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

[Rob Tomlin]

Does anybody know how many Columbia/Tri-Star titles have been released as non-Superbit titles only to be released as a Superbit title later AFTER Superbit came into being?

For example, the original release of The Fifth Element came out long before the Superbit idea was around, so that wouldn't count.

Off hand, I can't think of any, but I'm sure they exist. Those would be the one's that would be upsetting to me....do it right the first time!

Some of their new titles are released on Superbit to begin with, such as Panic Room and Adaptation. This is the way to do it!

 

[Mitch Stevens]

Some of their new titles are released on Superbit to begin with, such as Panic Room and Adaptation. This is the way to do it!

Is it? If I recall correctly, the guy who was working on Panic Room, (he posts here at the HTF often) says that the upcoming "Special Edition" of Panic Room (2-Disc Set) is going to LOOK BETTER than the Superbit. Hmmmm.......

 

[Dave H]

Someone definitely goofed up on Panic Room - disappointing transfer for sure.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

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?

Not sure how we got on the topic of D-VHS (presumably D-Theater) but I simply cannot allow that statement to go by without comment!

Where, may I ask, have you ever seen a review (professional) that stated the differences between D-Theater and it's DVD counterpart were "minute", or "very small"???

 

[Dave H]

Rob,

Not all DVD reviewers rated it that high. (And, ultimately, we should judge for ourselves what looks good and doesn't). There is NO WAY this is a reference quality disc! This disc doesn't even compare to other Superbit discs which I still wouldn't consider "reference."

However, I do say Panic Room looks pretty good (I would give it about a "B" rating). However, for a new movie with a new SB release, it should have been better. The video definitely contains some kind of noise - something I don't see among my other Superbit movies. All of my other Superbit releases (Men in Black, Dracula, The Patriot) except heavy Metal blow Panic Room out of the water. Keep in mind Men in Black and Dracula contain many dark, shadowing scenes too, yet have older source material.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Yes, Dave, I actually do agree with you about the video noise in the Superbit transfer of Panic Room. However, that issue aside, it is a very good looking title. Some people confuse darker movies with lower contrast as a poor transfer!

Your original statement that "Someone definitely goofed up on Panic Room - disappointing transfer for sure" seemed more harsh than your post above, which is why I made the point that WSR gave it a 5/5 (which is higher than I would have given it...probably 4 or 4.5 because of the video noise).

 

[Vincent_P]

PANIC ROOM was given a 2K "digital intermediate" step for the 35mm release prints. I would imagine that the DVD was downconverted directly from those 2K digital files and not re-transfered from a 35mm film output, no?

As for "reference quality" DVDs, the image quality on Steven Soderbergh's SOLARIS is simply stunning. Even when I zoom way in on the image, it looks smooth, natural, and film like, with incredibly fine detail.

Vincent

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The bizarre thing about the Panic Room is that there were 3GB of blank space left on the DVD-9. The average bitrate could have been boosted a ton.

For a new film from a 2K source or a fresh digital high-res transfer, there should be no reason to cut the bitrate. Some time back, I believe Robert Harris stated that some films might have reduced bitrates (and presumably filtering...to reduce detail without compression artifacts) for a reason, as the source is not good. Now, frankly, I'd rather have a neglected negative or flawed restoration revealed to me in all its imperfect glory, but I can't imagine a reason to do that to a brand new film.

Add a French 2.0 track (which is supposedly against the Superbit ideal), then leave a third of the disc unused?

I'm not saying Panic Room looks bad, but I'm all for using all the bits you have.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Well, I see folks are trotting out Panic Room once again as an example of a lacking Super Bit title. Sorry, but that just isn't the case. The transfer on this disc does a beautiful job of replicating difficult source material. The fidelity to the theatrical presentation is very high with this title. It may not be to some people's liking or idea of what reference is supposed to be, but ultimately the job of any transfer is to faithfully replicate the film experience. The current release of Panic Room does that in spades.

If the bone of contention is the free space on the disc, I can't argue the numbers but will only mention that there is a law of diminishing returns as the bit rate increases. Robert Harris posted about this in one of the previous threads concerning Panic Room if I recall correctly.

( BTW, this is from the perspective of someone who has viewed the film several times theatrically and multiple times on DVD on a 106" 16x9 screen from a Sony VPL-W400Q / Sony S7700 DVD Player. )

- Walter.

 

[Cliff Olson]

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...

Thanks, Colin. My point is, you guys dislike the idea of Superbit, yet nobody can point to a non-Superbit that looks better (or, sounds better - maybe the same, but not better). All I can say is: they look better and sound as good, or better (when a DTS Track is added), how much better is subjective. But, you cannot discredit what they do. For $3-5 more than a regular title, they are worth that extra to me Yes, I have double-dipped several times, but I end up giving my dad, or some other family member my non-Superbit Title, so it's a win-win thing for both of us.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Walter-

Regarding the Superbit transfer of Panic Room, do you notice any video noise?

I noticed it on my 46" ISF calibrated Mistubishi HD set, so I can only assume that it would be worse on my 123" screen, although I haven't tried it yet.

Like I said, other than the video noise, it is an excellent transfer!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Regarding the Superbit transfer of Panic Room, do you notice any video noise?

With digital video (like DVD), and a fresh telecine (or transfer from digital intermediate), there should be no 'video noise'. Compression artifacts, sure.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Rob - That would be difficult to answer without actually understanding what is being called video noise with regards to this transfer. The film presentation had a very distinct, and deliberate look or style that I believe could be construed as 'noisy'. I'm, of course, referring to the interior night sequences. Did the opening credits or the outdoor, daylit sequences contain this type of artifact? To the best of my recollection they did not.

- Walter.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Walter-

From what I remember, what I saw as video noise isn't something that I would think could be considered as something deliberate in the original film.

That being said, I am now curious as to whether my other setup may have had something to do with it (i.e. video noise being added by the DVD player etc.).

I am currently using a DVI equipped DVD player with my Dwin projector, which isn't likely to add any video noise or artifacts, so I will try to give Panic Room another look on this setup to see if the noise is still there.