Picture Quality Vs. Extras
06-02-03 | 02:47 PM
#26
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally posted by William Fuld
Can anybody name some titles, released in the last year, where the picture quality has suffered because of extras?
Can anybody name some titles, released in the last year, where the picture quality has suffered because of extras?
06-02-03 | 02:52 PM
#27
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Kansas City, MO, USA
Originally posted by Hiro11
I guess this is the main question here...anyone have an answer?
I guess this is the main question here...anyone have an answer?
Whether it's fault of the transfer itself or poor/heavy compression, I don't rightly know.
06-02-03 | 03:12 PM
#28
DVD Talk Legend
The marketing people over at Sony must be patting themselves on the backs right now, having gotten so many of you to swallow their Superbit mumbo jumbo. They aren't doing anything countless other studios weren't doing already: putting the movie on one disc then the extras on another disc. The only difference is in most cases they don't bother to actually put extras on a second disc. Sure, they still charge you full price, but you're getting a Superbit so it must be worth it.
The extras vs. picture quality argument would hold more water with me if it weren't for two things: 1) The available space and bitrates on most Superbits are not maxed out (if memory serves there were a few gigs of space left over on "Panic Room" for example), and 2) There are countless DVDs that have plenty of extras and are still reference quality.
The extras vs. picture quality argument would hold more water with me if it weren't for two things: 1) The available space and bitrates on most Superbits are not maxed out (if memory serves there were a few gigs of space left over on "Panic Room" for example), and 2) There are countless DVDs that have plenty of extras and are still reference quality.
Last edited by Mr. Salty; 06-02-03 at 03:16 PM.
06-02-03 | 04:30 PM
#29
Thread Starter
New Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
superbit
good point mr. salty not only do they charge you just as much they actually charge you more. Superbits over at best buy are 22.95 where other movies are from 14.95-19.99 Im not sure which movies in particular have suffered because i have no way of seeing it to compare but after watching desperado superbit and lotr which is split between two discs It just made me curious how many other movies look this good but are being held back for marketing purposes. desperado superbit looks better than most other movies i have and its a fairly old movie so it cant be the only one. While were at this what movies look the best to you all?
06-02-03 | 06:25 PM
#30
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Can anybody name some titles, released in the last year, where the picture quality has suffered because of extras?
To answer your question, I can't list a new title that came out within the last year (maybe Spider-Man). Off the top of my head, Superbit Men in Black does look better than the original (which had extras on the same side of the disc) --- so do the other Superbit titles I have seen. The difference isn't day and night, but noticable and appreciable.
06-02-03 | 06:35 PM
#31
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally posted by Mr. Salty
The marketing people over at Sony must be patting themselves on the backs right now, having gotten so many of you to swallow their Superbit mumbo jumbo. They aren't doing anything countless other studios weren't doing already: putting the movie on one disc then the extras on another disc. The only difference is in most cases they don't bother to actually put extras on a second disc. Sure, they still charge you full price, but you're getting a Superbit so it must be worth it.
The extras vs. picture quality argument would hold more water with me if it weren't for two things: 1) The available space and bitrates on most Superbits are not maxed out (if memory serves there were a few gigs of space left over on "Panic Room" for example), and 2) There are countless DVDs that have plenty of extras and are still reference quality.
The marketing people over at Sony must be patting themselves on the backs right now, having gotten so many of you to swallow their Superbit mumbo jumbo. They aren't doing anything countless other studios weren't doing already: putting the movie on one disc then the extras on another disc. The only difference is in most cases they don't bother to actually put extras on a second disc. Sure, they still charge you full price, but you're getting a Superbit so it must be worth it.
The extras vs. picture quality argument would hold more water with me if it weren't for two things: 1) The available space and bitrates on most Superbits are not maxed out (if memory serves there were a few gigs of space left over on "Panic Room" for example), and 2) There are countless DVDs that have plenty of extras and are still reference quality.
06-02-03 | 08:03 PM
#32
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: H-Town, TX
The marketing people over at Sony must be patting themselves on the backs right now, having gotten so many of you to swallow their Superbit mumbo jumbo.
06-04-03 | 10:13 PM
#34
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Los Angeles, California
Picture quality first and foremost. Seeing a movie with a beautiful transfer makes me really happy.... I don't know what it is, it just makes me feel good. I can live without the extras. Sometimes I don't even watch them. And with certain movies, I believe watching the extras ruin the "magic" of it. Many people work on a movie to give you that one package, the movie itself. By picking it apart and seeing all the tricks and secrets, you kind of ruin the wholeness of the movie.
06-04-03 | 11:15 PM
#35
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Crack 6K
I can live without the extras. Sometimes I don't even watch them. And with certain movies, I believe watching the extras ruin the "magic" of it. Many people work on a movie to give you that one package, the movie itself. By picking it apart and seeing all the tricks and secrets, you kind of ruin the wholeness of the movie.
I can live without the extras. Sometimes I don't even watch them. And with certain movies, I believe watching the extras ruin the "magic" of it. Many people work on a movie to give you that one package, the movie itself. By picking it apart and seeing all the tricks and secrets, you kind of ruin the wholeness of the movie.
06-05-03 | 04:19 AM
#36
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Here's an excerpt from DVDTalk's review on MIB:Superbit:
There are no special features included on this DVD... which is normal for a Superbit presentation, which boasts that the lack of special features allows the full disc space to be devoted to the film's audio and video, thus allowing for the highest quality of transfer.
That's a great idea... except when it's not true.
The transfer is indeed an outstanding one, with a very high bit rate (11.3 mb/s on average); it's pretty much as good as it's possible to get. But of the 9 GB of space on the DVD, only about 6.5 GB are occupied by the film. This leaves about 3 GB that could have been used for something else... like a decent load of special features (which, after all, don't require the same high audio/video quality as the film) without having the slightest effect on the quality of the film's transfer. In other words, the "no extras" on this Superbit is simply a result of the series' gimmick: there is absolutely no reason, technically speaking, why we couldn't have gotten this outstanding transfer and some special features as well.
That's a great idea... except when it's not true.
The transfer is indeed an outstanding one, with a very high bit rate (11.3 mb/s on average); it's pretty much as good as it's possible to get. But of the 9 GB of space on the DVD, only about 6.5 GB are occupied by the film. This leaves about 3 GB that could have been used for something else... like a decent load of special features (which, after all, don't require the same high audio/video quality as the film) without having the slightest effect on the quality of the film's transfer. In other words, the "no extras" on this Superbit is simply a result of the series' gimmick: there is absolutely no reason, technically speaking, why we couldn't have gotten this outstanding transfer and some special features as well.
