My Own Private Idaho (1991)

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Lyris

It's not 1:1 though - so it's a 150%, 300% zoom? (Not that I'm upset with how it looks, I'm proud to say I worked on that.)

Regarding zooming screen grabs - I think that's a perfectly valid practice, and I'd be interested to hear why Svet thinks it's not.

Provided it's by a sensible amount (and we're not talking 10000%), here's my reasoning. Most computer monitors are now using resolutions higher than 1920x1080, so a 1920x1080 grab viewed at 1:1 will not occupy the entire screen. Second, computer screens are very small compared to even an average sized TV.

So, it's my professional opinion that zooming into screen grabs is a way to more closely inspect them on a small computer screen. I have no idea what is meant by "collapsing the image". In fact, I do this all the time when I do encoding on Arrow/MoC/BFI titles!

Not only that, but Cinema Craft Encoder/Sirius Pixels has a zoom feature in it so the compressionist can check the encoded result, for the reason I stated - so the designers of this widely used encoder disagree that zooming is useless.

1. I am unsure why you are confused -- the screencapture isn't blown up 200% and it is still very easy to see that there are areas of the image where the grain structure isn't as it should be. You could argue that this isn't something that one would notice while viewing the disc, and I will agree, but this has been my point for quite some time now.

2 Zooming: Zooming 200% is a valid practice for what exactly? I mentioned this earlier, you start zooming 200% on the majority of Arrow's titles and I don't think that you would be very happy with the end result. Did someone zoom 200% The Last American Virgin? Did someone conlucde that the end result was good to pass on to the public? Blowing up screencaptures -- one after another -- and examining pixels isn't the way films are meant to be seen. Just like in the music field you do not extract single notes from a harmonic structure and marvel them individually.

3. Computer screens: I am sorry, but I do not view films/Blu-rays on computers.

4. Errors. The screencapture below is from Hellraiser. Blow it up 200%. On the right side there is a huge bullet hole. This title was restored, correct? Manual cleanup was performed, correct? There are numerous spots on the transfer. There are white specs as well. Do you think that if one uploaded a gallery of screencaptures with these marks and started claiming that the release is unwatchable one would have a valid case? I don't.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...63&position=21

The game has gotten beyond silly now.

Pro-B

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

4. Errors. The screencapture below is from Hellraiser. Blow it up 200%. On the right side there is a huge bullet hole. This title was restored, correct? Manual cleanup was performed, correct? There are numerous spots on the transfer. There are white specs as well. Do you think that if one uploaded a gallery of screencaptures with these marks and started claiming that the release is unwatchable one would have a valid case? I don't.

IMO, it's totally another subject of cleaning spots, scratches and other deficiencies which are inherent in a negative/print, and another subject to "ruin" a good negative by bad encoding!
The first is not a direct result of human error and it's on the studio's decision to correct them or not if they want.
But the second one is a result of human error and mishandling of a bluray transfer.

By the way, I don't understand:
When you view a Bluray in a large screen or projected, isn't it blown up to larger size than the original BLuray picture?
So you may actually watch it 200, 300, 400% etc. larger?

[tenia]

nevermind

[filmmusic]

tenia, I agree that the compresion/encoding of a Bluray should be considered in the rating of a Bluray, despite the fact if the result is evident to viewers or not!

it would be very interesting to make this test:
make a comparison of a badly encoded video sample right next to a well encoded video sample of the same movie (without saying which is which), and see if anyone will notice the difference or not.
I think something like that would end the debate on the matter. (either if the difrerence is evident, or if it's not)

Although I haven't made such a comparison myself, I must say that with Blurays that are acclaimed for their encoding/compression I was so much impressed on my viewing which I can't say I felt the same thing with Blurays that had inferior encoding.
With the latter ones I felt: "Ok, just another good Bluray" but with the former ones i felt "Wow, this is really something!!"

Also, good point about the Mona Lisa review.

The thing is pro-b, and this is not personal to you and I don't mean any offence, I would say this to anyone, I just feel there is a level of leniency as far as Criterion Blurays' reviews are concerned.
If this was just an one mans' opinion (my opinion), I would say "Ok, I may be wrong here", but lately I read that more and more people are noticing this thing, so I guess I may not be entirely wrong.

[tenia]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

tenia, I agree that the compresion/encoding of a Bluray should be considered in the rating of a Bluray, despite the fact if the result is evident to viewers or not!

Absolutely. Macroblocking being visible or not is one thing, but being present or absent is another. The difference between this 2 is the significance or not of the limitation coming from the encode (and this is valid for any aspect of a BD).

If people (and I'm speaking of general audience here, not reviewers) don't see these compression limitations, all the best for them. But it's not because it's unseen that it's not there. That's why there are many domains where products pass 2 very different tests : consumer panel tests and technical tests.

