Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Dvd

This is topic Dvd in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000046

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-30-2002, 11:52 PM:

Things I like about DVD:

-I can watch it more than once without the picture getting all scratched and dirty.

-It's video. If video is good enough for Steven Sodaburger it's probably too good for me.

-The cases. Extra entertainment value is included in most DVD packaging in the form of spending countless hours peeling the stickers off of the top and bottoms.

-The animated menus. Why would anyone want to put the disc in and just press play? That's stupid. Unskippable animated menus are definitely the best thing ever to grace my television screen. It's a known fact that they add a great deal of value to any DVD.

-The copyright warnings. I was going to copy my DVDs for my friends, but since that copyright warning is unskippable I definitely won't now.

-The compression. Wow, everything I love is compressed! DVD's, MP3's, DLP. Compression is obviously the most important advancement in history. Nobody notices the details anyway. How can they when there are none to notice?

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 08-31-2002, 12:28 AM:

Two more:

- Remixed soundtracks. Why yes, let's have a bunch of flunkies in the home video department replace half the foley sound effects, change the balance, and do fake 5.1 from an original mono mix. Who cares if the people who did the original sound mix won Academy Awards for Best Sound. It was done in the past, so it's primitive and needs to be replaced. It's almost as good as colorization!

- Cropped transfers. I just love it when I can't see all the way to the edges of the picture. There was nothing important there anyway! The Ben Hur DVD is a great example.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-31-2002, 12:23 PM:

Here's another thing: DVD accomodates an ego-driven penchant to customize a DVD to make it more inconvenient --like eliminating all chapter stops! I just love popping in a David Lynch movie like "Mulholland Drive" and having to hold down the fast foward button for several minutes to get to that lucious girl-on-girl couch scene! The DVD would have been better with two chapter stops: opening title and girl-on-girl thang.

Seamless branching would have been even better on that disc. We could have had the option to skip that really creepy scene where the young blond girl has to kiss that old dude that played on "Medical Center" in the 1970's.

Another Lynch DVD, "The Straight Story" goes straight to play when inserting the disc. I wasn't expecting that. I'll usually go pee while the DVD is cycling through the opening menus. So I missed the first couple minutes.

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-31-2002, 12:49 PM:

Shame on the ben hur transfer. SHAME SHAME.

Not all remixes are bad. Some are quite good, using all of the original tracks and sounds, just remixed using the new 5.1 technology.

I will agree that I have heard some of the fake 5.1 remixes from mono sound. What the hell is that?

Dave

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-31-2002, 05:09 PM:

quote:
DVD accomodates an ego-driven penchant to customize a DVD to make it more inconvenient --like eliminating all chapter stops!

Isn't the act of adding chapter stops to a DVD customizing a movie for the DVD experience?

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-02-2002, 10:37 AM:

I know DVD isn't perfect, but it's the best medium there has ever been for watching movies at home. If you have a properly calibrated widescreen set that can take full advantage of anamorphic DVDs and do the inverse 3:2 telecine, your home viewing experience will be far greater than anything anyone ever dreamed of for video 10 years ago. Most DVD movies have an anamorphic transfer in the movies original aspect ratio, and in some cases, the DVD was my first opportunity to see a movie in its original aspect ratio (after seeing scope cropped to 1.85 in a couple of local theatres or seeing older movies on VHS or TV only). I know the presentation quality achievable with such a setup falls far short of a properly setup 35mm environment in a theatre, but my DVD setup will beat the Carmike Century Cinema 8 in Decatur most of the time (frequent focus, brightness, and alignment problems). A good DVD environment can beat a lousy theatre, and there are plenty of lousy theatres out there. I admit that I don't see as many movies in theatres as I used to.

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-02-2002, 11:53 AM:

As I've said in other threads, I don't own a DVD player. I've often been tempted to buy one, but the prices keep going down, (saw one with SRD & DTS out, and Component video for $79) and the features are getting better on the more expensive ones. So i've decided to wait until those come down, too. There aren't any DVD titles out that would make me run out and get one, either.

Speaking of the titles available, and this may not be true anymore, but releases were often reissued several times in better packaging, (remember DVDs in jewel cases?) a better disc, (no dual-layered discs early on) or a new director's cut or additional scenes, etc. Why didn't they do this on the original disc?!? Sometimes it's planned in advance, as is the case with Lord Of The Rings. In some cases, a new disc SHOULD be issued because the previous version is inferior. (There is still no widescreen version of Happy Gillmore available, or the Titanic DVD where the only real "extra" was the trailer.)

True that the quality of the image on a DVD surpasses VHS, and this would be especially noticable in my screening room on a large screen, and the fact that my projector has Component inputs makes me really want to get one. But I feel I have more control over VHS. I can fast-forward past the FBI Warning and all that nonsense. I don't have to deal with a menu. I can have my screen masked to the correct aspect ratio for the film and not have to worry that the menu is fullscreen and would be partially on my cieling while I search for the "Play Movie" option.

So I guess i'll wait until the format settles down and gets on a straight track. Oh, and when Warner Bros./New Line switch from that stupid cardboard packaging, and start listing the aspect ratio on the box. (instead of just "...the black bars at the top and bottom of your screen are normal" )

=TMP=

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-02-2002, 12:10 PM:

Chapter stops are a holdover from the Laserdisc format, and a matter of convenience for most viewers. If you want to check out a certain scene again, it is kind of nice to have a chapter stop to get you much closer to that point.

But if some filmmakers want to be totally puritanical about it, they'll also disable your pause button so you can't go take a pee break while the DVD is playing. They'll disable the fast forward and rewind buttons so you can't track back to figure out what some mumbling character just said.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-02-2002, 12:14 PM:

A quick side note...

