Higher Quality / Different Format Screenshots

[Damage Inc.]

OK, most people around here are really into quality right?
Highly defined video/audio, high-end equipment, good cinema, etc.
Well, guess what, me too. :P

Which is why I found it a bit funny to be reading the disclaimer below every BD-screenshot.
That it's only a screen-capture, even though through "some special screenshot equipment".
Whatever that might be, I would like to know.
And that they're also compressed to JPEG, which can cause even more flaws, but it's to improve loading-times.

That's all fine, I'm not saying like "You shouldn't do that!".
But, why not make it more functional as a (better) representation of the actual quality?
That's actually the second thing I thought of...

The first thing would be, why not use something like PNG to keep some more quality to these screenshots?
PNGs are Bitmaps, however they're not as huge, but give excellent sharp images.
On top of that, you can have great quality, sharp and large "Bitmaps"
and, just like the reason for using JPEG, still keep it in the hundreds of KBs or around an MB.
After all, PNG stands for Portable Network Graphics, which people should use a lot more.


I understand if this might be a compatibility-issue or perhaps space/transfer-issues with the website/server(s).
If space and/or space is not an issue, you might even give people the option to view PNGs.
For example have 2 links or a setting in the user-options.

I'm just throwing out ideas.
Basically it's just that you might want to put up higher-quality screenshots.
Not that you have to go an replace every existing one on this website.
Unless the reviewers like to do that, but I doubt they have much extra time for that.
But since people here like quality and I do too, I thought I'd give this suggestion.

[Blaumann]

Looking at the file-sizes of the .jpg screenshots, they haven't been created with a huge .jpg compression. The differences to .png imo would be minimal.

Even if the site used the .png format, the other points in the disclaimer would still be valid. The 'lossless' images .png/.bmp tend to create the imo false illusion of having an objective way to assess a Blu-ray from these single frames. People consecutively tend to start obsessing over screenshots, sometimes even rating them higher than the actual reviews. Instead screenshots can only illustrate what was written in the review within certain limits.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Blaumann

Looking at the file-sizes of the .jpg screenshots, they haven't been created with a huge .jpg compression. The differences to .png imo would be minimal.

Even if the site used the .png format, the other points in the disclaimer would still be valid. The 'lossless' images .png/.bmp tend to create the imo false illusion of having an objective way to assess a Blu-ray from these single frames. People consecutively tend to start obsessing over screenshots, sometimes even rating them higher than the actual reviews. Instead screenshots can only illustrate what was written in the review within certain limits.

I agree and I noticed they're still quite large for JPEGs.

It's also not that they look really bad, apart from some.
But I just mean you could preserve some more quality using the PNG-format.
If it's really not a difference, then I guess it's not really necessary.
Usually JPEG tends to introduce blocking and such flaws.
Therefor I'd like to see them in a Bitmap-form to kind of keep that quality we all like.
More to illustrate the quality and sharpness better.
Even then they can of course still explain it's "only a screenshot" and an example or sample.

[Ken Brown]

Hi Damages. If you're referring to the screenshots posted for 'Underworld: Rise of the Lycans,' keep in mind that screengrabs can also look worse than an actual Blu-ray transfer simply because they capture a static shot of the film's grain field. In motion, 'Lycans' has a natural, filmic appearance. However, every shot I took (regardless of image compression or the lack thereof) left my screengrabs covered in tiny specks that do indeed resemble minor JPEG artifacts. You can recreate the same discrepancy at home by pausing a film like 'Lycans' and noting how drastically different a still-frame looks compared to a moving scene. Some films just look much better in motion and nothing we do can perfectly relay the impact of that presentation to our readers.

None of that is meant to discount your suggestion, but rather to offer some insight into the particular screenshots in question. Hope that helps!

[Deciazulado]

PNG is loss-less, but the images on BDs have already been compressed several times, around 40:1. Having a a 40:1 image inside a 4:1 jpeg vs a 2:1 PNG is not going to make a very big difference.. Ken already mentioned the difference between watching a still image and watching film in motion. A still image from any movie looks grainer/noisier and softer than an image in motion. That's what the disclaimer is there for.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Ken Brown

Hi Damages. If you're referring to the screenshots posted for 'Underworld: Rise of the Lycans,' keep in mind that screengrabs can also look worse than an actual Blu-ray transfer simply because they capture a static shot of the film's grain field. In motion, 'Lycans' has a natural, filmic appearance. However, every shot I took (regardless of image compression or the lack thereof) left my screengrabs covered in tiny specks that do indeed resemble minor JPEG artifacts. You can recreate the same discrepancy at home by pausing a film like 'Lycans' and noting how drastically different a still-frame looks compared to a moving scene. Some films just look much better in motion and nothing we do can perfectly relay the impact of that presentation to our readers.

None of that is meant to discount your suggestion, but rather to offer some insight into the particular screenshots in question. Hope that helps!

Ah, yeah I understand.
It's for example also quite tricky to get a screenshot that is not blurred from movement.
I've used different programs to take screenshots of video over the last 10 years or so.
So, I understand what you mean that video in motion, or paused video rather,
can show a lot more imperfections.
That's why maybe higher quality screenshots might "look better".
At least leave any flaws out caused by JPEG, so you only see most of the screen-capture itself.

But if it really doesn't change anything, which would be unfortunate, that's OK then.
I'd like to see the PNG-format used more in general though,
and it would be great for something like this.


By the way, the shots of "Underworld 3" did indeed make me finally post this suggestion.
Most are sharp, some are strangely "blocked" or "specked".
Not that I judge the quality through that, but rather the review itself.
So I thought, there must be a way to show off the quality better then.

It's just, thinking back of the screenshots I made from DVDs and even low-res videos.
They usually came out better than some BD-shots.
Maybe... I don't know... it's a property of the format, which would be strange.

I'd like to give a "shot" at it myself.
But unfortunately I do not have any hardware, only software, to play BDs yet.
What do you, the reviewers, use to capture these images actually?

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

PNG is loss-less, but the images on BDs have already been compressed several times, around 40:1. Having a a 40:1 image inside a 4:1 jpeg vs a 2:1 PNG is not going to make a very big difference.. Ken already mentioned the difference between watching a still image and watching film in motion. A still image from any movie looks grainer/noisier and softer than an image in motion. That's what the disclaimer is there for.

Do you mean that the video has been compressed?
Thus, every image you capture from the video would already be compressed?

[Josh]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Do you mean that the video has been compressed?
Thus, every image you capture from the video would already be compressed?

Of course. AVC, VC-1, and MPEG-2 are all methods for compressing video data into something manageable. Uncompressed video would be hundreds and hundreds of gigabytes.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Josh

Of course. AVC, VC-1, and MPEG-2 are all methods for compressing video data into something manageable. Uncompressed video would be hundreds and hundreds of gigabytes.

Well yeah, I understand that.
I just meant to ask if he meant video since he said "...the images on BDs...".
Which confused me a little...

[mrdrinkinglysol]

are these screenshots taken with a camera or are they taken off the blu-ray disc itself?

also, i don't understand why you wouldn't upload a direct copy of the screenshot so we know exactly what we're getting when we buy the actual movie.

[Deciazulado]

It is.