It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:33 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:43 am
I considered the Warner Archive Performance to be unwatchable. I had the same issue that only one reviewer, to my knowledge, addressed:

From dvdtalk, April 14, 2014:

"The more I watched Performance, though, the more...wrong it looked to me. This presentation is saddled with a video-like, frustratingly digital quality. Despite its not-insubstantial bitrate, the AVC encode is unusually sloppy. Film grain is often poorly resolved, rendered instead as a barrage of unstable, rapidly shifting, little blocks. A few cases-in-point are provided below."

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/64142/performance/

(I used to be paranoid that the Warner Archive releases were not pressed but recorded on a Blu ray recorder unit. I could spot what I thought was a "sheen" that you always get when you record something manually. I was baffled at the number of positive AV reviews online and wondered if the review copy was different than the one purchased. I don't know.)

I got the HMV exclusive release and I didn't have these issues with it. This feels a much more positive release. It wasn't fuzzy and strange looking.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:16 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester
M Sanderson wrote:
(I used to be paranoid that the Warner Archive releases were not pressed but recorded on a Blu ray recorder unit. I could spot what I thought was a "sheen" that you always get when you record something manually. I was baffled at the number of positive AV reviews online and wondered if the review copy was different than the one purchased. I don't know.)

That's just your bias. Recording digitally can do no such thing. The picture will be identical on a pressed Blu-ray, burnt Blu-ray, folder on your PC, streamed, etc, provided the video stream (i.e. its 1s and 0s) are identical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
It's funny how the mind plays tricks - I recently saw someone saying that the longer cut of a recent release "looked much better" than the shorter cut on the same disc, but both cuts were seamlessly branched so for all but two minutes you were watching literally the same video file.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
MichaelB wrote:
I recently saw someone saying that the longer cut of a recent release "looked much better" than the shorter cut on the same disc, but both cuts were seamlessly branched so for all but two minutes you were watching literally the same video file.


I've read this kind of things way too many times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:54 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:43 am
TMDaines wrote:
M Sanderson wrote:
(I used to be paranoid that the Warner Archive releases were not pressed but recorded on a Blu ray recorder unit. I could spot what I thought was a "sheen" that you always get when you record something manually. I was baffled at the number of positive AV reviews online and wondered if the review copy was different than the one purchased. I don't know.)

That's just your bias. Recording digitally can do no such thing. The picture will be identical on a pressed Blu-ray, burnt Blu-ray, folder on your PC, streamed, etc, provided the video stream (i.e. its 1s and 0s) are identical.

I don't know the process. Aren't there ways to record digitally, faster and with less quality for instance?

I always did find the MoD titles from the DVD era a bit iffy looking and frustrating. The feeling I had was they'd come from superior sources but something in the production process letting it down.


Has anyone else watched the Warner Archive and the HMV Exclusive Blu rays of Performance and considered them visually identical? I'd be intrigued to hear people's thoughts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 4:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Digital is digital. The data either is here or isnt. It is not analogue material, where wear and tear can happen on the tape in a variable way, leading to various loss of quality.

The only loss of quality you can have with digital is on reliability. A poorly recorded disc will start having skips or freezes or things like this, or suddenly wont be detected anymore by the player.

But digital is digital, and the results are binary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:02 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
What he said. If there really was a "sheen" present on the BD-R, it would also be present on a pressed BD from the same file.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:32 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
On a side extended note, that's also why I always tend to chuckle when people used to (it died out a bit) talk at length about how these awfully expensive HDMI cables allowed for a more saturated picture, eliminated video noise, etc etc. Because it didn't, the only possibility would have been to have a signal distortion but that would have had a different result, certainly not interferences that weirdly all go together to lessen the picture quality in an very analogue-signal way.

They certainly weren't helped by an industry that still tries to shuffle $100/m cables while people definitely should know better, but only people with long cables need should get robust cables - and this robustness only should be to interferences !

I'm still amazed to see this kind of conversation still popping up from time to time, because the move to digital was a long time ago, and there since have been many studies to show, either by signal analysis or "blind" tests, that you shouldn't spend any lot of money on a HDMI cable.

It either work, or it doesn't.

