Superbits: reference for picture quality (I think not!) (1 Viewer)

[Cliff Olson]

No, I am not sure. Who knows what gets decided
behind closed doors. Don't you think
however when these studio people sit down together
that they have some idea of what titles are going
to be upgraded to Superbit?

My point is that if you are going to market
two different types of DVD product (Standard
and Superbit), announce to the consumer what
your release intentions are from the getgo.
Otherwise, the Superbit comes off as some sort
of "gimmick" to dupe the consumer into double-dipping
into a title.

Ronald, I think you said it right there. The "Studios" aren't telling us (assuming they even know, right up front). So, why is everyone so "hard" on Sony for this? They should be mad at the studio for first introducing a title with less quality than it could/should have been.

Sony's Superbits are not a "gimmick". That's like saying Steve Hoffman Re-mastered CDs are a "gimmick", because they sound better than what was first released on CD. My point is, they appeal to a certain consumer, who is enthusiastic, or has higher end components, and can take advantage of these higher bitrates, or better transfers/masters Besides, the reason I like the Superbits, is they are done "right", the way they should have been the first time. At least that's my HO, on the matter.

 

[Cliff Olson]

The transfer should have been "superbit-quality" right from the start.

Marc, that's the sad truth of this whole debate, and I totally agree

 

[Bill Burns]

Ron wrote:

Quote:



Bill ...

... I read reviews all the time where reviewers
complain about excessive EE. In all my short
years as being a reviewer for this forum did
I ever notice EE. I'm not saying that EE does
not exist, but if you don't know what you are
looking for, you don't see it. In that case,
it seems to me it's not something that jumps out
at the ordinary viewer ....

... I have the utmost respect for your intelligent
contributions to this board, as well as those
of you that continually complain about EE. I
sort of feel like the village idiot who can't
see what everyone else is complaining about.





As other have already said, count yourself lucky, Ron. But first, thanks for the very kind compliment. As to the "seeing is believing" phenomenon of EE (and naturally there's no idiocy involved, village-sponsored or otherwise) ... I understand, believe me -- I've been in those shoes myself. Knowing about EE is a mixed blessing; while I noticed the occasional hard outline or slight halo in my first few years of DVD watching (on a 4x3 television), and continued noticing only the occasional appearance of such a problem after I upgraded to a component 16x9 capable set, I dismissed it as something necessary in the encoding process, or an artifact of the film itself. I just didn't pay it much thought. As soon as I'd read about EE on-line, though, I investigated one or two titles, then another few, then ... before I knew it, I saw the bloomin' stuff everywhere. I became passionate about it -- I gritted my teeth and took the plunge into the (dangerous, proceed-at-your-own-risk, this-is-not-intended-for-owner-manipulation-and-you-could-permanently-damage-or-ruin-your-set) Service Menu to see if I could deactivate SVM. Sharpness adjustments just weren't doing the trick. Well, as it turns out, my set has an (so far as I know, unadvertised) auto SVM defeating measure for one of its presets, and having discovered this on-line, I started from scratch with Avia on that preset. Hours upon hours later, I had both UM and SM adjusted to their best possible values with absolutely no SVM (happily, I averted permanent damage to my set by the skin of my teeth -- having discovered a switch that turned the brightness to its highest setting and shot white and pink light at the tube, I immediately changed that switch back to its preset and stopped experimenting! But by then I'd already defeated red push, reduced overscan, and improved geometry), and I was eager to see what I'd accomplished. Sure enough, the picture was great, but yes, EE was still there, and in most cases very definitely on the discs, rather than a function of my player or set.

Realistically, to this day I'd probably notice it little or not at all had I never read of it on-line and taken it upon myself to become scrupulous in my home video enthusiasm. There's a lot to be said for just relaxing and enjoying the product ... but then, if improvements are possible, why not push for the very best? The stick-in-the-mud in me brings me down on the latter side of that fence, but those on the other aren't necessarily any worse off -- everyone has to set their own threshold(s) for quality, for what amounts to a product worthy of their purchasing dollar. It's all about the pleasure we derive from the product, after all, and that is ever subjective.