I noticed (according to Amazon.com) that the Neverending Story DVD will be released tomorrow, Sept. 3, and that it's 1.85:1

However, IMDB lists under "technical details" as 2.35:1, and a laserdisc release in 2.20:1. (I know, I know, IMDB is about as accurate as the National Enquierer.)

So what's the real aspect ratio on this film?
=TMP=

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-02-2002, 12:47 PM:

It was shown in 35mm "scope" in theatres.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-02-2002, 12:49 PM:

quote:
"But I feel I have more control over VHS. I can fast-forward past the FBI Warning and all that nonsense. I don't have to deal with a menu. I can have my screen masked to the correct aspect ratio for the film and not have to worry that the menu is fullscreen and would be partially on my cieling while I search for the "Play Movie" option."

This is actually one of the main reasons why I dislike DVDs. Enough of the cutesy crap. When I press PLAY, just play the movie! Seeing that non-bypassable FBI logo just makes me want to copy the thing to spite them for making me sit through it. And what's with Universal? I watched a Universal DVD the other day and had to sit through a 60 second promo showing off their "fabulous" movies as well as the FBI logo before my player would give me control. Back when LaserDiscs were popular, I used to dupe them onto S-VHS just so I wouldn't have to deal with the intermission(s). I'm tempted to start doing that with DVDs. No FBI menu, no studio promos and no silly menus. Duping to D-VHS wouldn't lose a bit of quality either.

Also if the movie is 1.85 letterboxed, at least have the courtesy when designing the silly Flash-like menu screens to keep all options within that frame. Same for 2.39 letterbox.

Oh well, DVDs are overrated.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-02-2002, 01:28 PM:

So far the best aspect of DVD's is the DVD Audio format! Nothing else about DVD is very important or fascinating.
Mark

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-02-2002, 01:34 PM:

I guess I feel that having to wait for an FBI warning doesn't even come remotely close to tipping the scales againt DVD. Like Evan said, it's the best medium ever for home. Random access, not having to rewind the damn thing every time, better picture, clear pauses, clear frame-by-frame, and better sound are just a few reasons why DVD is the best.

Part of me wonders if some of you are against DVD's just because they're digital?

Finally, if it wasn't for DVD, I would've never gotten that good CD recording of the film version of Pink Floyd, The Wall.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 09-02-2002, 01:58 PM:

My biggest complain about DVDs is that they don't offer enough "Standard" or P&S discs. I have a regular 25 inch TV and the "wide" formats of DVDs put out just too small a picture. So when I see a film I want and it isn't offered in "standard" on disc I'll buy it in VHS. Both my players are new and I see no noticable difference in pic quality. I buy DVDs to save storage space. And all that added garbage is just annoying for me and doesn't impress me at all. I think this is just another case of "Techno-nerds" gone crazy. I even get annoyed at having to fast forward through trailers on tapes I've purchased (they're OK on rented tapes or in theatres).

Bob
The Old Showman

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 09-02-2002, 02:30 PM:

You know on those VHS tapes, you only have to fast forward through those trailers once if you just want to see the movie.
Just reset the counter to zero when you get to the feature, and at the end of the movie, put on the memory button and it will only rewing to the beginning of the movie.

I know its a matter of tast, but I think everything should be released to video whether it is VHS or DVD in its original apect ratio.
P&S means POS in my book

------------------
Find me online
AOL: Dexter Caldwell
yahoo!: dexter_caldwell

"It is the opinion of the entire staff the Dexter is criminally insane."

Posted by Peter Kerchinsky (Member # 1098) on 09-02-2002, 02:41 PM:

Hey Old Showman;
You've got to be kidding about preferring the panned and scanned versions on video! Letterboxing is the only way to go. That's one thing I enjoy about Turner Classic movies on cable. If the film was shot 1.85 or Scope, they play it that way. AMC did it for a while but now they show all scope films panned and scanned so I no longer watch them. Plus the fact they recently added commercials! Yuk!
My suggestion is buy a larger screen TV and watch your films the way they were meant to be shown.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 09-02-2002, 03:02 PM:

Hey Pete!

Have you priced wide screen TVs lately? They don't fall within my budget. I agree that 'scope should be seen in 'scope (remember I was a projectionist when CinemaScope premiered and have seen the industry through all it's transitions) but unless someone is going to gift me with one I'll have to stick to P&S or STAND. Have a great day!

Bob
The Old Showman

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 09-02-2002, 04:02 PM:

Just sit really really close like the guy who went to the Fenway theater.

(see Darn you AMC! Why don't you do your space motion sickness research)

------------------
Find me online
AOL: Dexter Caldwell
yahoo!: dexter_caldwell

"It is the opinion of the entire staff the Dexter is criminally insane."

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-02-2002, 04:08 PM:

quote:
"I guess I feel that having to wait for an FBI warning doesn't even come remotely close to tipping the scales againt DVD. Like Evan said, it's the best medium ever for home. Random access, not having to rewind the damn thing every time, better picture, clear pauses, clear frame-by-frame, and better sound are just a few reasons why DVD is the best.
Part of me wonders if some of you are against DVD's just because they're digital?"

Chad, actually you are incorrect. The BEST home video format right now is a little something called D-VHS. It's 1080i digital video in a VHS shell. And as far as tape vs. disc, I have no problem whatsoever dealing with tape shuttling. It's much less annoying than navigating those stupid menus every time I play the tape. The buttons are always the same. "PLAY" means just that...PLAY!

