Phantom Menace dvd EE observation (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Coleman]

Jeffrey,
I think the reason it pisses people off is because it is THX which is supposed to stand for top notch quality. Lucasfilm is a bunch of hypocrites for putting out a transfer like that period.
Then on top of all of that we had to wait a very long time to get this sub par transfer.
I disagree with this statement. The EE makes the movie take on kind of a VHS look completely killing detail, especially on Tatooine.
Kevin C.

 

[LukeB]

I don't believe in EE. :p)

 

[Oscar]

Well, i couldnt find many halos. But i did found them in the Tatoinee scenes, and some of the Naboo scenes, but nowhere else.

Also the image looked soft, yet for me it was almost reference quality, but the DD 5.1 EX kicks some serious ass.

 

[Mark_Wilson]

Perhaps the dot crawl is obscuring the Edge Enhancement.

 

[TheoGB]

It looks gorgeous on my 16:9 TV but I happened to see it running on a 32 or 36" Wega in the Sony shop and it looked awful. However, I wouldn't trust the average shop to have a clue how to set up a DVD.

On the other hand, Almost Famous Bootleg looks beautiful on my TV. Run it on my DVD-ROM and it's just yucky on my much smaller monitor.

Weird...

 

[Bjoern Roy]

EE can be much improved by not actually looking at the screen. Its said to be completely gone if you leave the room.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The EE makes the movie take on kind of a VHS look completely killing detail, especially on Tatooine.

While the EE is noticable on my 27" Toshiba at roughly 3 feet away (particularly the "sideways" edge enhancement), I've seen much worse. Die Hard With a Vengence comes to mind. However, EE is completely seperate from detail. EE may distract you from the details, but they can be there. If you don't realize that, it makes me question how valid your opinions about other visual phenomona are.

Theo: There are alot of discs that look great on my TV set but look terrible on my computer. Weither that's because the TV filters out the some of the problems (I don't see how it would) or just does a better upscaling job than the PC does to fill the screen.

In particular... on my monitor, the difference in resolution between SVCD and DVD is readily apparent. On my television, the difference is much, much less.

 

[Kevin Coleman]

Adam,
You may want to go read Bjoern's review linked above before you go making such obviously ignorant statements.
Bjoern's TPM review
Kevin C.

 

[LarryH]

Perhaps if you guys watch the film rather than the halos, you wouldn't be bugged so much

That's the crux of the issue for me - the halos just really pulled me out of the film and drew my attention to the fact that it is a less than great video. I didn't start out looking for them when I watched the movie, but I just couldn't ignore them. I find it just sad that they couldn't do better.

 

[GlennH]

Just a tip: Perhaps if you guys watch the film rather than the halos, you wouldn't be bugged so much

Gee, maybe we should just stick to VHS then, huh? Who really needs good video quality anyway? :rolleyes

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Adam,

You may want to go read Bjoern's review linked above before you go making such obviously ignorant statements.

I did, and while he notes that some shots are soft and some are "rather detailed" but notes that prior to going into the EE issue. While the actual "rings" will have a lowered amount of detail due to the low contrast and high brightness of their nature, the vast majority of the shot remains unaffected detail wise. If you were refering to the detail of the area inside the rings forgive me, but in general the transfer detail is quite good.

 

[Andrew_Ballew]

But eventually one day SOON you'll be able to buy a hi-fidelity 16x9 front-projector that will cost less than your 56" HDTV

You already can- Panny AE100.
Andrew B.

 

[Dave F]

I don't believe in EE.

That's ok, Luke. EE believes in you.
-Dave

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Not just the bad EE, but the film negative isn't even in that great a shape for a practically brand new movie: slightly grainy with dust, scratches, and hairs. This is Star Wars for chrissake and Lucas can't even do a reference job! It could have easily been a direct digital transfer since 99.99% is CGI to some extent.

Glad I don't like this film so I won't be buying a poorer-than-should-have-been presentation of it anyway, but I did see it at a friend's house.

Dan

 

[TheoGB]

Theo: There are alot of discs that look great on my TV set but look terrible on my computer. Weither that's because the TV filters out the some of the problems (I don't see how it would) or just does a better upscaling job than the PC does to fill the screen.