To some extent, issues of timing are a similar matter. While I've never had any particular trouble, without additional research, in spotting a badly composed frame or a soft or otherwise underwhelming transfer (this becomes particularly annoying when watching a large format film sourced from reduction), I'd rarely know a film was mistimed if I wasn't told by someone else. I might know if it were a film I'd seen frequently or recently, and general parameters (bright colors or muted colors, high detail or soft, filtered detail, grainy or smooth, etc.) I'm sure I'd recognize (in either their presence or absence) in any big film release (any "event" picture) I've enjoyed, but on a disc such as Lawrence of Arabia, I'd have no idea it was mistimed (in the LE) if that had not been discussed here, and of course emphasized by Robert Harris both here and at The Digital Bits. The red push of the transfer just feels ... understandable. The picture takes place, primarily, in the desert, after all -- hot, sweltering sunshine tends to burn the skin, and heat rises off of sand to color the horizon, etc.. A reddish tone (reddish/indigo, reddish/blue) felt about right. But I'd never seen the film theatrically.

Knowing there's a problem, I want it fixed. Knowing to look for the problem, I see it. But without that foreknowledge ... I'd probably be very happy with the LE. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? That sounds like a question of a decidedly philosophical nature to me, and much too involved for a post.

But I understand (and fully endorse) your satisfaction with releases with which others find fault, Ron -- believe me, for reasons other than EE, there are many transfers I love that folks of great integrity denounce. Such is the way of things.

Speaking of which ...

...

Herb wrote:

Quote:



... Ironically, a movie that my fellow HTF friend Bill uses as an example of excellence is a movie that is basically unwatchable (at least on my system) due to haloing, is Giant. I can't think of a movie in my collection that is a better (or worse, depending on how you look at it...) example of haloing.





Would that be this Bill, Herb? There are a few Bills around here, but I wrote up a glowing (pardon the pun) recommendation for Giant a few months back, so I reckon you mean me? Hmmm. Let me see if I can articulate why I still, to this day, highly recommend the release, despite what you're seeing:

Giant was, by reports from LDI founder John Lowry, the most challenging film to the time of its restoration they had tackled as a company. One of the problems inherent in the elements (and there a few, including the color system used for its processing) is the use of fades that never cut into a scene. If you watch a number of older films from the 30's, the 40's ... at least through to the 60's, possibly later, films as they survive in original prints/negatives without additional cleaning/restoration, you'll find that many, when they use a fade, will cut into a scene just before the fade and cut back out immediately afterward. They aren't cutting to a new scene, but rather to a superior element. The reason this is necessary is the technology involved; the only way to create a fade, in the old days, was to optically print it, which meant that the element ending in a fade, and the element opening with a fade, would be a generation or more further removed from the original negative than the remainder of the film, by necessity (if I've muddled this explanation in any way, I certainly invite correction).

Many films get around this problem by cutting into the scene with the lesser element just before the fade, and then cutting away from the lesser, optically processed element as soon as the fade is complete. In some cases, a second or two of breathing room can be found -- it doesn't appear to have been an exact science. But the idea seems to have been straightforward: minimize the use of a noticeably inferior element by splicing it into any scene of appreciable duration directly before and/or after the fade, rather than replacing the entire scene with the lesser element.

The upside is that most of the scene plays out beautifully, and the sequence only becomes grainier and more "contrasty" during the fade. The downside is that the jump in optical quality is almost inevitably noticeable, and some might even say distracting.