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-02-2002, 04:16 PM:

I know it won't happen, but I'd _love_ to see some director/studio have the guts to refuse to release a popular film on any home format and insist that the only way to see the film presented properly is in a good theatre environment. Of course, I'd like to see this attitude carry over to not allowing the film to play in theatres which have a reputation for poor presentation quality.

As for DVD--it's definitely the best home format, but it's still substandard in many ways. It seems to have been designed more for low cost and convenience rather than quality. If they had used larger-diameter disks, then they could have used a higher bitrate with fewer of the objectionable lossy compression artifacts which exist on every DVD that I have seen.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-02-2002, 04:38 PM:

quote:
As for DVD--it's definitely the best home format, but it's still substandard in many ways. It seems to have been designed more for low cost and convenience rather than quality. If they had used larger-diameter disks, then they could have used a higher bitrate with fewer of the objectionable lossy compression artifacts which exist on every DVD that I have seen.

It's interesting to consider what kind of video quality DVDs might be capable of if they were on 12" discs (like LaserDiscs) instead of 5 1/4". But there's NO POSSIBLE WAY a consumer-oriented mass-produced system will EVER use discs any larger than they are now. As for the artifacting, I'm a pretty harsh critic, and I have to say that with a good progressive-scan DVD player with 3:2 pulldown, noticeable artifacting is pretty rare. I HATE artifacting, but it's all but disappeared on my 53" HD-capable set since I got a better DVD player (with component video of course). Transfers & compression techniques have improved too.

quote:
The BEST home video format right now is a little something called D-VHS.

Tape-based D-VHS is a stop-gap measure meant to facilitate recording and playback of true high-definition today. It's on the market now because DVD technology isn't quite ready yet for high-definition (for whatever reason). But D-VHS is doomed to fail. Unless I suddenly strike it rich, I wouldn't spend 2 cents on any "new" tape-based home video format. Better DVDs are coming and they will make tape-based systems instantly obsolete. I can wait. Consumer Videotape: Just Say No. Besides which, the studios are very nervous about releasing mass quantities of their product in full 1080i. Though some are currently supporting D-VHS, the quantities are miniscule in terms of the overall market. I just can't see D-VHS ever being very big unless the price suddenly drops below $300 for the hardware. I'll be very surprised if we ever see mass-production of hollywood product for the consumer market in real 1080i, whether it's D-VHS or a future true HD-capable version of DVD.

"The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author."

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-02-2002, 05:27 PM:

Robert Allen said "Have you priced wide screen TVs lately?"

Well, actually you can buy them at Costco now. The Samsung Direct View CRT 16 by 9 set is a little over 1K in price. RCA also has them at about this price if ya shop around. RCA otherwise known as Thomson Electronics has the hand up in this stuff as they built the first wide screen CRT plant down in Indiana. All in all, for 1K, its not such a bad deal or unaffordable either.
Mark

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-02-2002, 06:09 PM:

quote:
I noticed (according to Amazon.com) that the Neverending Story DVD will be released tomorrow, Sept. 3, and that it's 1.85:1

It was released (in Region 1) September 4 of last year!!! The disc includes a 2.35:1 original and 1.33:1 pan-and-scan edition.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-02-2002, 06:09 PM:

Actually, what I have noticed is that it is a better buy to get a 4:3 set and deal with the letterbox. The 16:9 sets don't seem any "wider" just less tall.

As to DVD artifacts...I've seem on some of the best stuff and they still have compression artifacts that I don't like. The whole, only update those pixels that change seems to have a look I don't like.

The DVD player was certianly impressive (in appearance and weight!)...check out the Panasonic DVD-H2000
http://www.prodcat.panasonic.com/shop/NewDesign/ModelTemplate.asp?ModelID=11671

Looked pretty good....for video.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-02-2002, 06:36 PM:

Steve Guttag wrote:

quote:
Actually, what I have noticed is that it is a better buy to get a 4:3 set and deal with the letterbox. The 16:9 sets don't seem any "wider" just less tall.

What if the primary reason someone wishes to purchase a 16:9 set is so they *won't* have to deal with the letterbox?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-02-2002, 06:54 PM:

Image area is image area...if you don't want to deal with letterbox...buy the 4:3 set and make some nice wood panels to cover those unused portions...you save money and you won't have to look at those nasty black areas. Then for regular TV...just pop off the wood panels and you get to have yet larger images. On a 16:9 set, you just get a smaller 4:3.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-02-2002, 07:17 PM:

Steve, I never thought I would read that you were an advocate of common width masking!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-02-2002, 07:28 PM:

I agree the FBI warnings on many DVDs are distracting, as are some of the promo thingies companies like Fox and Universal tack onto the front of their DVDs. However, most newer DVD releases allow you to use your chapter buttons to quickly zap past such spam. You can even chapter past the long-ish animated intros on a lot of discs and get right to the "play movie" button. On some older DVDs, I have found going into the scene selection and hitting the first chapter will bypass a bunch of that nonsense as well.

At any rate, those options make DVD much more convenient and fast than VHS to get to the movie. As others have pointed out, many VHS tape releases have lots and lots of previews and other crap on the front, all of which must be fast forwarded past to get to the show. Thank God for chapter buttons on DVD.

To address the P&S versus letterbox topic, I personally feel it is far better to stomach some thick black bars on a 4:3 TV set than buy a P&S version. I don't have a huge TV either (32" RCA model).

The problem with buying a pan and scan version is it is not "future proof" for a TV you'll likely buy a few years from now. If anyone thinks black bars on the top and bottom of a picture is distracting, try watching a show with black bars on the sides. That's exactly what you'll be doing with any P&S "fullscreen" DVD shown on a widescreen TV.