Same goes for sound. I still read from time to time "bad HDMI cables can distort sound." Why this Mb dedicated to video would be untouched but this Mb dedicated to sound would ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:04 am
Not to disuade anyone from continuing this discussion but I'm fairly sure the original mention of a "sheen" was referring to the disc surface of pressed vs burnt discs, and not the video quality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:59 am 

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:43 am
to clarify, I felt that something was "up" with the Warner Archive titles in the DVD era. Such titles as Savage Messiah and The Boy Friend, among others.

I don't know about manufacturing processes. I do know the difference between analaogue and digital though, thanks.

They looked similar quality to something I'd recorded off TV with a DVD recorder. The way the unit would lose a generation, and stamp a layer of fuzz on the image. That's what I meant by sheen. Not to be confused with film grain.

Fast forward, I loved WA's Body Snatchers BD-R and i felt Deathtrap was competent, but I didn't like the presentation of Performance, which I had issues with (knowing the film's use of different techniques and film stocks). Did my "bias" lead to me BD-R and finding the BD fine?

Maybe I'm just too fussy, making something out of nothing, etc etc. By any chance has anyone watched the Warner Archive and the HMV Exclusive releases? Has any site done a comparison? And found them identical (audio aside)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 9:11 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
M Sanderson wrote:
The way the unit would lose a generation, and stamp a layer of fuzz on the image. That's what I meant by sheen.


And that's definetely something that can't happen with digital where you don't lose a generation anymore. There are, of course, problematic exceptions (copying a scratched disc will lead to a potentially incomplete copy) but they remain linked to technical issues, not a regular process.

Also, to my knowledge, WA's Body Snatchers BD is a regularly pressed BD-50, not a BD-R, since all WA BD releases are pressed BDs.

M Sanderson wrote:
Did my "bias" lead to me BD-R and finding the BD fine? Maybe I'm just too fussy, making something out of nothing, etc etc.


It looks like you’re trying to find a pattern where there isn’t one. :)
It’s only human though.

M Sanderson wrote:
By any chance has anyone watched the Warner Archive and the HMV Exclusive releases? Has any site done a comparison? And found them identical (audio aside)?


I believe only the audio is different but I haven’t formally checked yet. I however doubt the visual presentation is different, except maybe a small difference in encode.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:15 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
WA has never released a BD-R...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
My old US copy of Performance was definitely a pressed BD. Although I've got rid of it now so can't confirm any other specifics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester
tenia wrote:
On a side extended note, that's also why I always tend to chuckle when people used to (it died out a bit) talk at length about how these awfully expensive HDMI cables allowed for a more saturated picture, eliminated video noise, etc etc. Because it didn't, the only possibility would have been to have a signal distortion but that would have had a different result, certainly not interferences that weirdly all go together to lessen the picture quality in an very analogue-signal way.

They certainly weren't helped by an industry that still tries to shuffle $100/m cables while people definitely should know better, but only people with long cables need should get robust cables - and this robustness only should be to interferences !

I'm still amazed to see this kind of conversation still popping up from time to time, because the move to digital was a long time ago, and there since have been many studies to show, either by signal analysis or "blind" tests, that you shouldn't spend any lot of money on a HDMI cable.

It either work, or it doesn't.

Same goes for sound. I still read from time to time "bad HDMI cables can distort sound." Why this Mb dedicated to video would be untouched but this Mb dedicated to sound would ?

My former line manager is a very smart, fairly digitally knowledgeable person, but still could not grasp that the fundamental task of an HDMI cable, or any digital data cable in fact, is to simply pass the 1s and 0s entered into it at one end, through its length, to its other end. He had a copy of What Hi-Fi on his desk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:26 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
There were still articles thoroughly demonstrating why expensive HDMI cables are pointless written in 2016, so I guess it's definitely something difficult to accept.

I found this nice example though :
"Think of it another way, if HDMI cables can improve the quality of a picture, could a more expensive SATA cable make a word document better to read? Imagine Dan Brown buying a £2,000 SATA cable and opening up his latest novel to find out that it had been transformed from his usual quality into Dickensian beauty. Of course, that’s nonsense and we’re stuck with Dan Brown’s prose and HDMI cables that can’t touch image quality."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection