Phantom Menace projected - video quality? (1 Viewer)

[Dan Hitchman]

Not only is it rife with EE, the print is not very pristine and full of little nicks, dirt, blemishes, etc. and it wobbles and weaves ever so slightly due to (I'm guessing) sprocket hole warpage on the negative used.

Even though I detested this movie I still feel Lucas could have done a hell of a lot better on the DVD's QC for something with the name STAR WARS attached to it. Perhaps even a really spiffy DTS-ES Discrete remix to go along with it.

Dan

 

[Terrell]

Again, not on my DVD it's not. But oh well, we can go in circles all day long. It's a good transfer. Few are missing DTS with the staggering DD-EX track that's available on TPM.

 

[Bill Slack]

Some people don't notice it. A lot of folks sitting right next to me at Fox didn't. Those of us that did all noticed the exact same things, and all were in agreement over the improved quality of POA.

We're not trying to diss TPM. We're not out to 'get' George Lucas. It has flaws. On one hand it has bright vivid colors and a very good amount of detail. On the other, you can notice halos around tons of objects. I notice this on the copy I own and my 40" Toshiba. I noticed it at Fox on their mamouth screen. I noticed it at Dave's studio day on a 47" Panasonic.

It's not perfect. There are tons and tons of DVDs with much better transfers. There are also 10x as many DVDs with worse transfers.

The point is someone asked if it should look bad. It doesn't look perfect, especially when really blown up, that's for sure. Also, there was all this hoopla that GL himself was insisting in over-seeing the QC of it, so the expectations for a reference quality disc were intrinsic.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

When I originally viewed TPM on my 32" analog Wega, I considered it a reference transfer. EE isn't noticeable at that size from a normal viewing distance for me unless I really make an effort to look for it.

I recently upgraded to a front projection setup (Hitachi 5500 LCOS that I might be exchanging for the new Boxlight 20HD/Sanyo PLV-70) with a 92" diagonal screen. TPM wasn't the first movie I watched. I went through several others first including X-Men (beautiful), Gladiator (minor EE but otherwise very nice), and The Rock CC (just about perfect, very film-like). I don't miss going to the theater at all.

With great anticipation I fired up TPM. The halos were ridiculous. I could see them everywhere. As some have mentioned, it's really odd how some scenes look fantastic while others are overrun with EE. Grain was also very apparent in some scenes, as were scratches and dust.

Jeremy, maybe you need to upgrade to the Pioneer Elite PRO-720HD. It looks great on mine.

Maybe you need to upgrade to a projector so you have equipment that's capable of displaying reference DVDs to their utmost capabilities. Your 720HD makes bad DVDs like TPM look great by hiding their flaws, at the expense of showing true reference material at its full potential.

 

[Terrell]

Maybe you need to upgrade to a projector so you have equipment that's capable of displaying reference DVDs to their utmost capabilities.

Uh, the PRO-720HD displays the full resolution of DVDs by about two times over. It displays everything in the DVD, and most certainly doesn't hide anything and make bad DVDs look great. Don't know where that came from. What, you think there's some sort of magic that covers up flaws? Yes, it most certainly displays reference transfers to their utmost capabilities.
As for the DVD, you guys are saying it has a bad transfer. I'm saying that's not true. It has a good transfer. I never argued it was reference quality. By the way, this has nothing to do with defending Lucas, as he didn't make the DVD.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

What, you think there's some sort of magic that covers up flaws?

Yup, it's called a smaller screen.

32" Wega + TPM = Great transfer

PRO-720HD + TPM = Solid transfer

100" front projector viewed from 12' away + HTPC/outboard scaler + TPM = EE-ridden, dirty transfer

I'm sure your Pioneer is a fine RPTV, but just because you can't see the flaw that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are much higher standards by which transfer quality is judged than just your own. I think my projector is gorgeous, but I'm sure most CRT projector owners would probably say it's crap compared to their setups. It's all relative.

 

[Terrell]

The Pioneer doesn't make it a solid transfer, it is a solid transfer. 65" is plenty big enough to reveal any flaws. Again, not reference quality, but solid nonetheless.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Yup, it's called a smaller screen.

Well, the type of screen matters too. For instance, you can see the flaws of a transfer much more clearly on a 19" monitor than a 27"-32" television screen. But a 100" projected image is certainly going to reveal all a transfer's shortcomings.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

But a 100" projected image is certainly going to reveal all a transfer's shortcomings.

Tell Terrell. Apparently his TV is the ultimate display device, able to make mediocre DVDs look outstanding. Or maybe the rest of us got defective DVDs like he suggests, and he got the one good copy.