I watched HBO's HDTV channel this past week at my parents' place in Colorado. That channel sidebars all non-HD 4:3 content. And the effect doesn't look all that good. Any 4:3 P&S DVD will be treated the same way, unless you want to distort the picture by stretching it or doing an even worse thing by zooming into it.

Widescreen TV models (even boasting HDTV tuners) are replacing more and more category levels of monitors. Virtually all NTSC big screen sets have been replaced in electronics stores with HD or HD-ready models. In recent visits to various Best Buy, Soundtrack and Ultimate Electronics stores in Denver, Oklahoma City and Dallas, I found smaller and smaller CRT-based monitors with prices nearing the $1000 level. It won't be but maybe another year or two before we start seeing HDTV CRT monitors dropping well below the under-$1000 price level. The FCC has mandated all new TV sets must come equipped with DTV tuners by 2006. I think it is very likely the marketplace with make that happen before then, like perhaps 2004 or 2005.

So, no P&S DVDs for me --unless the 4:3 version is the only thing offered (like "Citizen Kane" or "Full Metal Jacket").

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-02-2002, 07:55 PM:

Personally, I think that the whole 16:9 TV aspect ratio was a really bad idea, as it introduces a new aspect ratio (1.77:1) which introduces incompatability with 50 years' worth of television programming and 100 years' worth of movies. As I understand it, the reason for the 1.77 format had to do with some limitations on the ability to manufacture wide CRTs, but that seems like a really bad excuse for introducing a silly format.

What I would prefer to see (I know it won't happen, but...) is a higher-quality 1.33:1 TV format, probably 1050p or 1080p, which would quadruple the effective resolution of NTSC television, would be compatible with all of the television programming ever produced, and would provide sufficiently high resolution that letterbox broadcasts of widescreen movies would be of acceptible quality. The legitimate objection to letterbox broadcasts now is that the gain in providing the original image composition is outweighed by the loss in resolution. For some films, I would agree with this, and there are some acceptible P&S versions on certain titles. With a significant increase in TV resolution, however, this objection becomes less meaningful. Trying to convert everything--from 1.33 TV shows and films to CinemaScope movies--to fit on a 1.77 screen which does not correspond to any aspect ratio ever used before--just seems silly to me.

Besides, I don't personally think that a widescreen format is particularly appropriate for most TV programming. Does "Wheel of Fortune" or a nightly news program gain anything from a wider aspect ratio?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-02-2002, 08:16 PM:

To be honest here, 1.77 is so close to 1.85, I don't worry that much about AR. I for one am sticking to my 1.33 set since I bought my Toshiba Cinema Series 32 inch set less than two years ago. I won't upgrade until the HD standards and tuners have been truly standardized and widespread.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-02-2002, 11:12 PM:

Some kind of standards steering committee (I can't remember which one) came up with the 16:9 ratio as an common denominator average factoring in narrow aspect ratios like the square-ish 4:3 shape of TV and wide "marine" formats like the 2.35:1 shape of 'scope.

Lots of people objected to it. Some wanted HDTV to take on the shape of a 2.35:1 screen, just like a commercial theater screen. Companies like Zenith patented moving shutter frame designs to imitate the masking of theater screens while working it into the cabinet construction.

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 09-03-2002, 07:28 AM:

I believe Bobby is right about the standardization of the HD set ratio. 16x9 is a compromise for the various ratios out there so there will be the very least of black bars for letterbox.

This first image of course shows Shrek on my set. The set is running in progressive scan standard mode it stretches the anamorphic image to the 1.77:1 ratio. Close enough for me to 1.85:1

This next one is A Bug's Life and the anamorphic 2.35:1 image is slightly padded with black bars and that image is stretched over the viewing area.

Most of the anamorphic movies I have encountered have been pretty damn close to the original theatrical ratio as long as the image has not been butchered (cropped) to hell like Ben Hur.

As for 4:3 movies and regular TV, I watch those in one of two modes on my set. One mode is side letterboxed (bars on the sides) or in what Mitsubishi calls "Stretched" mode. The whole image is slightly distorted by stretching the far right and left sides of the image and then lessening the effect as it moves to the center of the screen. I only notice the effect when there are quick pans on the image of wide shots. For the most part, it feels as if the screen wraps around your head when it is in that mode.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-03-2002, 06:17 PM:

quote:
As for 4:3 movies and regular TV, I watch those in one of two modes on my set. One mode is side letterboxed (bars on the sides) or in what Mitsubishi calls "Stretched" mode. The whole image is slightly distorted by stretching the far right and left sides of the image and then lessening the effect as it moves to the center of the screen. I only notice the effect when there are quick pans on the image of wide shots. For the most part, it feels as if the screen wraps around your head when it is in that mode.

I've been contemplating the purchase of a new wide-screen set for some time, but when I walk into an electronics store and see those distorted, stretched images, it makes me insane and I walk out. Why would I spend thousands of dollars for a high-quality monitor to watch a distorted image? And standard NTSC 4:3 images seem to look especially bad on these high-end progressive scan sets. Guess I'll stick with my 20 year old 20" Sony for a few more years.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-03-2002, 06:37 PM:

Keep in mind that many electronics stores have their equipment improperly set up. I see this all the time. For a long time, a local Good Guys has used a non-anamorphic DVD with a widescreen set, stretching out the image. As though in this day and age they can't find an anamorphic one?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-03-2002, 07:40 PM:

The 16x9 thing also came about since it is 4x3 squared.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-03-2002, 10:04 PM:

I can't recall ever seeing anyone use a non-anamorphic, letterboxed DVD to demo on a widescreen set (although I'm sure people have zoomed into such discs as "Titanic," "The Hunt For Red October" or even Criterion's "Robocop").