The solution to that downside, employed by certain other productions (I seem to find the former predominant in classic cinema, but that's just in my personal viewing history), is in fact to replace the entire scene with the optical fade material. Thus the first scene or shot cut before a fade will mark the beginning of the lesser element (the element of a later generation, due to the optical processing necessary for the fade). The element continues from that cut right up to the fade, through the fade, and into the following scene, where it continues to be used until the next scene or shot cut. Thus shots of significant duration may drop in quality, but, the argument goes, because the lesser element doesn't cut into and out of an existing pair of shots, but instead begins with an editorial cut and ends with an editorial cut, it's less distracting. I disagree wholeheartedly with this, and much prefer the earlier method of cutting into the shot just before the fade, and cutting (or more precisely, splicing) out of the lesser element right after the fade, thus preserving most of both shots (the one before the fade and the one after) in the best possible optical quality.

Now, even films that use the method I prefer will still replace an entire shot if it begins a moment or two before the fade -- few if any cut into a good element after only a few frames, or a few dozen, right up to a few seconds. But shots of greater duration are better preserved, optically, by using the good element for the greatest running time possible, before the nature of the optical technology demands that the processed shot (the fade) be inserted.

Giant, unfortunately, used the "editorial cut" approach. Any scene that includes a fade persists in its lesser generation element from the previous editorial cut, and, after the fade, continues until the next. Thus shots of significant running time are "spoiled." Less distracting? Not to these eyes!

The problem LDI faced, and WB as well, is that there's little to be done about this. If all of the trims were preserved, they could have gone in and replaced the optical fades with digital ones, and fixed every scene. But, of course, trims were tossed out, I'm sure: they undoubtedly had the usual troubles with fading and wear and tear on surviving elements for the film as released, and were rightly thankful that at least these survived. I have no idea what generation of elements they had to work with, but it's clear that trims for optical fades were not preserved, as none have been reinserted. All fades remain optical, and all fades begin with a hard cut and end with a hard cut, with everything in between of significantly reduced optical quality.

Two of the things that invariably grow worse with each successive generation of a film element are grain and contrast. Grain becomes heavier, and contrast becomes brighter, taking on a "glow" that loses definition. The further removed the element from the original, the greater these problems become. Again, I have no idea what generation of elements LDI were working with, and I also have no idea how many generations the optical technology used at the time of the production required the filmmakers to remove themselves from the camera negative.

One of the easiest places to see the effects of contrast build-up in all of DVD-land is to pick up a copy of David Shepard's The Sheik/The Son of the Sheik (Kino's edition of The Son of the Sheik has the same trouble as Shepard's copy, but his double feature offers a supplement of some value in this, as I'll explain), available from Image Entertainment. If you explore the supplements on the disc, you'll find in one of them (I've forgotten now which) a brief clip from Son of the Sheik. The catch? That clip was taken from what looks to be a first generation print in absolutely mint condition, and the supplement in which it's found dates from ... oh, I don't know if it's as old as the film, but I think it dates from within a few years of it, at any rate. Elements that survived at the time were stellar, and the brief segment of the film seen in this clip looks great.

Now look at the same scene in the feature presentation of The Son of the Sheik on this disc. Voila! Grainy, contrasty (the print also runs a bit fast, unlike The Sheik, but so does Kino's edition) ... all of the problems of which I'm speaking. You can see the contrast build-up best right at the beginning of the film, with Valentino on horseback after first meeting his lady love ... he absolutely glows, with bright highlights blooming all around him. I didn't specifically note the use of EE on the disc, but this contrast blooming is distinct from EE and very visible.

So ... there's the problem for Giant. Not only are the segments with fades of lesser overall optical quality, but by necessity they are also going to have weaker, more poorly defined contrast gradients and a differing grain structure. I'm sure LDI did what they could here, but the segments with fades still look pretty poor.

The question is then: is this EE? Sure, but I think it's actually a combination of EE (to bring up "apparent detail" lost to grain removal, necessitated by the heavy grain structure of the elements, and other processing) and contrast blooming. In other words, I think the glow you can see around objects even when there is no great contrast gradient between the object and the background, and you can see this in many of the scenes in question, is in fact the peculiar effect of the element's contrast build-up. It doesn't look like full-on blooming, though, it's too structured, too rigid ... and so my gut says it's a combination of EE and blooming, the ugly offspring to these two concerns.

