Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Hep is correct on our scale. I usually bump up or down a point-ish on whether the Blu-ray reached the potential of the film. So if a film looks a bit crappy on the negative, I might give it a 17 or a 16.5 instead of the 16 because it's hitting the source material wall

But shouldn't the score for the Blu-ray's "video quality" be just about how good quality the actual video looks on Blu-ray?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by aygie

I've not really been following the LOTR stuff but Empire magazine has a nice review of the BD this month, a few notable comments;

Misinformation there.
TrueHD can do 6.1 just as easily.
And is it really 6.1 discrete anyway? WB and others have a habit of labeling 5.1-ES as 6.1, like the Harry Potter Ultimate Editions.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Misinformation there.
TrueHD can do 6.1 just as easily.
And is it really 6.1 discrete anyway? WB and others have a habit of labeling 5.1-ES as 6.1, like the Harry Potter Ultimate Editions.

I believe it is indeed 5.1-ES and not discrete 6.1

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I believe it is indeed 5.1-ES and not discrete 6.1

That is correct.

Amazing no one is going crazy over that bit of information in the main thread...

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Hep is correct on our scale. I usually bump up or down a point-ish on whether the Blu-ray reached the potential of the film. So if a film looks a bit crappy on the negative, I might give it a 17 or a 16.5 instead of the 16 because it's hitting the source material wall

To me this brings up an interesting problem with reviewing a film.

Should video quality be graded on how its intended to look or how the average reviewer will think its looks regardless of being true to the directors intent or not?

Case in point: The Godfather on bluray.
To the average person who buys a bluray expecting to be blown away by the picture and expects a crystal clear picture is going to be disappointed eventhough, the Godfather looks the best its ever going to look AND that it perfectly conveys the look Coppola was intending, which was to look like a moving photograph.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Diesel

I believe it is indeed 5.1-ES and not discrete 6.1

IN that case Warner has a few titles that are Dolby TrueHD 5.1 EX, such as the Clone Wars movie, the last 2 Austin Powers, and The Perfect Storm.

Warner switched codecs/authoring houses so it really isn't a different mix.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by merrick97

To me this brings up an interesting problem with reviewing a film.

Should video quality be graded on how its intended to look or how the average reviewer will think its looks regardless of being true to the directors intent or not?

Case in point: The Godfather on bluray.
To the average person who buys a bluray expecting to be blown away by the picture and expects a crystal clear picture is going to be disappointed eventhough, the Godfather looks the best its ever going to look AND that it perfectly conveys the look Coppola was intending, which was to look like a moving photograph.

How it's intended to look, always. Terms like 'crystal clear picture' and '3d pop' (I really hate that one, by the way) are misleading, simply because a lot of movies will never have that look.
And I love the look of the Godfather movies, not just because it's the 'best it's going to look', but because the BDs show off Gordon Willis' cinematography amazingly.

[4K2K]

Should video quality be graded on how its intended to look or how the average reviewer will think its looks regardless of being true to the directors intent or not?

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

How it's intended to look, always

And what if it's intended to look exactly like standard definition video?
What if the video quality looks really rubbish because it was shot on an SD video camera? What if the director purposely wanted the video to look rubbish, and the Blu-ray's video quality matches it exactly (ie. the video quality of the Blu-ray is also rubbish) - should it really get a top score because it looks rubbish - just like the original telecine or SD video footage it was made from? What if the whole thing is up-converted from SD video or is so filtered that it's resolution is less or equal to SD video or what if the video quality actually looks worse than the best up-scaled DVD?

If the extra features had scores for PQ too, what if they were PAL resolution on the PAL DVD but only NTSC resolution on the Blu-ray - and they were originally shot with a PAL camera?

The digitalbits site doesn't say that it's "how close it is to the source" it just says "picture quality" so surely that should really mean how good the picture quality really is on the Blu-ray, compared to all other DVDs and Blu-ray titles? Also what if the reviewers don't have the original source to compare it to - do they ever watch the original camera negative or source side by side with the Blu-ray to see how close the Blu-ray matches it - if not - how would you really know how close it was to the source?

Or there could be separate scores - one for the actual Picture Quality on Blu-ray (not taking into account the quality of the source - just how good it was compared to all other titles) and another score (1-20) for how closely it matched the source/original film - so even if the original source was really bad quality the second score could still be 20 if it matched it exactly.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

And what if it's intended to look exactly like standard definition video?
What if the video quality looks really rubbish because it was shot on an SD video camera? What if the director purposely wanted the video to look rubbish, and the Blu-ray's video quality matches it exactly (ie. the video quality of the Blu-ray is also rubbish) - should it really get a top score because it looks rubbish - just like the original telecine or SD video footage it was made from?