But I can walk into just about any electronics store anywhere and see 4:3 ratio TV sets playing DVDs in anamorphic wide mode with the image all squeezed to hell. I think they pull that crap on purpose just to minimize black bars on super-wide films. Maybe they're paranoid many newbies to DVD won't buy a DVD player when seeing the black bars. Hmmm. Y'know, it is kind of scary, but there may actually be real market study cases showing DVD players with wide-mode improperly set on 4:3 TVs will sell more players. I just wonder how many people keep the DVD players they purchased improperly set in wide mode.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-03-2002, 10:24 PM:

The story of how the 16:9 aspect ratio was chosen for HDTV:
http://web-star.com/hdtv/aspectrathist.html

EBU work on defining scanned areas of film:
http://www.ebu.ch/pmc_scan.html
http://www.ebu.ch/tech_text_r102-1999.pdf

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 09-05-2002, 12:45 AM:

I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression from my previous post -- I love DVD! As Evans said, it's a great home video format. I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of it. I just have a few gripes about the way the discs are put together sometimes.

Unlike Evans, though, I am fortunate enough to have very good theatres in my area, so I have yet to see a 35mm presentation bad enough to make me prefer the DVD.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-05-2002, 08:27 AM:

Shifting the subject slightly, can anyone suggest some good but not-very-expensive DVD authoring software (for a PC running W2K)? I'm currently using MyDVD version 3.0, which came bundled with the burner, but it has two major drawbacks. Firstly, it will not let you put chapter stops in the middle of programme streams: you can only organise access to specific points through the menus. Secondly, there is a VBR limit of 8.0mbps that it'll encode, and even if you make sure your source file is under that you sometimes get 'data exceeds multiplexable bit rate' errors. This has to be a fault with MyDVD because it does this with MPEG-2 files rendered by two different programs.

I'd be very interested to find a package that overcomes these faults; and ideally one which can convert MPEG-2 files which aren't DVD-compliant (e.g. ones without GOP headers), or even different file formats.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 09-05-2002, 09:01 AM:

Maybe someone here knows the answer to this, it has me stumped.
What is the purpose of 2.0 mono? If you have a movie that's in mono, shouldn't it just be 1.0? I know it's possible to do 1.0 mono as I have seen DVDs which had 1.0 mono (every mono WB DVD i've ever seen).

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-05-2002, 09:11 AM:

Could this be where you have two discrete soundtracks of a mono mix, e.g. an English and a French dub of the same film, or the film soundtrack plus a commentary by the director? Or maybe it just means that the same mono track is duplicated in the left and right channels of a stereo mix.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-05-2002, 09:52 AM:

Quote:

quote:
What is the purpose of 2.0 mono?

I assume so if you only have a two channel stereo set-up or just plug in the l/r into your tv set, you'll get the sound out of both speakers. Not everyone will have a Dolby Pro-logic set-up to send this to the center channel.

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 09-05-2002, 10:12 AM:

GOOD is about the best word i dare to use with DVD, it must move up to high def quality as soon as possible. If you compare it to video it looks great, if you compare it to film it looks like crap.
Most people i know thought that buying a DVD player would make their 10-20 year old tv display a high quality image and were immediatly dissapointed.
I watch a fair amount of DVD at home and i am reasonably happy with it, although there are many things that could be improved on.

The debate over the black bars top/bottom or side/side on tv's is a little silly...dont look at them! you should be looking at the picture and in case you hadn't noticed that in the cinemas we have black bars on the sides and top/bottom of the screen
When browsing in the stores i often find widescreen tv's being displayed with a 4:3 image stretched to fit, i also like to evesdrop on salespeople pitching to punters, the amount of bullshit they spin to people is quite disgusting, the guy that sold me my widescreen tv didn't know what a component video lead was, i had to point it out to him on the rack right next to him!

I hope this doesn't sound too snobby, but i can bearly bring myself to watch a video these days, if it doesn't come out on DVD the same time as video i'll just wait for the DVD.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-05-2002, 10:42 AM:

More and more I hear VHS referred to as "video". "Do you want that on DVD or video?" When the heck did VHS become synonymous with "video"? It's as if DVD is something other than video.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-05-2002, 10:48 AM:

It's just become a generic term used by people (i.e. the vast majority) who neither know nor care about the difference between the way these two technologies work. It's the same as using the term 'celluloid' as a synonym for 'motion picture film'. It's technically wrong, but everyone does it. If you were to say to friends over dinner 'I don't think video looks very good, I prefer watching films on polyester,' they'd wonder what planet you were from!

Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 09-05-2002, 11:05 AM:

It's pretty rare to hear the term VHS these days, ever since beta dropped off (consumer wise) it's been commonly called video.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-05-2002, 02:35 PM:

quote:
"More and more I hear VHS referred to as "video". "Do you want that on DVD or video?" When the heck did VHS become synonymous with "video"? It's as if DVD is something other than video."

Yes David didn't you know, a DVD isn't that lousy "video" thing, but PURE DIGITAL, which is of course perfect and makes people flock to get it.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 09-05-2002, 03:00 PM:

Having seen early attempts at DIGITAL video before DVD came out, I was very skeptical of it since often it looked WORSE than VHS. The biggest problem is the 'artifacts' that make the picture look like it's breaking up into squares. I noticed this on an instore DSS (Digital Stupid Satellite) demo when they came out, and pointed it out to the salesguy, who just said, "It's digital!"
Thankfully most DVDs don't have this problem though I've seen it on some cheaper labels' discs, but that was what proved that "DIGITAL" does NOT mean "PERFECT"!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-05-2002, 03:05 PM:

I bet Brad saw a tremendous increase in the number of participants when this was briefly the Film-Tech DIGITAL Forums. The quality of the postings probably was much better too.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-05-2002, 03:12 PM:

quote:
"I bet Brad saw a tremendous increase in the number of participants when this was briefly the Film- Tech DIGITAL Forums. The quality of the postings probably was much better too."

