It is currently Mon Sep 29, 2025 8:22 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
MalFUnXiON
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 5:22 pm
Posts: 498
Location: NYC, USA
There's always debates with people saying one DVD is better than another and other people disagreeing; well, it's primarily because we all value each aspect of a DVD differently. So maybe to understand where everyone's coming from, rank these aspects in its importance according to you.

Progressive (Proper) Encoding
Original Aspect Ratio
Anamorphic Enhancement
True dynamic 5.1 sound or original format maintained without hiss and crackles
Color Fidelity and Contrast
Sharpness and use of proper (minimal) Edge Enhancement
Special Features - bonus discs
Ad Skippability
Packaging - box set, cardboard etc.
Media - Gold/silver, playability without freezing
Content itself - movie/songs

Here's how my rankings would go:

1) Content - Fiza(DEI) is the only dvd that I wouldn't have bought if not for the quality
2)Media - what use is it if it stops playing (DCH)
3)Clean sound, true 5.1 where possible
4)Anamorphic - to be futureproof
5)Color Fidelity and contrast - don't want the dull Eros kind
6)OAR - want to see the director's vision
7)Progressive Encoding - obviously better than interlaced
8)Sharpness and lack of EE - BEI listening?
9)Ad Skippability - can't stand the LKLKBK disc cuz of this
10)Special Features - commentaries would be nice
11)Packaging - Devdas didn't fool me
Top
 Profile  
 
asif
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2002 3:52 pm
Posts: 705
Location: EAST END,LONDON
MalFUnXiON wrote:
There's always debates with people saying one DVD is better than another and other people disagreeing; well, it's primarily because we all value each aspect of a DVD differently. So maybe to understand where everyone's coming from, rank these aspects in its importance according to you.

Progressive (Proper) Encoding
Original Aspect Ratio
Anamorphic Enhancement
True dynamic 5.1 sound or original format maintained without hiss and crackles
Color Fidelity and Contrast
Sharpness and use of proper (minimal) Edge Enhancement
Special Features - bonus discs
Ad Skippability
Packaging - box set, cardboard etc.
Media - Gold/silver, playability without freezing
Content itself - movie/songs

Here's how my rankings would go:

1) Content - Fiza(DEI) is the only dvd that I wouldn't have bought if not for the quality
2)Media - what use is it if it stops playing (DCH)
3)Clean sound, true 5.1 where possible
4)Anamorphic - to be futureproof
5)Color Fidelity and contrast - don't want the dull Eros kind
6)OAR - want to see the director's vision
7)Progressive Encoding - obviously better than interlaced
8)Sharpness and lack of EE - BEI listening?
9)Ad Skippability - can't stand the LKLKBK disc cuz of this
10)Special Features - commentaries would be nice
11)Packaging - Devdas didn't fool me

1.Content itself - movie/songs
2.Special Features - bonus discs
3.Anamorphic Enhancement
4.Original Aspect Ratio
5.Packaging - box set, cardboard etc.
6.Media - Gold/silver, playability without freezing
7.Sharpness and use of proper (minimal) Edge Enhancement
8.True dynamic 5.1 sound or original format maintained without hiss and crackles
9.Progressive (Proper) Encoding
10.Color Fidelity and Contrast
11.Ad Skippability

THATS HOW I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE THEM !!!




:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Top
 Profile  
 
mhafner
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
http://us.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/dvd-review
Top
 Profile  
 
spike86
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:29 pm
Posts: 672
Location: NY
1. Content- It has to be watchable!
2. Original Aspect Ratio- don't even think about zooming or cropping!
3. Anamorphic Enhancement
4. Color Fidelity and Contrast
5. True dynamic 5.1 sound or original format maintained without hiss and crackles
6. Sharpness and use of proper (minimal) Edge Enhancement- If you don't know what EE is check out http://www.videophile.info. Read it at your own risk!
7. Progressive (Proper) Encoding -with correct flags
8. Ad Skippability- enough with the basmati ads please!
9. Media - Gold/silver, playability without freezing
10. Special Features - bonus discs- Bits of trailers and actors gushing over the movie doesn't make good special feature!
11. Packaging
Top
 Profile  
 
rana
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2001 7:27 pm
Posts: 6146
mhafner wrote:
http://us.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/dvd-review

So far Progressive criteria has taken a back seat.

Here are a few excerpts from mhafner's link:

1)
It's important what kind of display technology you are using. The sought after film look of DVD requires that you use a video processor that produces progressive images---

2)
Also very important is the quality of your video processor. Without a decent line multiplier (doubler, tripler, quadrupler, variable scanrate device) that gives you correct progressive frames as they are on the original film itself, you can not get really good wall size video projection.