But it only, and I do mean only, affects scenes with fades. I believe there's one exception (when James Dean, covered in oil, leans into Elizabeth Taylor on her porch), and otherwise ... it's just the fades. There's an odd "blur" in an early shot or two in the film (when Liz and Rock are flirting on her parents' porch), but that's a separate issue, and mercifully fleeting.

If one watches for the cuts, and examines only scenes that begin and end in a hard cut (no fades), you'll find a transfer essentially free of all EE, of beautifully rendered contrast and color ... a great piece of work. There are shots that are absolutely mesmerizing (James Dean's first close-up, if I recall, and a shot of Rock staring into the fire while Liz is at the window later in the picture, and ... so many others), so beautifully have they been rendered.

I can't bring myself to hold the fades against the transfer. I don't know how they looked after LDI's best processing ... perhaps artificially soft, distractingly soft. Perhaps WB felt they had to add EE to bring up apparent detail, to make them a better (albeit still poor) match to surrounding scenes. I don't know. But there's one thing of which I'm certain -- they've applied virtually no EE to any other portions of the film. In fact, I'd say, off-hand, that I noticed what appears to be the slightest bit of EE of Lion King, and HTF's David Boulet says there is none whatsoever ... so I'm left to conclude that my player (a late 1999/early 2000 model, now a bit outdated) is perhaps adding a bit, or that my television's CRT technology cannot be made entirely rid of it, even with SVM deactivated and with sharpness precisely adjusted by the Avia test pattern. Whatever the cause, a slight amount can be seen on The Lion King, and, in the "hard cut" scenes of Giant, I believe the visible amount of edge haloing is equivalent, if not still less. I had to pause the scenes and examine the screen from only a few feet away to really see it.

So ... I happily recommend Giant, but with the above "discretionary viewing," as it were. Those fades don't look very hot, and they eat up the entire shot before and after, but any shot beginning and ending in a hard cut ... well, I can't say I've seen any better on DVD. This is one of the few (perhaps more accurately the only) 4x3 formatted 1.66:1 transfer I'll recommend without the slightest hesitation. It should have been 16x9 encoded, and it would be still better if it were ... but dang, is it beautiful nevertheless.

I know I'm fighting an uphill battle with this title. A great many people around here, and elsewhere on the 'net, seem dissatisfied with it. But I really do believe that if you consciously separate and exclude the scenes containing fades, you'll find a reference-caliber transfer. Then, when relaxing with the film as a whole, the distractions of the "fade scenes," which now include an odd effect of what I believe to be an EE/blooming hybrid, may be chalked up to the poorer optical quality these sequences have always sported.

Back to Superbit for a moment, Ron: I agree that Superbit titles should be announced when their SE's, in particular, are announced. In some cases (The Mask of Zorro, Starship Troopers), fans of the films who've been buying the upgrades from day one on the format will find themselves on their third DVD version right now. Even with Best Buy's persistent (and exceptional) $15 price on the SB of Mask of Zorro, I haven't quite brought myself to buy it. I bought the movie-only edition when it came out, and I then bought the SE when it came out. If I buy the SB, even at this very reasonable price, I'll have spent more on the film on DVD than a laserdisc release would have cost me -- $45-$50 or so (I found something of a bargain on the movie-only release, back in the day), whereas a movie-only laser might have run $35-$40. Getting the best of DVD, and supporting one's favorite films, shouldn't prove costlier than the formats DVD replaced! Had Columbia/TriStar announced the Superbit Deluxe of The Mask of Zorro when the SE was released, I'd have probably waited. The SE is now cheaper than when I bought it, and so buying it now, with the Superbit (the SE for the commentary, the SB for the picture quality; because all of the supplements in which I'm interested appear on the disc containing the widescreen version of the film, including the commentary, of course, I can simply toss the second disc of the Superbit Deluxe and replace it with the widescreen disc from the SE set ... and thus, for maybe $30, have a SB edition of the film and the SE version, with commentary and all supplements of interest to me {I say that because I'm unsure if anything "extra" appeared on the other disc in the SE set, aside from a P&S edition of the film}) ... well, that'd be okay. But three purchases for one film? I have a hard time swallowing that. I'm sure I'll eventually buy the SB, but it's tough.

