TPM edge enhancement? (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Coleman]

I sent an E-mail to Bill Hunt about it with links to Bjoern's website. I don't expect him to say much on it but who knows.
Kevin C.

 

[Gary King]

But Gary, some of those deleted scenes with less ringing also contained *more detail* than the theatrical cut on the disc.

I'm not arguing on the side of the 'source elements are at fault camp.' I haven't watched TPM DVD, and I don't really care to. Obviously something went wrong which caused some nasty halo artifacts on the DVD - I was just explaining that low bit rates will have fewer noticeable halos than high bit rates, due to the low-pass filtering involved. However, since the deleted scenes have more detail and no halos, obviously something else is amiss.

 

[Tom J. Davis]

I for one don't really care what it is, but it must stop! There is absolutely no excuse for it. I saw tpm 10+ times in the theater and didn't notice any EE, ringing or whatever. When the trailers look more like film than the movie itself there is a problem. I thought some scenes looked good, but many did not and EE or whatever gives the entire movie a "video" look. Granted the movie had a digital or video look to it in the theater , but not this bad.
One must view the Criterion edition of the Rock to see what a dvd can truly look like. I do all of my viewing on a Sony 53HS30 with 2:3 pulldown activated, svm off (via service menu setting), avia calibrated with the sharpness control at about 2% and the sub-sharpness adjusted to the softest point in the service menu.

 

[Cris K]

But in order to stop it- don't you first have to know what it is- and what causes it?
-cris

 

[Bing Fung]

I knew there was something about the image that didn't look right, though I couldn't put my finger on it.
I watched it on my 36" XBR and I thought the image looked soft or defocused. I was contantly adjusting my calibrated set to achieve a picture that did not annoy me. Unfortuantely I was disappointed in the end as the image quality of TPM is just not reference material. I inserted The Fifth Element afterward to check my eyes and equipment, It looked as good as ever, definitely poor image quality on TPM

The sound track was impressive though with a very powerfull LFE.
Excellent report on EE Bjoern

Nice show of EE Bryan, makes the point for sure.
[Edited last by Bing Fung on October 18, 2001 at 09:48 PM]

 

[LarryH]

My 2 cents: Even before reading this thread I noticed the effect on my first viewing. Bjoern's analysis is a good description of what I observed. Even though I generally enjoyed the DVD, it's a shame that it could have been significantly better. Don't they ever look at these things before they release them? How about a little quality control.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

No one has yet answered the question of why I couldn't see it on the 20ft ScootScreen
I will take screenshots tomorrow night of the uncompressed 720x480 images and view them at full resolution. I watched bits and pieces of TPM tonight, and saw nothing, but then again I only have a 27" TV
Jeff Kleist

 

[Mark Zimmer]

So, the question is, are the Fox reps reading this, and if so, what are they going to do about it????
------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[DaViD Boulet]