IMO - yes. The newsreel in Citizen Kane better look like trash. A perfect example of this is 28 Days Later. It looks exactly as it should. Those who are looking for the best presentation of that movie as intended are satisfied with it (especially since the ending is shot on 16mm and not SD like the rest of the film, which gives it a purposeful contrast at the end.) Whether one wants to buy the BD of this release is up to them, but as far as looking the best it can, it's a 10/10.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by captveg

IMO - yes. The newsreel in Citizen Kane better look like trash. A perfect example of this is 28 Days Later. It looks exactly as it should. Those who are looking for the best presentation of that movie as intended are satisfied with it (especially since the ending is shot on 16mm and not SD like the rest of the film, which gives it a purposeful contrast at the end.) Whether one wants to buy the BD of this release is up to them, but as far as looking the best it can, it's a 10/10.

A 10 out of 10 for Blu-ray Picture Quality for this??
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...562&position=9
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...562&position=4

So now, any Blu-ray shot in STANDARD DEFINITION on a cheap consumer SD camera can get 10 out of 10 for Picture Quality (or 20 out of 20 on the digitalbits scale, where the best standard definition DVD will get 10 out of 10)?

That doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit the definition of picture Quality. It's definitely not got anything like the resolution that Blu-ray advertises (5-6 times SD resolution). The source was SD and no more (except the very end).

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

A 10 out of 10 for Blu-ray Picture Quality for this??

Darn tootin'!

Originally Posted by 4K2K

That doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit the definition of picture Quality.

Maybe it doesn't fit your definition... The purpose of video (and the opportunity of Blu-ray) is to best represent the art. In this case, the art (for most of the run-time) is an SD image.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

A 10 out of 10 for Blu-ray Picture Quality for this??
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...562&position=9
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...562&position=4

So now, any Blu-ray shot in STANDARD DEFINITION on a cheap consumer SD camera can get 10 out of 10 for Picture Quality (or 20 out of 20 on the digitalbits scale, where the best standard definition DVD will get 10 out of 10)?

That doesn't make sense. It doesn't fit the definition of picture Quality. It's definitely not got anything like the resolution that Blu-ray advertises (5-6 times SD resolution). The source was SD and no more (except the very end).

A 10/10 for having the best picture quality the particular film could ever possibly be presented in, yes. Absolutely. Thinking otherwise is setting yourself up for disappointment, and is no different, IMO, than refusing to watch Casablanca because it was shot in black & white.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Darn tootin'!



Maybe it doesn't fit your definition... The purpose of video (and the opportunity of Blu-ray) is to best represent the art. In this case, the art (for most of the run-time) is an SD image.

If it isn't going to represent "picture quality" it should be renamed to what it does represent so people don't get misled by a 20 out of 20 for Blu-ray (the High Definition disc format) Picture Quality score that gives 20 out of 20 for an up-scaled standard definition camcorder shot video.

A 10/10 for having the best picture quality the particular film could ever possibly be presented in, yes. Absolutely. Thinking otherwise is setting yourself up for disappointment, and is no different, IMO, than refusing to watch Casablanca because it was shot in black & white.

If that is what they want it to be they should say so on the picture quality scale. But as it is, it's meaningless (misleading) if I want to buy or rent something based on it having great picture quality (20 out of 20) but I get it and it looks total rubbish. The fact that the source was also total rubbish doesn't mean anything - the review score said the picture quality was 20 out of 20 and I would be misled.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If it isn't going to represent "picture quality" it should be renamed to what it does represent so people doing get misled by a 20 out of 20 for Blu-ray (the High Definition disc format) Picture Quality that gives 20 out of 20 for an up-scaled standard definition camcorder shot video.

It does represent picture quality. The better the Blu-ray visually represents the movie, the higher its picture quality.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

And what if it's intended to look exactly like standard definition video?
What if the video quality looks really rubbish because it was shot on an SD video camera? What if the director purposely wanted the video to look rubbish, and the Blu-ray's video quality matches it exactly (ie. the video quality of the Blu-ray is also rubbish) - should it really get a top score because it looks rubbish - just like the original telecine or SD video footage it was made from? What if the whole thing is up-converted from SD video or is so filtered that it's resolution is less or equal to SD video or what if the video quality actually looks worse than the best up-scaled DVD?

Then it would still look like how it's intended, and therefore would still look good.
There is of course the question whether something shot in SD needs to be released on Blu-ray, and I don't think it does. But if you just find out how it was shot prior to buying it, it can prevent possible disappointments.

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If the extra features had scores for PQ too, what if they were PAL resolution on the PAL DVD but only NTSC resolution on the Blu-ray - and they were originally shot with a PAL camera?

Well, for me personally, I don't really care how good or how bad the bonus material look. The informational value is what's important to me. Some of the best documentaries have been shot on video, and it would be a shame to give them lower ratings because they weren't made in HD.