Happily, I never bought the first (single disc) SE of Starship Troopers, only the second, two-disc SE. I'm hoping the SB will be reduced in price at some point (as was The Mask of Zorro), and if it is, I'll buy it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I can't readily combine the releases, as there are many supplements on disc two of the SE, and of course two commentaries, if I recall correctly, on disc one. So they'll have to sit side by side on my shelf.

Such examples go on and on. Two copies of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (one SB, one SE for the commentary and other supplements), a combined copy of The Patriot (one disc SE, with commentary on the feature and all of the supplements found on the second disc of the SB Deluxe, replacing that second disc, so that there are now two copies of the film in my SB box, one SB, the other SE), and so forth. Where does it end? I would love, ideally, to see Columbia not only announce the SB when they announce the SE (or standard release), but to also offer a second disc compartment on all SB releases for which SE single releases exist. Those wanting both needn't then have two boxes on the shelf. Another possibility is to simply include a lower-bit version of the film, with commentary, on the second disc of Superbit Deluxes, but something tells me that would somehow cut into profits (I can't say why, just now, but my gut tells me that would be the "official" answer, and the current, rather loose model of a Superbit Deluxe for $23 or $24 retail and the SE for $15 about as price-efficient as they can make it). It would be very nice to see, all the same.

There's no terribly good answer here. No one likes to buy a movie more than once. And yes, the best transfers I've seen (Giant, a film I love, and -- grumble -- Once Upon a Time in America, a film I hate, I loathe, and a film I want to emphasize is strictly for adults, but not this adult) are, in fact, from Warner Bros.! I just haven't seen any transfer that's better, anything more film-like. Great contenders also include a few Columbia classics, such as the magnificent discs of Only Angels Have Wings and His Girl Friday. But those DVDs are a few years old, now. Columbia would make great strides if they'd ...

... you knew I'd come full circle here ...

... eliminate visible EE from all of their releases (indications are that it's only problematic on 'Scope and large format transfers, but I haven't independently confirmed this). Embracing DD EX and DTS ES Discreet on the SB line would also meet with eager ears (though I don't yet have a receiver capable of decoding them).

So ... eh ... what was I saying?

I reckon that's about it. Thanks once again for the kind words, Ron -- they're very much appreciated, as is, believe me, the consistent quality and integrity HTF maintains.

P.S. As I post this, my living room has just erupted with sports enthusiasts screaming about the Marlins winning the World Series. I'm not a sports fan (count me in for billiards and that grand old spectator sport, women's volleyball

), but to those who are Marlins supporters: congratulations.

 

[Cliff Olson]

Wow, Bill, I didn't know you were a man of such few words!

 

[Bill Burns]

(blowing smoke off my keyboard) Eh? What? I have no idea what you mean.

 

[Dalton]

Some other transfers that IMO best or equal the Superbits:
Training Day(already mentioned i know)
The Hunted (not a great movie but a great transfer)
Dreamcatcher
LOTR:FOTR EE
Matrix Reloaded

I know there are some others but those are just off the top of my head. I thinks it's a shame what CTHE charges for the Superbit titles. On many new releases from other studios you get just as good picture and sound and a boatload of extras. If CTHE wants to charge so much they should make all Superbit releases Deluxe instead of the movie only discs they are sticking us with for most titles.

 

[Clay-F]

How does the Patriot superbit stack up to the regular version?

I just stumbled on the Suberbit version, and picked it up. I hope luckly so....

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Sony's Superbits are not a "gimmick". That's like saying Steve Hoffman Re-mastered CDs are a "gimmick", because they sound better than what was first released on CD.