quote: Without the edge enhancement this DVD could look a lot softer or even border line blurry in comparison to other DVD's.[/quote]
That's just the myth that causes the "hey I've got a button so I'll push it" techies mastering our DVDs to do this sort of thing.
It's just not so.
Look at the images that lack EE in the comparison. You'll see even MORE apparent detail with less digital "noise" obscuring the fine details.
All things being equal...even when filtering is applied to aid in compression...EE only obscures what fine detail there is.
quote: Well, I'm certainly glad I'm not disappointed in the transfer the way many of you seem to be. On my rig, it looks incredible. I'm not educated enough about EE enough to get into a debate with a knowledgeable person on the subject, but it seems it's becoming stylish or popular to complain about edge enhancement.[/quote]
If you could read archived threads from 2 years ago, that's just what people were saying when the passionate videophiles like myself were complaining that a particular DVD wasn't anamorphic and needlessly wasted 1/3 of it's potential resolution.
quote: Bitrate is directly proportional to frequency response, so if the bitrate is low enough that the overall frequency response is less than twice the frequency of the halos, their effects will be reduced. You can verify this yourself using Photoshop -- take a photo, run a "Sharpen More" filter on it, and then save it as a JPEG -- watch the edges in the preview window as you vary the compression quality.[/quote]
First people suggest that the halos are a *result* of overcompression...now we're to assume that they are migitaged by it? The Super Bit Sony disc comparisons show less ringing (for the most part) than the normal discs. It's not an apples to apples comparison to TPM situation, but worth considering.
Sure... more compression = less detail = less detail for everything, including the halos (given that we assume the halos aren't a result of compression itself, which most of us feel that it is not) if we're using the same digital image to start with. But that still doesn't mean the the halos aren't a result of some sort of EE that has been applied to the signal to "boost" detail in some attempt to compensate for a soft image, nor does it mean that the trailer of TPM was compressed from the same digital master that the theatrical feature was.
Also, filtering detail for compression to the point of rendering the halos invisible would not allow more apparent detail suddenly to emerge unscathed from the image than a higher-bit-rate compressed signal of the same source...which is exactly what we're seeing in the lower-bit-rate deleted scenes and trailer on TMP disc.
EE has been added to the theatrical feature but not at all or to a lesser degree to the supplements which preserve more real detail despite their lower-average compression ratio.
The sad truth is that more apparent detail would be preserved if the image was compressed with no EE, rather than adding EE and then compressing thinking that the detail will better rendered.
The fact that the realtively unprocessed supplements look better points to the "the more buttons I press on my console the better the image quality will be" mentality of studio mastering. With audio mastering, the best sound happens when the sound engineers just let the signal through without manipulating it. The same philosphy holds for video.
DNR, EE, vertical filtering to minimize aliasing on 480I displays...all these things destroy the astonishingly film-like image that our little $20 480x720 DVDs could throw on on our big screens.
-dave
[Edited last by DaViD Boulet on October 19, 2001 at 08:57 AM]

 

[derek]

I think the correct assumption is that Lucasfilm/Fox/THX clearly knew about the EE on the DVD transfer. Therefore in my mind I conclude that is was a choice they made. Why? That's the million dollar question. Was it chosen to 'appease the masses' in the same way retailers crank up the sharpness/contrast on a tv set...for the 'appearance' of sharper more detailed image? For %90 of the buying public with 27" tvs it may suffice...but for many of us it's a severe flaw and unnecessary compromise in an otherwise excellent disc.
------------------
Derek
Surround EX FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/P...urroundex.html

 

[RobertR]

It seems to me that it's analogous to a record producer so in love with the equipment in the recording studio (an apt description of Lucas) that he decides to process and multitrack and equalize the HELL out of a recording instead of leaving the source in its "natural" state. The result is a decided UNnatural product with false detail at the expense of real detail.

 

[GlennH]

For %90 of the buying public with 27" tvs it may suffice...

The same could be said about the VHS release a year-and-a-half ago.
This DVD should have set a higher standard and not been processed to look sharper on "everyman's" TV set just because that's what he's used to seeing. ... If that's what happened.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The fact that the realtively unprocessed supplements look better points to the "the more buttons I press on my console the better the image quality will be" mentality of studio mastering. With audio mastering, the best sound happens when the sound engineers just let the signal through without manipulating it. The same philosphy holds for video.

Brilliant minds think alike

 

[Randy Boecker]

It seems to me that it's analogous to a record producer so in love with the equipment in the recording studio (an apt description of Lucas) that he decides to process and multitrack and equalize the HELL out of a recording instead of leaving the source in its "natural" state. The result is a decided UNnatural product with false detail at the expense of real detail.

Let's quality that. Your analogy talks about equalizing "the HELL out" of it. I would agree that this can be the case, although it's more likely they'll compress the thing to death to make it louder and reduce any dynammic range.
But realistically, in audio recording, EQ is meant to correct deficiencies in the original recording. The result "should" be what the producer wants. Unnatural is in the ear of the beholder, especially these days. But any audio engineer or producer will tell you that absolutely NO ONE does any recording without EQ. Without it, you end up with a lifeless recording. Even live concerts are processed with EQ before burning to disc.
Audio and visual are two different things. Carrying your analogy to film, I agree that TPM was overly processed, resulting in the effects that we are all (mostly) complaining about. Just as with an audio recording, the processing should be transparent to the end user. The CD listener shouldn't be able to hear too much EQ on a specific instrument track, just as we shouldn't see the visual edge enhancement artifacts on the TPM disc. Just as with audio, a motion picture must be processed before going to DVD. A film that looks great projected on a big screen will not look the same on most television monitors.
But I absolutely agree that someone went way too far with this. After the pains Lucas went through to eliminate the matte effects from the first three films when he released the special editions, I'm really surprised he let this one out of the door so "dirty".