Originally Posted by 4K2K

The digitalbits site doesn't say that it's "how close it is to the source" it just says "picture quality" so surely that should really mean how good the picture quality really is on the Blu-ray, compared to all other DVDs and Blu-ray titles? Also what if the reviewers don't have the original source to compare it to - do they ever watch the original camera negative or source side by side with the Blu-ray to see how close the Blu-ray matches it - if not - how would you really know how close it was to the source?

Or there could be separate scores - one for the actual Picture Quality on Blu-ray (not taking into account the quality of the source - just how good it was compared to all other titles) and another score (1-20) for how closely it matched the source/original film - so even if the original source was really bad quality the second score could still be 20 if it matched it exactly.

No it shouldn't. Because the thing is, you can't compare different titles with each other. Different film stocks, lighting schemes, cameras, and a lot of other factors come into play. So, every movie looks different, and that's why you can't compare them.
For example, let's take the Pixar movies. Ratatouille and Wall-E were made a little softer than the rest because the directors preferred them that way. Does that mean they should receive lower grades, just because they look softer?
I don't know how close a Blu-ray is for every title out there. But for the titles that I do know, I read about it on the internet. Robert Harris gives a lot of insights whether certain titles look correct or not. There's a lot of information on the Digital Bits as well, and in Penton Man's thread you can find a lot too. You can also check articles of the American Cinematographer online, and there's a wealth of information on there too.

[Q?]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

FELLOWSHIP is the only one of the three films that didn't go through a complete DI process. In a DI stage, the entire film is scanned (in this case at 2K), all the post work is done, and the 2K file is then recorded back out to film and converted to anamorphic digitally. With FELLOWSHIP, only 70% of the film was scanned/manipulated, then it that footage was recorded back out as Super-35 negative and intercut with the 30% of footage that wasn't ever scanned, then the movie went through a traditional photochemical finish and optical Super-35 to anamorphic conversion. The BDs of the later two will always look better because they're starting from those 2K DI files and just doing a conversion- they don't go back to the film output- whereas FELLOWSHIP has to be rescanned from the film, so you're essentially rescanning an output of a scan for 70% of the film.

As to why the flashbacks in the later films look better, my guess is they kept those 2K files of the 70% of FELLOWSHIP that was scanned/manipulated on a hard-drive, then simply imported those original 2K files of the flashbacks into the DIs of the latter two films. If this is the case- and that 70% of FELLOWSHIP that was 2K scanned is still in a computer somewhere- then theoretically you COULD make FELLOWSHIP look better, if one where to scan just the 30% of footage that's original camera negative anew and recombine it with those 2K scans that were originally created for all the manipulated footage. This, of course, would be very costly and time-consuming, though. Maybe when they put together the "Extended Edition" Blu-rays they can do this, who knows, but it would take time and money putting the film back together in a 2K environment.

Vincent

Thanks for that lenghty explanation, I think I mostly understood it
I'm anxieous to read more reviews, but I'm contemplating to just skip this release..

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

It does represent picture quality. The better the Blu-ray visually represents the movie, the higher its picture quality.

That sounds more like "Transfer quality", a rating of accuracy/quality of the transfer of the original source material to Blu Ray.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by blu2

That sounds more like "Transfer quality", a rating of accuracy/quality of the transfer of the original source material to Blu Ray.

What is "picture quality", when you're looking at the transfer of a movie, but "transfer quality"?

It's art, not an objectively measurable quantity.

Beyond fidelity to the piece of art being represented, I have no idea what would (utterly in the abstract) represent good "picture quality". Every image that I've ever seen is exactly what it is, no more and no less. Unless I have some perspective on what it's supposed to look like, I have no frame of reference for whether it looks "good" or "bad".

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

What is "picture quality", when you're looking at the transfer of a movie, but "transfer quality"?

It's art, not an objectively measurable quantity.

Beyond fidelity to the piece of art being represented, I have no idea what would (utterly in the abstract) represent good "picture quality". Every image that I've ever seen is exactly what it is, no more and no less. Unless I have some perspective on what it's supposed to look like, I have no frame of reference for whether it looks "good" or "bad".

Yet we have every site attempting to give some kind of presise objective numerical score to picture/video quality (17.5/20 ???). Are all these reviewers doing A/B comparisons to the source?

Unless there are some artifacts introduced by the transfer process (and why should there normally be artifacts introduced at this point?), then everything should (in theory) receive a perfect score.

Perhaps review sites should really do away with these attempts at assigning ratings.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by blu2

Perhaps review sites should really do away with these attempts at assigning ratings.

Which is why I have ignored the ratings for years, personally. A disc either accurately represents the film (as much as possible for home video at least), or it has some short comings but is still in my book watchable, or it is poorly done and is not watchable. There really isn't much else, especially ratings wise, that matters to me. FOTR is right dab in the middle of scenario 1 and 2 in my book, though I reserve the right to consider possible new information from reliable sources.