This comparison doesn't work because CTS don't put the effort into the Superbit DVDs that Hoffman puts into his CDs. Hoffman does his damnedest to bring out the best in the source material. In most cases, CTS simply takes existing transfers, slaps them onto a disc with more bit space, and asks for your money. If they actually went back and created new TRANSFERS for the Superbits, that'd be one thing. But other than a smattering of exceptions, they use the same old transfers with no clean-up and the same EE issues and just expect the extra bitrate to make a difference.

A piece of crap shined up will still be a piece of crap. A problematic transfer accorded the maximum bitrate will still display issues. THAT remains the biggest problem with the Superbit line - simply maxxing out the bitrate is meaingless if the source has problems...

 

[Herb Kane]

Hi Bill:

Wow... that was quite a response. My initial thought was to just say "nope, wrong Bill"... after you typed all that, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it...

Without getting into too much detail (having strayed away from the original poster's question). Like you, I also enjoy the movie immensely... it is a masterpiece and a disc I really really wanted to enjoy. But regardless of the caveats, the EE present is just too distracting (at least for me) to recommend it.

My point really, was to list it as an example for anyone who wants to truly see what EE looks like. And I recall you being a huge fan of the film (disc).

Herb.

 

[Bill Burns]

And I recall you being a huge fan of the film (disc).

Wait, what ever gave you that idea?

No, no, I am, of course, but I understand why many find it rough going.

Another disc folks might want to take a look at is The Phantom Menace. I don't own the release, so cannot speak from personal experience, but I don't imagine the screen captures posted here (the Phantom Menace page on the site Ron and I were discussing earlier) ...

http://www.videophile.info/Review/TPM/TPM_01.htm

... leave much doubt about the nature of the beast. If you're ever going to see it, you'll see it here. I'll of course take Ron's word for it if he just doesn't see anything in these screenshots (which represent the worst EE of any on the site, I believe) ... but, um ... er ... just look at the angel droid! Oh, wait, sorry, the halo threw me. EE isn't usually as bad as this (and comes in both the halo, seen in that link, and hard-outline variety, where it looks like someone has traced around an object, or the screen right of an object, usually when set against a bright background such as snow or sky; any transition from dark object to brighter background seems susceptible, though), but if those screenshots are truly representative of Phantom Menace, I'm glad I skipped the release. I believe that's the worst I've ever seen, whether by screenshot or actual DVD playback.

The primer I linked in my earlier post (with the tower shots Ron mentioned, and the differences there are much more subtle) covers the phenomenon in detail for anyone looking at it academically (how to explain it), rather than practically (where is it on one title or another). I'm still confused about the horizontal/vertical nomenclature, though, which comes up again in the Phantom Menace link. Does anyone know just why vertical halos (halos/artificial edges along vertical lines) are, in fact, horizontal EE?

 

[Bill Burns]

Oh, and Clay, to answer your question: I'm very happy with the Patriot upgrade, and tossed the second disc of the Superbit Deluxe because I already had the SE. The single disc SE has, I believe, all of the supplements found on the SB Deluxe and the film itself with a running commentary, so now my SB box holds the SB version of the film and the SE version, with commentary, deleted scenes, and other supplements. For comparitive screenshots between the releases, here's the page for The Patriot on the site mentioned above:

http://www.videophile.info/Review/Pa...Patriot_01.htm

Note the arrows that point out specific areas of improvement.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I have the utmost respect for your intelligent
contributions to this board, as well as those
of you that continually complain about EE. I
sort of feel like the village idiot who can't
see what everyone else is complaining about.

As others have said, consider yourself lucky.

That being said, if you want to see it and know what it is, it would be very easy for me to point it out to you on my 123" screen!

When my Dad and I discuss DVD transfers, I would often comment about EE. He didn't know what it was, and didn't notice it after explaining it to him. Therefore, the next time he came to my theater, he wanted to see what he considered a "reference" DVD- The Superbit version of Vertical Limit. We popped the DVD on, I walked up to the screen, and pointed to the "halo" surrounding the actors on screen (especially apparent in the high contrast background of snow). Both my dad and his wife, who had never noticed EE before, immediately saw what I was referring to.