Why yes John, but not only did the traffic increase 5000 times over, the quality of the posts skyrocketed to perfection too.

Posted by Richard Miller (Member # 1405) on 09-05-2002, 07:12 PM:

No matter how much better film is than DVDs, it's still not going to make people go spend10 times the price on a projector that won't even work with cable. Then you loose the news and stuff like that (people love those reality TV shows, shrugs). People don't want to spend that much money, some don't even have nearly that much. Plus DVDs run a little cheaper than film. I guess if every time I want to see one of my favorie movies I had to spen an hour building it, then watch it, then break it down for storage.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 09-06-2002, 07:47 PM:

quote:
Not everyone will have a Dolby Pro-logic set-up to send this to the center channel.

I rented The Man With Two Brains, which has a 1.0 mono soundtrack, this is back before I decided to connect the stereo to the DVD player, it played on both speakers (on my TV which has ok seperation) in mono. My brothers rented Airplane 2, which has 2.0 mono in english and french (2 separate audio streams) it also plays in mono on both speakers (after I connected the stereo). Both of these discs played the same way on my equipment.

What I'm asking is why do producers use an extra channel of audio, which uses up more bits (bits that could have gone to the video stream or to one, better-sounding audio stream)?

Battlestar Galactica has a 1.1 mono soundtrack (center/sub), but Road to Morrocco has 2.0 mono (left/right) These were both released by Universal.

Perhaps someone who actually works with some sort of DVD authoring program with full AC3 (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 4.1, 5.0, 5.1) capabilities can tell me the advantage to 2.0 mono over 1.0 mono.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-06-2002, 10:10 PM:

2.0 mono versus 1.0 mono is a judgment call on taste. While you can press a few buttons to make 1.0 mono audio project from more than only your center channel speaker (such as the front L & R speakers for instance), many people out there don't have the patience to figure out how to tweak their setups to their own preference. They just play things with the factory default settings.

With that in mind, a 1.0 mono track is going to only come out of the center channel speaker on some newbie's home theater setup. And while that center-only placement may be artistically correct, the newbie is still going to be pissed off beyond belief, thinking that his home theater system is defective or something. Anyway, that is the mindset behind 2.0 mono. And the funny thing with 2.0 Mono is if you engage Pro-Logic with it much of the audio grounds itself to the center speaker anyway. Hehe.

This is just another one of those "controversies" such as the differing opinions on altering a Dolby Digital 5.1 track so it is optimized for downmixing into stereo --or not doing it at all and just including a separate DD 2.0 English track instead. Then there is the dialog normalization argument about Dolby Digital. And then you have the deal about when and when not to use Dolby Digital Surround EX enhancement. Oh yeah, and then there is that argument that Dolby Digital EX is 6.1 when it is really only 5.1.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-06-2002, 10:17 PM:

So how is the average home user supposed to figure out what format to play a DVD's soundtrack in, particularly when even theatre employees have trouble determining whether a particular title is EX or not? I can just see Joe Home User trying to figure out sound formats. Mono? EX? Dolby matrix?

Maybe Dolby should come up with a series of "format numbers" for video use, just like they did for film use. Then, the disk packaging could contain a note about "play this in format xx" and home sound processors could have a way for the user to select a format by number. Even better, there could be some type of connection (serial link?) between the player and processor which would then select the proper format from data on the disk.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 09-06-2002, 10:42 PM:

John Lasher wrote:

quote:
What I'm asking is why do producers use an extra channel of audio, which uses up more bits (bits that could have gone to the video stream or to one, better-sounding audio stream)?

What I've found is that most 1.0 and 2.0 mono DVD soundtracks are encoded at the same 192 kbps rate. Other bit rates have been used, but 192 seems to be the most common for mono discs whether they are 1.0 or 2.0. A data rate of 192 kbps isn't really taking up much disc space. Now, full rate DTS (1509 kbps) and PCM tracks start to eat up space....

On VHS and laserdisc formats (whether Hi-Fi, linear, or PCM) there are two audio tracks -- no more, no less -- so mono soundtracks are essentially "2.0" signals there too. Apparently people never really realized this or made a fuss about it until DVD came along.

quote:
Battlestar Galactica has a 1.1 mono soundtrack (center/sub), but Road to Morrocco has 2.0 mono (left/right) These were both released by Universal.

Apples and oranges comparison, I think. The GALACTICA disc was an attempt to preserve its original Sensurround presentation (there are a couple other 1.1 Sensurround titles on disc as well). Actually, I was surprised Universal didn't issue that one in "2.1" given that they customarily issue their mono titles in 2.0.

quote:
Perhaps someone who actually works with some sort of DVD authoring program with full AC3 (1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1, 4.0, 4.1, 5.0, 5.1) capabilities can tell me the advantage to 2.0 mono over 1.0 mono.

I'm not sure there are any real advantages or disadvantages. It's merely a choice, just like the choice the companies make when deciding if a disc will have only a 5.1 track or if it will have separate 5.1 and 2.0 tracks. The 5.1 soundtracks are flagged to down-mix themselves when played back on systems that cannot reproduce 5.1 discrete channels. Likewise, 1.0 tracks are flagged to "up-mix" to 2.0 for Dolby Pro-Logic and similar process playback, which in turn reproduces it as "phantom" mono.

