Lethal Weapon 2

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by GasCat

No problem, ask any questions. I do not understand this phrase:
"sit at 3+ PH"

Means "sit at 3 times or more the image Picture Height."

So if the TV screen or the movie image is 1 feet tall 3PH means sitting at 3 feet away (eyeball is 3 feet away from the screen) 4PH is 4 times etc. Since movies are suposed to be watched at the same height (it's their width that changes on screen), PH is used as viewing distance measurement, instead of the home theaterish screen widths

The TAP (Theater Alignment Program) guidelines specify seating distances of 1.4PH from the good front rows to 3.6PH for the bad very last row at the back of the theater. (For example if you seat in the middle of a theater designed that way you are at 1.8PH)

Originally Posted by GasCat

Pllayer : PS3
Resolution: 1080p
Set: Samsung HL-S5687W 56" 1080p DLP
Viewing Distance: 8 feet (Minimum distance allowable for 56" screen according Samsung's PDF:entitled: "Viewing Distance For A TV")

(Heh I love it when manufacturers recommend sitting distances more apt for watching DVDs, with 1080p displays)

ok you are at 96" from your screen.
Your screen is 27" x 49"

You watch 1.33 and 1.78 at 3.6PH and you watch 2.39 Scope movies at 4.8PH

So for 1.33-1.78 movies you are watching like seating from the last row of a theater (And for Scope you're much farther away)

I watched DVDs that way.

Originally Posted by GasCat

There are absolutely no aliasing problems or jaggies.

They are there, you're just sitting to far away to see them. If I sit and watch Lethal Weapon 2 at the same PH distance as you I can barely see it too (1080p direct view LCD (no lens) set, 1:1 pixel mapping, 0% overscan)

Originally Posted by GasCat

I completely disagree with this statement. The person who wrote it has some other problems going on. If you feel that way then there is something else wrong with your system.

There's nothing wrong with his system he's just seeing what's there, like Brad and Chad and I and others see.

There's also nothing wrong with your system, you're too far away to see it, and also, your Display is projecting the DLP through an (internal) lens, which tends to smooth out the "squarewave-like" jaggies, or actually, "limited horizontal resolution" pixels, in this case.

Originally Posted by GasCat

Give me a time in the film when you have the problem.

mm ok maybe the easiest way to see this is to look at the black and white (white letters on black background)

WARNER BROS.
presents

logo before it says Lethal Weapon 2 at the title credits in the beginning.

Warner Bros. presents is in all its horizontally pixelated glory. On a 1080p direct view you probably can see it from even at 3 PH from the Scope height! (5 feet on your case)

Sit at 3 or 4 feet and look at the logo, or at any high brightness highlights/edges thoughout the movie.

For example look at the scene starting at 10:10, on the middle right of the background there's a window filled with white light. There are two vertical bars (run up and down) in that window that seem to each occupy two actual pixels in width but are imaged at just one pixel that's upscaled onto two pixels wide and as the camera or film moves or weaves left or right you can see the bars jump from 2 pixel slot to 2 pixel slot instead of smooth pixel to pixel motion.

Warning: once you see these things you might not b eable to not see them afterwards!

Originally Posted by GasCat

Look around this time frame: 1:10:38
The camper has venetian blinds which I would think would be very bad for someone who has an aliasing problem. I see no problems at all. I'll see if I can post a pic later.

Well it's not aliasing, it's just looks as if the transfer seems to be something transfered in 1080 x 960 pixels, interpolated to 1080 x 1920 by multiplying the horizontal pixels 2x to make them 1920 wide. The vertical 1080 lines are smooth. The horizontal detail on the other hand, looks like it's about 2x pixelated (twice as thick as it should be. or half the lines) Maybe it's a 1080 x 1440 master or something.

In that particular scene (1:10:38) all the blinds are practically horizontally aligned, (so they go left to right so there's no horizontal resolution components lines) (lines that go up and down vertically) so there's no pixels to be doubled. As I said the vertical resolution of the transfrer is smooth and fine, it's the horizontal resolution that's doubled or pixelated.

Apart from that, the transfer is nice and clean and colorful, looks like if made from the original Scope neg, and with 100% of its 2.40 height (you can almost see the splices go by on scene changes!), scenes shot in sunlight look breathtaking (look at the shot on the beach at 1:10:24 wow) I think it looks great.

The transfer is a high bit-rate VC-1 (about 23 Mb/s) so maybe this was a way of achieving such a clear image when using VC-1 at the beggining of their VC-1 transfers: encode half the resolution to make a 1080 x 960 23 Mb/s look as clean as a 1080 x 1960 46 Mb/s transfer (which they can't do), and hope that MTF losses from projector lenses (or 720p panels) and normal (for DVD) viewing distances smoothed out and turned square wave pixels into smooth sine waves (which is what starts to happen when you pass a "square wave" though a lens) or the high frequency bandwidth of the display's video amplifier has a roll off (same difference) and hope nobody noticed.

