mearly average when compared to the dvd's the are released every day.

I don't see why it isn't... Sure, there could have been a higher bitrate and made better use of the space. However, technically it meets all the requirements of the format... a Columbia Tri-star film with no extras on the movie disc. As for comparing this to other discs... apples to oranges

 

[Daniel Becker]

Why does it seem like so many people are forgiving of these massive movie companies?

My beef is this: They intentionally slapped a "Superbit" sticker on the front of the dvd to give the impression this was a audio/video wonder and to attract audio/videophiles who love a movie that looks great on their home theater.


The actual product just doesn't live up to that "Superbit" title they INTENTIONALLY slapped on the front of it! Thats all i'm saying. They call it a "Superbit" but it's far from it. Please, don't defend these companies when they don't deliver what they carefully adverstise as an exceptional product.



Dan.B

 

[Walter Kittel]

You can look at "Superbit" as

a) Marketing.
b) An internal process that Columbia Tri-Star applies to selected titles, which has evolved in some ways.
c) A program to get folks to re-purchase titles.
d) A process that generally delivers strong A/V presentations.
e) One or more of the above.
f) Items a - d inclusive.

I tend to favor f) as I've been pleased with all of the Superbit titles to date that I've viewed. I haven't watched the DVD yet, as I saw the film theatrically, but as others have stated; film-related artifacts are inherent to the entire process. Fixating on them is counter-productive unless the film is simply awash with artifacts.

- Walter.

 

[Michael Reuben]

You're the only one talking about "movie companies", Dan. The rest of us are talking about the film medium and the definition of Superbit. I can't explain it any more clearly than what's already been offered, so I'll quit trying and enjoy the film.

M.

 

[Rich Malloy]

You seem to be acting like the things i'm complaining about are not actually worth complaining about.

Bingo. Or at least within the context you raise them.

We could always open up that can-of-worms regarding digital scrubbing, and we can even start a debate concerning the digital elimination of film grain in an apparent attempt to make everything look like television video (ahem... Citizen Kane).

But these are other issues altogether. Important ones, to be sure, but not exactly germane to a discussion of "superbit" transfers.

 

[Matt Stone]

Amen to both Michael's and Rich's posts.

 

[wally]

digital elimination of film grain in an apparent attempt to make everything look like television video

Daniel has mentioned several times that he is not referring to grain, rather dirt on the print.

I’ll have to agree with Daniel 100%. To me, “Superbit” implies a high bit rate transfer of a superior print. I doubt Columbia would have seen any appreciable sales loss by releasing this title as a non Superbit and keeping the Superbit “stamp” Columbia/TriStar’s assurance of superior picture and sound from a superior film element.