 

[DaViD Boulet]

quote: But any audio engineer or producer will tell you that absolutely NO ONE does any recording without EQ. Without it, you end up with a lifeless recording. Even live concerts are processed with EQ before burning to disc.[/quote]
Not to say that EQing doesn't serve a purpose or ever have a place in the recording process...but...
Chesky produces audiophile recordings which are not equalized and use no noise-reduction techniques.
And to be sure, the very best recordings I have ever heard have been direct-to-disc LPs which use a similar unprocessed-philosophy of recording.
quote: Just as with audio, a motion picture must be processed before going to DVD. A film that looks great projected on a big screen will not look the same on most television monitors.[/quote]
That's the myth. If it looks good 100 inches wide, why wouldn't it look good shrunk down to 27 inches? Of course it would.
But the reverse isn't necessarily true...something that looks good small won't necessarily look good blown up big.
In a perfect world, DVDs would be mastered with someone watching them projected on a state-of-the-art 100" screen. They should be mastered to look as close to the original film in this environment as they can.
Those who ultimately watch those DVDs on their 27" TVs won't have anything to complain about.

But I absolutely agree that someone went way too far with this. After the pains Lucas went through to eliminate the matte effects from the first three films when he released the special editions, I'm really surprised he let this one out of the door so "dirty".

We definitely agree!
-dave
[Edited last by DaViD Boulet on October 19, 2001 at 11:02 AM]

 

[Rob Tomlin]

As someone who normally isn't easily bothered by EE (I have a relatively small 46" Mitsubishi HDTV) the EE on this disc was very obvious in certain parts, and was downright distracting! The video transfer was disappointing considering I would expect a movie like this to be reference material in every respect. Hell, aren't we talking about the guy who is responsible for THX and all that it (supposedly) stands for?

 

[Steve Bak]

I agree with you Rob. He set the standard for THX, so shouldn't we expect the same for the video quality. I was very disappointed with the video quality. Some scenes looked over-exposed, the colors looked muddy, image was soft, and the EE was very apparent. I just couldn't believe my eyes. After the movie, I was compelled to put a different movie disc in my RP91 to see if I was imagining all this. Nope. My calibrated 57" Sony looked as great as usual. All I can say is, I'm glad I didn't buy it.

 

[Wookie Groomer]

I have watched this multiple times over the weekend and I must say, the EE is the worst on Phantom Menace than on any other DVD I have seen to date. I got eye fatigue watching this crap. Some scenes look really good but others.. oh boy.. Lucas should be ashamed that he allowed this to be released in the condition it's in considering all the hype and the wait we were subjected too.
And let me add another item of my disgust. The audio IS weak and must be cranked out louder than any other DVD I own to match in level. I am a previous LD owner and am not saying this to jump on any bandwagon but I know with what I hear and the level of quality that I am use to that this DVD is lacking.
I respect the effort and content of the 2 DVD set but in all honesty, the video and audio presentation is not reference quality and does not deserve THX certification nor does any Star Wars title deserve anything less than greatness.

 

[RobertR]

[cynical mode]
Given Lucas' history of UMPTEEN rereleases of the SW films on VHS and LD, it would not surprise me if we get another version of this film in a "THX Ultra" version with "EE improvements" to be played on "equipment certified by Lucasfilm Ltd, Inc. licensing agreements" to be able to show it to its best advantage.
[/cynical mode]
------------------

 

[Brian Lawrence]

So, the question is, are the Fox reps reading this, and if so, what are they going to do about it????

Let's not get on Fox's case. Lucasfilm had a lot more to do with this dvd than FOX. I mean, When the filmmakers come in and say this is how it should look, what are they to do?
If anyone should be brought to task here I would suggest it be the folks over at THX and Lucasfilm.