Vertical Limit reference quality? I don't think so!

I also have a smaller 46" Mitsubishi HDTV. On that size screen, I rarely notice EE (except for the worse offenders).

Screen size definitely matters!

 

[Cliff Olson]

This comparison doesn't work because CTS don't put the effort into the Superbit DVDs that Hoffman puts into his CDs. Hoffman does his damnedest to bring out the best in the source material. In most cases, CTS simply takes existing transfers, slaps them onto a disc with more bit space, and asks for your money. If they actually went back and created new TRANSFERS for the Superbits, that'd be one thing. But other than a smattering of exceptions, they use the same old transfers with no clean-up and the same EE issues and just expect the extra bitrate to make a difference.

A piece of crap shined up will still be a piece of crap. A problematic transfer accorded the maximum bitrate will still display issues. THAT remains the biggest problem with the Superbit line - simply maxxing out the bitrate is meaingless if the source has problems...

That's a fair argument, Colin. But, do you have any examples of these problematic ("or piece of crap") Superbits? I've never seen any... but I haven't watched them all yet, either.

 

[Chris Farmer]

My biggest problem with Superbits isn't the idea themselves, it's that it's unnecessary to accomplish what C/TS claims it does, ie best sound and picture quality. Sure, an increased bit rate is always a good thing, but it's diminishing returns, there's a logarithmic limit to how good 480p video can look, and as you approach the maximum bit rate, each increase in bit rate leads to a less noticeable increase in picture quality. It's been stated in numerous cases that the difference in picture quality from a Superbit comes not from the increased bit rate, but the absence of some soft of filter in the compression algorithm, ie something that is totally independent of what is claimed to do the job. There is no reason that filter has to be applied to standard releases, the only reason I can think of for applying it is so people can see an increase in the SB release, and therefore justify the SB. As others have said, it's easy to increased picture quality on the SB version when the original is intentionally handicapped. The most frustrating thing C/TS does with SBs is drop commentaries, presumably to keep the bit rate up. This is just plain flat unnecessary, plenty of movies have commentaries running along the feature that still feature great A/V quality.

And just for more proof that SB in unnecessary to accomplish what it is supposed to, here's a few DVDs with phenomenal A/V quality that also have numerous supplements including commentaries on the same disc. Star Wars II, Braveheart, X-men 1.5 (also has dts and a branching feature with at least 30 minutes or more of additional footage), Daredevil (also has dts), Memento LE (and this was even a C/TS), any of Pixar's movies, The Rock Criterion (also has dts), and Se7en Platinum and LotR: FotR EE, both of which have DD EX 5.1, dts ES 6.1, and FOUR running commentaries, all of which eat into the maximum bit rate. And yet they produce transfers that rival the very best Superbits. These two alone punch holes in the claim that maximum bit rate is necessary for maximum A/V.

I'm not saying that there's not improved A/V on Superbits. That's objectively untrue (whether you individually notice the difference is more subjective) and can be determined through a series of screen captures. What I'm saying is that they look and sound better not because of any commitment to quality that couldn't be delivered on the original release, but because C/TS WANTS them to look better. Or does anyone actually believe the original release of Spider-man was the best they could do?

 

[Dave H]

Or does anyone actually believe the original release of Spider-man was the best they could do?

Yes, this is one release that should have looked better - and surely will with the inevitable Superbit release.

 

[Andy_MT]

Yes, this is one release that should have looked better - and surely will with the inevitable Superbit release.

i'll say. it could've sounded better as well. given that this is one of columbias' many newer titles with faulty audio (crackling/static in center channel during quiet dialogue driven scenes :: columbia - please fix this), i'd be very upset if this fault was present in a superbit edition. actually, strike that. i'd be bloody furious! actually, strike that. i'm bloody furious now. it shouldn't have been on the current release, never mind superbit.

i think superbit has a better stab at representing quality than THX ever did. it's still a very, very long way from perfect, but it looks as if it's going to be the best they're going to give us.

