Lousy Transfers: How do you know? (1 Viewer)

[Brian-W]

I posted this originally in the AI thread, and think it's worthy of discussion in a separate post.

What gets me anytime I see a "Poor Transfer" thread (insert movie) is how anyone could derive that what they viewed was a poor transfer? Let's be real, even the print you see in the theater is a copy of a copy, and not representative of where the HD/DVD master was generated from.

Considering practically no one here has access to the master prints (or even generational subsequent prints) how can anyone here say the transfer for any given film is poor when you have zero access to the print it was made from?

The film may not have that look you expect, but that doesn't mean the transfer was poor.

-Brian

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

If the defects look like video artifacts, one can recognize a lousy transfer. Actually, the word "transfer" is frequently used pretty loosely around these parts and has been applied to things ranging from defects in the film element to digital video compression. Frequently with DVDs, the actual film transfer results in a hi-def master. The DVD-video is then a downsampled, compressed, and otherwise tweaked version of this.

For instance, The Sound of Music may have actually been treated to a good "transfer". Unfortunately, the DVD has copious amounts of edge enhancement and other artifacts present that may or may not be present on the hi-def master (I have not seen it, so I cannot say with certainty).

Regards,

 

[Brian-W]

Actually, the word "transfer" is frequently used pretty loosely around these parts and has been applied to things ranging from defects in the film element to digital video compression.

I agree, and a problem to a certain degree. I think people should exercise caution before laying blame to "transfers" when problems are clearly related to MPEG-2 artifacts.

Those that transfer a film print to a HD master aren't necessarily (and usually not) the people responsible for the MPEG-2 encoding.

-Brian

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I think people should exercise caution before laying blame to "transfers"...

It gets especially murky when you consider the possibilities for things like secondary color correction. For instance, Universal performed a hi-def transfer of Spartacus for Criterion's use. Criterion then took the Universal transfer and, using samples of a 35mm IB Tech print timed by Stanley Kubrick, re-timed the Uiversal transfer to match their reference. One almost always associates the color timing with the transfer, but if you want to be really particular about it, this was all done after the "real" transfer. I can understand the confusion and the facility of generalization in cases like that.

Regards,

 

[Brian-W]

For instance, Universal performed a hi-def transfer of Spartacus for Criterion's use. Criterion then took the Universal transfer and, using samples of a 35mm IB Tech print timed by Stanley Kubrick, re-timed the Uiversal transfer to match their reference. One almost always associates the color timing with the transfer, but if you want to be really particular about it, this was all done after the "real" transfer

Excellent point, can't ignore this at all. However, I'll play devils advocate in this case.

Practically no one on this forum have seen the transfer from Universal, and then the new transfer done by Criterion. All people would see was the MPEG-2 end result, and thus have no way of comparing (or seeing) the original film print transfers. Thus, it wouldn't be accurate for someone to say "the transfer sucks" when they haven't seen the original film print to compare to the transfer itself.

That's probably my biggest point, no one has seen the prints/original source and then the transfers, they've just seen the NTSC MPEG-2 output. So there is no basis for comparison. And viewing in a theater and statements like "I remember the print being blah blah blah" don't hold water. DVD looks great, HD even better. But not having seen the original elements, I would not be in a position to gripe about the transfer quality.

Also, having seen the difference with a top notch DVD movie and an HD movie of the same, NTSC leaves a lot to be desired. Thus, even in the best of circumstances, an NTSC DVD isn't going to resemble the HD transfer, thus another example of the transfer argument not necessarily holding any weight.

Certainly educational

-Brian