One distinct problem with 2.0-encoded mono tracks is that if they are even slightly out of phase or encoded incorrectly, they won't properly "phantom"-image. In addition, some audio processors have difficulty playing these back as phantom-image mono. This is where that one particular magazine's term "big fat mono" comes from.

Bobby Henderson wrote:

quote:
Oh yeah, and then there is that argument that Dolby Digital EX is 6.1 when it is really only 5.1.

Bobby,
You and Paul L. should chill out over this "argument." If you would've simply made a distinction between "tracks" and "channels" (multiple channels can be derived from a track) then no argument would have been necessary. Moreover, if one were to write a sentence describing a Dolby Digital Surround EX soundtrack (whether theatrical or DVD) and simply framed the 5.1 term in quotes ("6.1") then it would be a subjectively correct statement (e.g. Harry Potter sounds great in "6.1").

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-07-2002, 02:00 AM:

I agree with the tracks vs. channels argument, but I don't think EX or ES should be labeld as "6.1", as I do believe it is incorrect. 5.1 implies 5 and one tenth discrete sound channels. So 6.1 implies the same thing only with 6 discrete channels instead of 5. As we all know, it is not discrete no matter how good it sounds. 6.1 is absolutely the wrong term. Dolby Pro Logic II would also be 5.1 by that argument, and that is absolutely misleading. But then again home theater manufacturers and the studios can easily sell a few more of their products and DVDs if they call it "6.1". Misleading the public is nothing new. I'd rather it be called "5.1 EX" or "5.1 ES". Oh well logic doesn't always win.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 09-07-2002, 02:39 AM:

Actually, from what I've read (maybe someone from DTS can correct me if I'm wrong) DTS-ES on DVD is actually 6.1 discrete audio channels that plays back in 5.1 with non-ES decoders.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-07-2002, 03:35 AM:

You are correct! But not ALL DTS-ES DVD audio is discrete 6.1. Some are matrixed. That there's another reason why terms like 5.1 and 6.1 shouldn't be tossed around so carelessly.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-07-2002, 04:24 AM:

Am I the only one who thinks the whole ".1" is just ridiculous? What super nerd came up with that in the first place anyway?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 09-07-2002, 04:55 AM:

I agree with you Brad

As far as I am concerned 5.1 audio is 6 track. There is no if's or but's about it. Another thing that bothers me is when a sound mix that does not use the right and left surround and LFE and uses only the front soundfield - Left, Center and right and is referred to as 5.1 really annoys me very much.

-Claude

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-07-2002, 07:34 AM:

Well,

The ".1" thing comes from the fact that it isn't full bandwidth and on most systems can't be full bandwidth. Thus if someone wanted to use a 5.1 system to say do a special mix in Todd-AO format, it couldn't do it. So how could one equate a 70mm 6-track film (or mag masters for dubbers) where there is the possibility of 6 full-range channels with a crippled 5.1 system? Heck, for the bulk of DTS systems, they cheat it even more...there are only 5-channels on the disc.

5.1 is mostly a consumer term anyway. Most people I deal with in the industry never refer to any of the digitals as "5-1" as many, many consumer people do. What I like about the whole 5.1 thing is it immediately identifies the morons out there just trying to use buzzwords.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-07-2002, 08:31 AM:

Maybe DD-EX should be referred to as 6:5:6 or something like that. Dolby SR should just be called 4:2:4. It's more descriptive of what's going on.

But, Steve, I think that's a bit harsh. I often use ".1" when referring to these audio systems and I know I am not a moron who's just using buzzwords. A decade ago, the ".1" thing may have been a buzzword but I think that it has gradually "taken hold" and become bona fide terminology. The phrase may not be the most accurate form of reference but that does not mean than only morons use it.

~Manny.

"In space, no-one can hear you scream."
Tagline for Alien

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-07-2002, 10:04 AM:

Manny,

Seriously...the only people that have referred to the film digitals as "5-1" (they don't say the "point") are the morons that come from the consumer side. If you are talking about Dolby Digital, say so. If it is DTS, say so...if it is SDDS call it that. If you need to append EX, then do so. If you just talking about channel configuration, then I suppose 5.1 is a good descriptor. It just doesn't come up for me. But when some bozo claims to "have 5-1" they are almost always a moron just trying to use buzzwords.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-07-2002, 12:14 PM:

My home theater is Dolby Digital AC-3 5.1 (pronounced "ack hyphen three [pause] five dot one"). The system is wired throughout with Monster and Kimber Digital Cable. The center of the system is a Sony Digital Receiver with 100 Watts of digital power per channel (the Circuit City salesman assured me 100 Digital Watts is equal to 1000 Analog Watts). It also has DTS (pronounced "dits") (DTS = Digital Theater Stereo, though some people incorrectly refer to it as Digital Theatrical Surround). But not very many DVDs (pronounced "div-uhds") (DVD = Digital Videoscope Disks) seem to have DTS. The salesman said most DVDs are in Dolby because it sounds better than DTS, and it costs less to make since it uses the same Dolby noise reduction system found in cassette tapes (makes sense).

My Sony DVD player uses progressive scan (sometimes referred to as "liberal scan") with 3:2 Pullup (pronounced "Thirty-Two Pullup"). The salesman said that means it doubles the number of pixels in each frame and doubles the number of frames. Based on that, you'd think it would be "Four Pullup" (the original frame data x 2 x 2) but since a DVD spins 8 times faster than a VCR, it's technically accurate to say DVDs are 4 x 8 = 32 times better than "videos". Obviously "thirty-two" has more marketing sizzle than "four". But then the lawyers made them stick a ":" in the middle in case anyone questions the 32-times-better claim. The bottom line is, all of this techno-wizardry means DVDs look as good as HDTV (Hi-Digital Tele-Vision) or even IMAX (Image MAXimus).