Q: How do we get the "progressive frames as they were on the original film itself" from a field averaged encoding (most of Indian DVDs now)??
A: You Can't.


My comments now:
Anamorphic enhancement improves the pic by 33% but only if the master had that much extra res to begin with. It's easy to set anamorphic flags (480 lines) on a DVD even if the master was only letterboxed (360 lines). Assuming, a DVD is true anamorphic and not a cheater anamorphic, the improvement is 33%.

Progressive as opposed to interlaced, mathematically improves the pic, on a progressive display, by 100% but only about 60% in reality. So, for a proper display set up, I give more importance to Progressive encoding as opposed to anamorphic enhancement.

Why not both enhancements??
Why not excel in all the quality criteria??

BTW, how many hollywood DVDs give importance to only some of the quality criteria and not all??

Rana



Edited By rana on 1063645710
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
[Anamorphic enhancement improves the pic by 33% but only if the master had that much extra res to begin with. It's easy to set anamorphic flags (480 lines) on a DVD even if the master was only letterboxed (360 lines). Assuming, a DVD is true anamorphic and not a cheater anamorphic, the improvement is 33%]

and that improvement could only be seen on WIDESCREEN displays..that Most of the hindi dvd viewers, dont have..

Most viewers have STD AR, less than or equal 27 inch, tube TV, that are onnly SDTVs, with no component, 480p connections, audio out from tv speakers or any other pseudo source, boom box with multi speakers..

STD DVD players, even not PROG SCAN ones..

So, for them..

1. Content..YRF films..supposedly,
2. 1.85 cropped letter box image.
3. 2 channel stereo or pseudo 5.1 for extra BOOM.
4. SVCD copied from ORIG DVD of any kind.(media does not matter)
5..good looking package.
6. extra good bonus material.
Should do, most of the time..

If few still insist for using DVDS instead of SVCD/VCD etc..then durable media comes in the picture..Af skipability, no advertisement like t series..but mostly T series kinda dvds for $2.99 should do, like KAANTE..

Prog or not, does not matter..

But for this kinda product my price will be $4.99 or less..

Now for the REST of PICKY VIEWERS Who know/ can tell/ and have proper equipment, or watch on their PCs, it is a different story.. :baaa:



Edited By arsh on 1063646924
Top
 Profile  
 
sknath
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 15, 2003 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 4:17 pm
Posts: 2853
Location: Canada
mhafner wrote:
http://us.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/dvd-review

I think this article should explain to everyone, what DVD really stands for what we should be looking at...
I urge everyone to read the first criteria... mentioned in Hafner's list !
Its a shame that Indian "DVD's" still have to be labelled as progressive or interlaced... when by default every dvd should be progressive ! (that criterion should never be a "criterion" for judging DVD quality) ... !
Top
 Profile  
 
DragunR2
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2001 3:16 am
Posts: 4259
Sharpness and Resolution- Detail should be good and the picture shouldn't be too soft. I want to see those pores! VHS or Beta masters are a no-no. Compression and proper use of DNR factors into this.

Color- Colors should not be faded or oversaturated.

OAR- I want the whole picture. This is why I'm still hesitant to buy those Eros-DEI titles, even if they are the best we will get.

Progressive- This should be a given. We should not have to wonder whether a DVD is progressive.

Sound- Clear sound, original sound configuration. No 5.1 mono. I also don't want to hear a film in mono only to see a DTS logo in the credits.

Ad Skippability- Whoever had the idea to allow the studio to lock the remote should be shot!

Menus- I hate that you can't skip the opening animations of DEI's DVDs.

I'm not sure where I would rank anamorphic enhancement. I don't care about cover design, but it is nice to have attractive covers. Media quality is equally as important as the others. No use in having a good DVD that will die, but there is also no use in having a crappy DVD that will last forever.



Edited By DragunR2 on 1063679791
Top
 Profile  
 
MalFUnXiON
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 5:22 pm
Posts: 498
Location: NYC, USA
rana wrote:
My comments now:
Anamorphic enhancement improves the pic by 33% but only if the master had that much extra res to begin with.

Why not both enhancements??
Why not excel in all the quality criteria??

Just as a general question, is there a percentage for how much quality is reduced when you zoom in on a non-anamorphic letterbox picture on a WS TV?

As for why not both enhancements, where exactly did you see anyone clamoring for only one of these? Of course we should have both of them and not have to choose between them, that should be pretty obvious.
Top
 Profile  
 
MalFUnXiON
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 2:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 5:22 pm
Posts: 498
Location: NYC, USA
sknath wrote:
Its a shame that Indian "DVD's" still have to be labelled as progressive or interlaced... when by default every dvd should be progressive ! (that criterion should never be a "criterion" for judging DVD quality) ... !