 

[Robert Franklin]

I too at first didn't know what EE was, but when I was showed what it was, it seems apparent to me more often than not. I have to agree with some statements that was said, but not all. I for one have about half of the Superbit titles. I too agree that we should know in advance what titles are coming as Ron had stated. And I would also admit that I have bought a titles and then months later it comes out as a Superbit title, and I may have rebought them as well. I believe everyone would agree that the worst case of re-releasing a title multiple times is "The Mask of Zorro". This disc has been released as the original THX version, the 2-disc Special Edition with extras and DTS, (maybe because of Speilberg), and the latest is the Superbit Deluxe. I have the original version, and I have thought about buying the Superbit version, but I don't intent on it. As many times as I have defended the sound quality of DTS on MY system versus other peoples' opinion, you may wonder why I haven't jumped on that bandwagon. I will tell you this; it doesn't have anything to do with the picture quality of how it will look because of the amount of space that DTS occupies.

Let me ask this question; how would consumers feel if Columbia announced ALL of its Superbit titles before releasing the same titles with Special Features? Or just make all future titles Superbit Deluxe. That way you get superior picture quality and sound and the second disc is for the extras. The bottom line is this; even though some of us are complaining about the differences between Superbit and Non-Superbit titles, there are many other people complaining about other things. For example, I for one would rather buy a Superbit title because it only has the movie and both DD and DTS. I do not watch the extra stuff more than one time. So, for me it is not a necessity. If I were to get a movie without any extras, I would be happy knowing the picture and sound quality are first rate. And for me, that would be a Superbit from Columbia. Other studios don't follow this program, and who said that they have to.

Let me ask this question as well. How many people stated that they wanted Paramount to re-release a special edition of the Jack Ryan Trilogy? I for one responded to that thread as well. What people wanted was a better anamorphic picture for Hunt For Red October, and behind the scenes and interviews with the cast members as well. Paramount delivered it with what they wanted and added DTS as well. When I bought my dvds, yes I did look at the interviews, but I mainly rebought them for the DTS soundtrack.

And while we are talking about minor differences, let me tell you that I have read that many reviewers see very little difference in D-VHS. So why would anyone bother buying D-VHS if the differences are so minute?

Back to the topic at hand. Everyone doesn't have the same home theater setup. Everyone doesn't have their TVs or projectors calibrated. So, its up to the consumer to justify what he or she buys. But, don't trash superbit because you cannot see the differences. Don't talk bad about DTS because you can't distinguish between Dolby and DTS. Don't trash HDTV because you see little differences between HDTV and regular tv or satellite. I do agree everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but let's use this forum in a constructive manner, and let the studios and manufactures know how we think they can improve on the technology that we currently have. For us to make a giant leap with future technology, we MUST first take small steps and learn from that. If a Superbit title is that small thing that bridges that gap between NTSC DVDs, and HDTV, and maybe Blu-Ray; IMHO, I don't see the problem.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

That's a fair argument, Colin. But, do you have any examples of these problematic ("or piece of crap") Superbits? I've never seen any... but I haven't watched them all yet, either.

I can't think of any I feel are "crap", but I didn't really mean to imply that any of them were that terrible. I simply meant that the quality of the source impacts the product more than does the bitrate. High bitrate for bad transfer doesn't make it a good image.

I don't recall seeing any terrible transfers for SB titles, but quite a few needed some work. That's really all I intended to say - Superbits is a gimmick to me unless they use the program to optimize the image in EVERY possible way...

 

[Clay-F]

Thanks Bill!

When I was looking for The Patriot I just stumbled on to the fact that it has a SB release, I'm glad I decided to spring for it.

 

[Dave H]

I, too, noticed an improvement with the SB version of The Patriot. (I am using a 61" display which makes differences more noticable.)

I always opt for the Superbit version of any movie as I always see some kind of inprovement.

It would be nice if Columbia announced in advance which movies would be arriving in SB form, but they obviously wouldn't make as much money off titles as they want you to buy titles repeatedly.