Technical tests are usually very far from general audience's ways of using the tested products. In detergency, this implies testing the products on stains NOBODY will ever have at home (I mean, who burns chocolate ice scream in a micro wave ?) but which have a relevancy, a linearity and a reproducibility / repeatability related to some components of the products that make these tests practical.

Zooming in 200% might be absolutely consumer-irrelevant (and it most likely is), screen caps would also be (but I don't fully agree there), but it's an efficient comparison tool on select aspects of a BD presentation. A technical tool for sure, not a consumer one, but still very efficient on these aspects.


The issues in the current discussion is that we constantly are back to a broader assessment on which this tool (screen caps, zoomed in or not) is not capable. You don't need 200% zoomed-in caps to recognize a dated master, which will have a generally dated aspect and thus give a lower visual impression than a new master. You don't need 200% zoomed-in caps to recognize a brand new master either.

The point is : you can have a dated master well compressed, and a brand new master badly compressed. It does not mean the dated master look better than the new one. It just means the new master should have looked better.

This point needs to be explicited. And I’m not saying this as a criticism but as the most calm and continuous-improvement-minded way possible. This point about encode is a feature one can find on many reviews (like on Mona Lisa), but is missing on other reviews, especially the Idaho one on blu-ray.com (sadly, because there definitely a precision to be given on this one).

My point is : I don't read blu-ray.com BD reviews to have a general feeling of how the PQ and the AQ are : I read blu-ray.com reviews because I'm looking for a technical feedback from experts who goes the extra step and assess technical elements that a regular viewer might not see on his uncalibrated 42" LCD, even if it means using unconventional means that might not be relevant to IRL viewings but help understanding what's technically good or limited.

It's for the same reason that I don't rely at work on consumer panel tests, but on technical performance tests : because they are capable, stable, repeatable and reproducable, even without being consumer relevant.

Bottom line is :

This is nothing like anything the Criterion authoring / compression guys can be proud of. This isn't either.

[Hatfield Peverel]

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist

1. I am unsure why you are confused -- the screencapture isn't blown up 200% and it is still very easy to see that there are areas of the image where the grain structure isn't as it should be.

Which areas are those? It looks fine, and nothing like the pixellated structures as seen in My Own Private Idaho.

Why you've dragged all these unrelated past controversies (Blood and Black Lace framing...?) into this topic is unclear, but it does look like you're conspicuously attempting to steer conversation away from the matter at hand.

[kuro_sawa]

Originally Posted by Hatfield Peverel

Which areas are those? It looks fine, and nothing like the pixellated structures as seen in My Own Private Idaho.

Why you've dragged all these unrelated past controversies (Blood and Black Lace framing...?) into this topic is unclear, but it does look like you're conspicuously attempting to steer conversation away from the matter at hand.

I agree, I'm trying to wrap my head around it. There's a "bullet hole" in that screenshot, but that's not what anyone is talking about. The grain in that shot looks fine. The grain on Idaho looks a mess at times, blown up or not. It's not a travesty IMO, no, but why can't it be addressed? Whether people throw uneducated pitchforks or not, I feel like I just read a wall of text dancing around the issue. I guess what you are saying Pro B is that the releases everyone is complaining about the encoding and grain stucture on (not dirt or scratch removal inherent to source), you don't notice these artifacts while viewing the film? If that's it then I understand, but seems like you are saying there are no artifacts unless viewed on caps a holic and the encode is perfect.

[I KEEL YOU]

To those who have pointed out that the audio conversation with Todd Haynes has been cut down: Well, it has and it hasn't. The reason that it's been "cut" is that they've made a brand new featurette out of it. Whereas the old extra has been an audio conversation, this time they made the conversation into a video featurette where they inserted the clips (from the new 4K master) that Haynes and Van Sant talk about. They also do the same for deleted scenes, some behind the scenes photos, pictures of the actors' previous films, etc.. I'm guessing that they cut it because they couldn't find the relevant clips to insert for all parts of the conversation, but overall I think that it's better this way.

The main feature looks good but I've noticed the compression blocks jittering in the blue sky in the very first scene with River.

[Namuhana]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

To those who have pointed out that the audio conversation with Todd Haynes has been cut down: Well, it has and it hasn't. The reason that it's been "cut" is that they've made a brand new featurette out of it. Whereas the old extra has been an audio conversation, this time they made the conversation into a video featurette where they inserted the clips (from the new 4K master) that Haynes and Van Sant talk about. They also do the same for deleted scenes, some behind the scenes photos, pictures of the actors' previous films, etc.. I'm guessing that they cut it because they couldn't find the relevant clips to insert for all parts of the conversation, but overall I think that it's better this way.

The main feature looks good but I've noticed the compression blocks jittering in the blue sky in the very first scene with River.