Anyway that's what the salesman at Circuit City told me. Also I read some of it on the Internet.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-07-2002, 03:41 PM:

"5.1" is indeed a consumer term. The more accurate technical term for describing 5.1 is 3/2.1. A Dolby Digital Surround EX 5.1 audio track would be 3/2:3.1 (as would be the description for DTS-ES Theatrical or DTS-ES Matrix 5.1 at home). A DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete audio track would be 3/3.1. I'm not sure how exactly you would describe a Dolby Pro-Logic II audio track. But essentially it is taking what is only a 2.0 audio track on the media and trying to make it sound like 5.1. Just because the hardware is doing some matrix trickery doesn't mean the audio track recorded onto the media is 5.1. It is still only 2.0 no matter what.

Anyway, I am right in saying a lot of misuse has been made of the "6.1" term for audio tracks that are essentially 5.1. Dolby Labs has made it clear in their advertising rules that Dolby Digital Surround EX is a 5.1 format and should never be described in product literature as "6.1".

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-07-2002, 05:43 PM:

Quote:

quote:
I am right in saying a lot of misuse has been made of the "6.1" term for audio tracks that are essentially 5.1.

Agreed. Which is why Ive always been careful to refer to them as CHANNELS and not TRACKS. Same principle of calling the Dolby SVA system 4:2:4 (two tracks on the film print, 4 channels being reproduced in the theatre). So, in dropping that silly .1, I'll just keep adapting Dolby's original idea of a theatrical 2 track 4 channel system, to Dolby Digital Surround EX as a 5-track, 6 channel system, the way Dolby and THX orginally pushed the system as. Dolby can sue if they want!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-07-2002, 07:18 PM:

AFAIK, the term "5.1" was originated by Tomlinson Holman, and was part of the original digital sound discussion in the SMPTE Audio Technology Committee:
5.1 History
IEEE Review
Holman Book
Course
System 6000

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-10-2002, 12:28 PM:

Actually, Mr Stambaugh, dts ("dits") stands for Digital Theater Systems, not Stereo

It should be kept in mind that for the consumer the different processes and channel configurations are vastly complex, so it wouldn`t work without simple terms such as 5.1. It should also be remembered that other than new movie releases, which are practically always 5.1 (or "7.1" for some SDDS releases), many DVDs come in different configs such as "1.0", "2.0" or "4.0" and it`s quite helpful to have a simple denotification system which will tell you at a quick glance on the DVD sleeve how the DVD is produced.
Personally, I am much more irritated by the fact that many cinema "professionals" keep referring to SR as "Surround". When somebody uses that term for a movie soundtrack, it immediately tells me that he doesn`t have a clue what he`s talking about and that he hasn`t even read the user`s manual.
Michael

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-10-2002, 01:18 PM:

quote:
Actually, Mr Stambaugh, dts ("dits") stands for Digital Theater Systems, not Stereo

Michael, Hopefully you spotted a few other technical errors in my earlier post. It was meant as a joke. Although some salesmen and consumers really are almost that misinformed or ignorant.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-10-2002, 06:37 PM:

One of the reasons why some people got into the habit of calling SR a denotation of "surround" has to do with the visual design of the Dolby SR logo. Remember those curved "Spectral Recording" letters? It seemed to do more to imply widescreen or surround sound rather than an improved overall quality of sound, with increased dynamic range and a lower noise floor being some of the benefits.

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 09-11-2002, 02:38 AM:

All this talk of the surround issues and and sound in general reminds me of the dumbass patrons that have home theatres bitch at me because the "surrounds are not working" or some other lame

. In fact, the last time I had that complaint is when I ran CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION. You should have seen the face of the customer when I told him that all Woody Allen films are SR-D mono (except EVERYBODY SAYS I LOVE YOU of course). I even I have an employee now that talks through his ass about his home theatre and how we should "tweek" our system at my theatre. Of course I blame the sales personel at Circuit City or Best Buy becuase they were talking through their collective asses first. They are like a cancer...

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-11-2002, 09:47 AM:

David, I am from Germany, I am not supposed to understand humour

However, somehow I did get the one with progressive=liberal scan, and I even laughed a bit!
The surround thing is so annoying because there are so few people in the cinemas who know what they are doing. Once in my former theater, we played Raiders of the lost Ark, and I said that movie was supposed to be played in Dolby A, and my distinguished colleague replied "let`s play in SR so we have surround"

Michael

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-11-2002, 10:13 AM:

Dolby could print up a simple quick reference card explaining all their formats & terminology etc. and send a couple dozen to every theater to help educate exhibitors and it wouldn't cost them very much.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-11-2002, 12:26 PM:

Christopher -- you are absolutely right.

My friend has his "5.1" system set up in his living room. Lo and behold, each and every speaker is always on at the same level. The bass is turned up so high, that when someone closes a door on-screen the shelves rattle. And he's proud of it. I can explain to him what it's supposed to sound like until I'm blue in the face, and he'll just look dumbfounded, smile, and nod. Then again, he also thinks he's getting a Digital picture from his Digital cable on his Analog TV.

Salesmen are just repeating what they are fed in a 30 minute training seminar: That the more expensive one is better. Sometimes while browsing, I overhear salesmen talking to a clueless customer about DVD players and "S-video gives you a much better DIGITAL picture..." and how "5.1 Digital Sound is included in this model..." --- to someone who probably has a 25" mono TV with only a coax input who will probably come back and complain that the black bars are cutting off the picture.

All thanks to mindless consumerism.

=TMP=