I would say the monitor is the 'true' picture - colours are better and there is no overscan. I'm presuming that you're getting a better and crisper picture as the monitor is also of a very high sharp resolution compared to the 'muddy' TV view...

 

[Ricardo C]

Not to mention how crummy a DVD can look on a GeForce 2 card... Dancing pixels indeed.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Because of this thread, I decided to grab a tape measure and crunch some numbers. I found that the height of the screen on my TV is roughly 20.5" tall. At about 7' (or 84") away, my viewing distance is roughly 4 times the height of the screen. Doing a search for "viewing distance" in the TV and Projectors Area, I found that most people recommend sitting at a distance of about 3 or 4 times the height of the screen. However, these are loose figures and no solid figures appear to have been established. Some even say you can sit at a distance of 2.5 times the screen's height and still be okay.
From my own experience, I can tell you that my current viewing distance is absolutely perfect. I sit close enough to get the hugeness of the picture, but not so close that I can see scan lines. This is especially true for DVDs and progressive scan video games (no HD content as of yet). I find that it would be better off sitting further back for LDs and VHS tapes, since the distance at which I sit will more likely reveal the flaws inherent in those video formats.
This may be a bold assumption, but is it possible that some of you are sitting a little too close to your TVs? Remember that DVD does not offer nearly as much resolution as a roll of 35mm film. Consequently, certain concessions must be made to maintain the quality of the image, be it in size or viewing distance.
I'm sure that one of these days I'll be fortunate enough to have my own dedicated home theater room, complete with a nice front projector, but even then, I would be sure to keep my distance, lest I find myself staring at individual pixels.
As for the quality of the transfer on The Phantom Menace, let me just say once again that if you think that its terrible, you're being too picky. Yes, there is some edge enhancement, but not so much as to bring down the quality of the image as much as some of you would like us to believe. I know I'm not alone in this. Even the best reviewers at the best DVD websites have given the disc high marks for its video presentation.
For instance, here's an excerpt from the review over at DVD File by Peter Bracke and Cliff Stephenson:

...let’s go over the video details real quick. The film is presented in a spectacular anamorphic 2.35:1 widescreen transfer that is rock solid and exemplifies everything we have come to expect and love about DVD. A pristine image that is basically without any speckles or flaws, a presentation that is extremely detailed and rich in colors. A few shots exhibit a slight sheen of grain, but it is clearly a result of the film stock used to shoot these scenes and nothing that distracts from the. The image features deep blacks that give the image a lot of visual depth, and perfectly delineated shadows that maintain every bit of detail without breaking up or washing out details. The transfer features some slight edge-enhancement, resulting in very light ringing artifacts on occasion, but for the most part, the presentation is unblemished and maintains a very film-like look for the DVD that is very sharp, yet never unnaturally so. The compression is flawless and I was unable to find signs of compression artifacts anywhere on this release.

Again, the transfer receives high marks, with no mention of edge enhancement at all.
With these reviews in mind, what's more likely? That three of the best DVD review sites online completely missed how awful this transfer is or that this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion due to high expectations? I suspect it is the latter.
If you're still not satisfied, that's perfectly fine with me. You have every right to say that the transfer on the DVD wasn't good at all, just as I have the right to say that it was good enough. But please, don't go around calling it "sub-par" when it is in fact, very good in every other fashion.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Just for the record, I do see the EE during most of the Tatooine scenes.

HOWEVER, on my 96" FPTV system, I find that at least 80% of the scenes in the movie look just fine, and of the remaining 20% only about 5% are what I would call distracting.

The transfer could have been better; there is no question about that.

And I think that many of us are upset simply due to the fact that we wanted the Pod Race to be a new reference standard for both audio and video on DVD, and sadly, it's not that.

Whatever.

The expected November release of Episode II will likely be a digital-to-digital transfer of a much better movie, and this whole issue will be forgotten.

 

[Ricardo C]

The expected November release of Episode II will likely be a digital-to-digital transfer of a much better movie

Stop it! I'm drooling already

 

[TheoGB]

Not to mention how crummy a DVD can look on a GeForce 2 card... Dancing pixels indeed.

Depends on your system. My old G400 Max made Seven look beautiful and my GeForce 3 seems to rock just as well... I'll check again when I get home...