I'm actually kind of glad they did this. When I borrowed the DVD from my local library, the audio conversation was something that I just couldn't listen to on its own; having it changed to a video featurette simply makes it better for me.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Namuhana

I'm actually kind of glad they did this. When I borrowed the DVD from my local library, the audio conversation was something that I just couldn't listen to on its own; having it changed to a video featurette simply makes it better for me.

Yeah, I have a hard time with audio only extra features.. Even as something as unique as the Stanley Kubrick interview on the 2001 disc. They're good as background material for when you're doing something else, like radio.. But not so much on their own.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

To those who have pointed out that the audio conversation with Todd Haynes has been cut down: Well, it has and it hasn't. The reason that it's been "cut" is that they've made a brand new featurette out of it. Whereas the old extra has been an audio conversation, this time they made the conversation into a video featurette where they inserted the clips (from the new 4K master) that Haynes and Van Sant talk about. They also do the same for deleted scenes, some behind the scenes photos, pictures of the actors' previous films, etc.. I'm guessing that they cut it because they couldn't find the relevant clips to insert for all parts of the conversation, but overall I think that it's better this way.

The main feature looks good but I've noticed the compression blocks jittering in the blue sky in the very first scene with River.

how would you score the PQ overall now that you have seen it first hand?

[filmmusic]

By the way, I just learned about this now and thought to post it here.

I see BFI had a replacement disc for An Autumn Afternoon, due to poorer encoding of the original disc.

From BFI: 'After the release of our Dual Format Edition of Yasujiro Ozu’s An Autumn Afternoon we became aware that the Blu-ray Disc was encoded at a lower bit-rate than we would normally insist upon. In response to this, we have re-authored and re-pressed the project, and replacement discs are now available. If you are dissatisfied with the quality of the original Blu-ray Disc and would like a replacement, please contact Ben.Stoddart@bfi.org.uk giving details of your name and address and a new disc will be sent to you.'

here's the differences of the 2 Blurays:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

Don't want to sound again that I'm criticizing Criterion, but I find this behaviour of BFI really admirable!
A studio that respected itself and its consumers.
I must say I was very impressed! I didn't know about it!

[nitin]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

By the way, I just learned about this now and thought to post it here.

I see BFI had a replacement disc for An Autumn Afternoon, due to poorer encoding of the original disc.


here's the differences of the 2 Blurays:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleich...ess=#vergleich

Don't want to sound again that I'm criticizing Criterion, but I find this behaviour of BFI really admirable!
A studio that respected itself and its consumers.
I must say I was very impressed! I didn't know about it!

to be fair, the difference between the two BFI discs is hardly noticeable (I have both). Also, it was a mistake (authoring house's) rather than an issue with encoding technique which is what people criticise Criterion for (because they do it even on releases where bitrate is not an issue).

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by nitin

how would you score the PQ overall now that you have seen it first hand?

It looks pretty good, there's no denying that. You can buy with confidence. It's just such a shame that the compression is so poor, in this case even more than usual by Criterion's poor compression standards.

And it's tragicomical that the first release of An Autumn Afternoon doesn't have as many compression blocks as some Criterion releases despite a microscopic bit rate.

[Dortmunder]

Some kind soul {not me} uploaded 'My Own Private River' on to YouTube.

In time for the 22nd anniversary of River Phoenix's passing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvA5HN6cboY

The image quality on the DVDs that are out 'there' is actually pretty nice; you do get a sweet, tangible sense of raw, uncorrected 35mm film footage, straight from van Sant's Portland basement

It is cool that mopi.com finally got this out there, but the quality is not as good as it should be. Thanks are due though.

It does make the Criterion compression shine though

Enjoy

[I KEEL YOU]

It's too bad that they couldn't include it on the blu ray release because it's basically a compilation of deleted and extended scenes from the film. If Joaquin objected to it being released, then he probably would like to remove the main movie itself.

It would've been ideal too, because then it would've had to have been a 2 disc release and the main feature would have an entire disc to itself with a maxed out bit rate to avoid that awful compression somewhat. Although I'm aware that Criterions with very high bit rates also have compression problems, just not this much.

[I KEEL YOU]

I managed to get a cap from the new German Warner release. It's a 8.2 GB MKV rip, so naturally it looks softer than the actual blu ray. However, the important thing is that it is visible that it does not have the same annoying compression block issues as the Criterion:

German Warner:



Criterion:



Even some of the zits on River's face are more visible on the Warner than Criterion, despite the fact that it's only a DVD sized MKV rip.

I'm ordering the German release right now. It's bare bones though, so I'll still keep the Criterion for the extras.

[David M]

There’s really no point in comparing a bootleg re-encode - if there were any issues, they could easily have been blurred out by decompression.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by David M

There’s really no point in comparing a bootleg re-encode - if there were any issues, they could easily have been blurred out by decompression.

The new German release is official and not a bootleg tho??

[asmodeux21]

German vs. US blu ray-

https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c_list.php?c=2731