By the same token, do you feel that it is ok for new WS Indian "DVD's" to be labelled as non-anamorphic (Tips releases). Or how about new films without proper DD sound when it's readily available (WEG titles).
Top
 Profile  
 
sknath
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 4:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 4:17 pm
Posts: 2853
Location: Canada
MalFUnXiON wrote:
sknath wrote:
Its a shame that Indian "DVD's" still have to be labelled as progressive or interlaced... when by default every dvd should be progressive ! (that criterion should never be a "criterion" for judging DVD quality) ... !

By the same token, do you feel that it is ok for new WS Indian "DVD's" to be labelled as non-anamorphic (Tips releases). Or how about new films without proper DD sound when it's readily available (WEG titles).

MFunx.. you are missing the point here.. TIPS is really an amateur company, while WEG is a piece of Shit !... I wouldnt compare anything with their products...

What We (Hafner included) have been emphasizing that if you want to display a "FILM" on your TV/computer etc.. it should be a "FILM" aka 24 fps aka Progressive by default....it shouldnt be in any other formant (unless of cos u want to make a PAL dvd..which is quite perfect.. 25fps)...

You can disect those companies..ad-infinitum.. for the reasons you have specified..but there can be no excuse for screwing up a TELE-CINE process which is the FIRST task that needs to be done when you are making a DVD ! YOu screw that up, you mess with the rest of the process !

As for your other question, Zooming is not necessarily a good thing, unless the TV has special algorithms embedded in itself. I think, most zooming algorithms that we see in TV's today do not have sophisticated low-pass filters to smooth out the jagged edges that arise due to "aliasing".

When I am talking abt a DVD.. I am primarily focusing on Video quality.... audio quality , IMO, comes later on... as DVD's were originally supposed to be Digital Video Discs.. However they are now known as Digitalk Versatile Disc's... As I said.. I would like to have the original soundtrack on the DVD... and for some Gems.. like sholay.. maybe a remastered 5.1 audio !
Top
 Profile  
 
MalFUnXiON
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 5:22 pm
Posts: 498
Location: NYC, USA
Not denying the progressive importance, DVD's MUST be film-based as you state, so I'm in complete agreement.

What I'm asking is, is a non-anamorphic but progressive "DVD" acceptable for a new WS film?
Not to imply that we should have one or the other, imo both are musts for quality DVD's.
Top
 Profile  
 
sknath
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 7:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 4:17 pm
Posts: 2853
Location: Canada
MalFUnXiON wrote:
Not denying the progressive importance, DVD's MUST be film-based as you state, so I'm in complete agreement.

What I'm asking is, is a non-anamorphic but progressive "DVD" acceptable for a new WS film?
Not to imply that we should have one or the other, imo both are musts for quality DVD's.

Nope it is not !... Infact (assuming the dvd is progressive) then this dvd would be considered a shit dvd... as the norm these days is to present the movie in its OAR..(or at least widescreen enhanced)... Thats why I said... You can dissect the dvd in any way you want to.. once the TELE-CINE process has been done correctly !...
Top
 Profile  
 
mhafner
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 8:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 8:14 pm
Posts: 1086
sknath wrote:
MalFUnXiON wrote:
Not denying the progressive importance, DVD's MUST be film-based as you state, so I'm in complete agreement.

What I'm asking is, is a non-anamorphic but progressive "DVD" acceptable for a new WS film?
Not to imply that we should have one or the other, imo both are musts for quality DVD's.

Nope it is not !... Infact (assuming the dvd is progressive) then this dvd would be considered a shit dvd... as the norm these days is to present the movie in its OAR..(or at least widescreen enhanced)... Thats why I said... You can dissect the dvd in any way you want to.. once the TELE-CINE process has been done correctly !...

Lack of 16:9 enhancement does not imply lack of OAR or
sharpness. You can not have the additional vertical
resolution of 16:9 enhancement with a letterbox transfer,
but if everything else is top notch it will look very good
nonetheless. There is letterbox material on the Gladiator
DVD supplements that is sharper than most enhanced DVDs.
Horizontal sharpness is not affected by letterboxing and
vertical sharpness is compromised all the time since all
DVDs are vertically filtered to reduce line twitter on
interlaced displays, whether they are letterboxed or 16:9
enhanced (the new Video Essentials is supposedly the first
real progressive DVD with no vertical filtering).
Top
 Profile  
 
Zoran009
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
[Zooming is not necessarily a good thing, unless the TV has special algorithms embedded in itself.]

Zooming is a CURSE, if u ask me!!It spoils the picture, opens up pixels, Duh, to my taste/unwatchable, EXCEPT, scaling used in Penny RP-91, that I tried earlier and MALATA players!!
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » Indian Media Forums » General

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

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

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