Except, that you can't watch it projected on a big screen because of the pixelation (Something that is a piece of cake for other Blu-rays!)

[TallCoolOne]

Originally Posted by GasCat

I completely disagree with this statement. The person who wrote it has some other problems going on. If you feel that way then there is something else wrong with your system. Give me a time in the film when you have the problem.

Look around this time frame: 1:10:38
The camper has venetian blinds which I would think would be very bad for someone who has an aliasing problem. I see no problems at all. I'll see if I can post a pic later.

There is nothing wrong with my setup, all my other movies look good and some look amazing (Open Season, Happy Feet, Casino Royale, Crank).

Either Warner has issued a new version or you are sitting too far away to notice like Deciazulado said in his very elaborate explanation. As for me, I have a 45" 1080p LCD screen and I sit about 8 feet away and I can see the jaggies as clear as day in pretty much every scene. I did have lasik eye surgery though and have 20/10 vision now

I would be more than happy to take some pictures of it when I get home...it looks worse than the SD version of the movie upconverted through my VP50, no question.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

I sit about 8 feet away and I can see the jaggies as clear as day in pretty much every scene. I did have lasik eye surgery though and have 20/10 vision now

So you see detail like someone sitting at 4 feet then, Superman telescopic vision man!


But your field of view is still small. Sit closer! :-P

[TallCoolOne]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

So you see detail like someone sitting at 4 feet then, Superman telescopic vision man!


But your field of view is still small. Sit closer! :-P

ha, no i'll just buy a bigger tv when something I like comes out holding out for the summer release of next gen panels...

[GasCat]

Decla, thanks for the explanation. I have been consuming all you wrote and am not too sure I want to sit that close to the screen in order to the problems you described. You are right, it is like looking at a movie from the back row of a theatre and I love it. The film looks great from the "recommended viewing distance." I'll probably just leave it at that.

[Jish]

I watched the two Lethal Weapon movies this week (BOGO purchases) and during the second one I noticed a lot of what I think was over-aggressive edge enhancement.

Basically any straight line - particularly in the background of a shot would have jaggies around it. I have only noticed this in maybe one other title (can't remember at the moment) and I think it was much worse in Lethal Weapon 2 than any other Blu-ray.

However - reading through online reviews of the film nobody else seemed to mention it. Am I imagining it or did anybody else notice this?

[talbers23]

ive read about those 2 movies being poor quality. im holing off on them, willing to bet they will remaster them and release them with 3 and 4 when they come out. I love the movies but am pissed about having to buy a new copy of full metal jacket because the double dipped on it already and the remastered copy comes out Tuesday.

[ben7ben3]

i personally thought BOTH the lethal weapons were fantastic...the best 'old movie' transfers i have seen on blu ray...of course there will be slight problems, but the movies for the most part looked like they had been made in the last 5 years (except for the hair) as opposed to the last 15 years. amazing blus IMO. i think a lot of people say they suck without even watching them becasue they just assume because they are old and mpeg-2 transfers. didn't matter for these.

[gumpaholic]

I'm waiting until they remaster and release the Director's Cut versions. I have those on DVD and that will be fine for me (for now!)

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Jish

I watched the two Lethal Weapon movies this week (BOGO purchases) and during the second one I noticed a lot of what I think was over-aggressive edge enhancement.

Basically any straight line - particularly in the background of a shot would have jaggies around it. I have only noticed this in maybe one other title (can't remember at the moment) and I think it was much worse in Lethal Weapon 2 than any other Blu-ray.

However - reading through online reviews of the film nobody else seemed to mention it. Am I imagining it or did anybody else notice this?

We've discussed this issue a few times in the forum (Search Lethal Weapon ), my view on that is that

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

there are jaggies (And on Lethal Weapon 2 they're very clear) but as I have posted before, those "jaggies" run horizontal, the opposite direction of bobbed images, they seem to come from 2 pixel thick, or so, horizontal pixels, meaning they look like a lower resolution pic (lets say a 1440 pixel wide or a 960 pixel wide image) being interpolated to 1920 wide, using a simple (nearest neighbor) upscaler. So maybe they were 1080i x 1440 masters that got weaved AND the horizontal res shown in 1920 shows the original lower pixel structure and that's why people think they're bobbed.

[Jish]

Wow, thanks Deciazulado!

Sorry for not being a good forum member and searching first - but thanks for pointing me in the right direction!