Grifter02

I read Jason Bailey's DVD review of Changeling at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=36248 and I had to sign-up just to ask how you could say this is "damn near perfect" and a "crisp" and "fine transfer". Maybe the review copy they sent you was different than the one I rented, but my eyes were assailed by inch-thick halos from edge enhancement on everything! You are right when you say there are "no digital artifacts or compression issues," but that is only a part of what would make a transfer "damn near perfect." This is almost on the level of Gangs of New York, I could hardly stand to watch the whole movie just because it looked so bad. Fine details were also not so good.

What size screen were you watching on? If it was larger than 32" I suggest you invest in a pair of glasses. And if it was less than 32" I suggest DVD Talk finds someone more capable of reviewing the picture quality of DVDs.

John Sinnott

Thanks for registering with the site! That's much appreciated.

"inch-thick halos" huh? That would be hard to miss. Or it should be. You might want to write to these other DVD review sites that missed that horrible defect in their reviews:

HTF: "presents Tom Stern’s Oscar-nominated cinematography in a fine transfer"
IGN: "The transfer is clear and free of technical defects and excessive grain as well."
DVDCult: "an excellent 16x9 enhanced widescreen (1.85.1) transfer"

On top of that the Blu-ray version doesn't have any EE either, so they must have made two masters of this film.

Or maybe it's not Jason's eyes that need checking...

Bacharach

The last time I saw inch-thick halos, I was being drawn toward the most beautiful and inviting light ...

Adam Tyner

I haven't seen the DVD version, so I can't speak with any certainty about this case in particular. Frequently, though, edge enhancement is dropped in during the DVD authoring stage...after the master is done being fiddled with. Edge enhancement can definitely wind up on a master, but seeing ringing edges on a DVD doesn't inherently mean the master suffers the same way.

It's kind of neat watching Blue Underground's releases on Blu-ray because even though they're culled from the same masters as the DVDs, there's really not any processing at all, and that makes for an almost completely different viewing experience.

Grifter02

Yes, I suppose "inch-thick" was an exaggeration. You're right, though, I have noticed that ever since Blu-Ray became popular, DVD reviews have just become lazy, almost like cut-and-paste. It seems every DVD review I read for a new release automatically praises it and gives it 4 or 5 stars. It seems like every site just let the benchwarmers take over on the DVD reviews, while the people who know what they're talking about move on to Blu-Ray.

I guess you're not familiar with the difference between a "master" and a "transfer." Obviously only one master exists for this new release movie, but many things are done to down-scale it to DVD resolution that are not done to the Blu-Ray, hence, the Blu-Ray looks better. Studios are under the impression that sharpening edges will make the DVD look better, and I guess they're right when people like Jason Bailey (I'm sorry, I don't mean to mock him or anything, I don't know anything about him other than he is easily pleased by DVDs) are the target consumer. But anyone with a decent sized tv (50" or larger) and a basic understanding of what they're looking at can see that the drawbacks of sharpening edges (halos and, at the extreme, almost double-vision) are far worse than just leaving it alone and having a slightly softer look.

I'm not expecting miracles from DVD, but I've seen far better releases recently where the studio resisted the temptation to "tinker" with the picture.

Grifter02

Thanks, nice to see someone who knows what they're talking about.

Yakuza Bengoshi

Both your longer posts appear rife with hyperbole. Do you find that to be an especially productive writing technique?

Grifter02

It's not something I consciously intend to do, that's just the way things come out of my head.

Grifter02

OK, I decided to check out those other reviews you quoted.

HTF - No info about what equipment the reviewer is using. He also only gives it 3-1/2 out of 5, not that great, and certainly not "near perfect."

IGN - No info about what equipment the reviewer is using. IGN is the laughing stock of review websites, anyway. I hope you guys have more respect for yourselves than to compare your site to IGN.

DVDCult - Uh-oh, you might want to double-check that one, that's a review of The Changeling (1980). I guess the giveaway was in your quote "(1.85:1)."

I also checked into the equipment that the DVD Talk reviewer was using (I'm not sure why I didn't check that out before), and I see he's using a Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, a reasonably good tv, but at that screen size, I can see how almost anything will look good. It also doesn't say his seating distance from the screen.

One last thing; despite my posts here, I actually do use your site quite often and I believe it's one of the better review sites out there. Your reviews usually have much more information about each aspect of the disc than others (especially when there are multiple versions of the movie).

I guess that's all I have left to say (I'm sure you're very upset about that ).

John Sinnott

Oops. My mistake on that last review. Sorry about that.

Glad you enjoy our reviews. I know our writers work hard (and they're all unpaid) to produce good reviews. I took exception to the gross exaggerations and implication that Jason didn't know what he was talking about in the first post. You can disagree with a review without being insulting.

Adam Tyner

I thought for the longest time that this was going to be a remake of my favorite haunted house movie (that isn't set in outer space, at least ). I'd seen the shots of Angelina Jolie in her vintage wardrobe, and I assumed she was dolled up that way for the flashbacks...