Picture Quality Vs. Extras
 

Ok so im wondering everyones opinions on this. Personally I would prefer all dvds were more like superbits, i dont watch the extras and am always looking for the best transfer when i buy dvds. now i have noticed they are getting smarter with more 2 disc sets so they can have the extras seperate. So i guess my question is how important are extras to you all? if it means you wont get as good picture transfer due to space restraints.

Re: Picture Quality Vs. Extras
 

I'd rather have a better transfer than a bunch of extras i'll probobally only watch once... but I sure do love extra features. I'll go with the tranfer though, unless the extras were really good, but then again; damn, tough choice. lol.

I alway wonder about the backlog of catalogue films that haven't been released on DVD. Could it be that since there aren't tons of available extras to be found the studios don't want to release a barebones DVD and not have it sell?

If it came down to picture vs. extras, then I would choose picture every time.

Most DVD fans seem to be willing to sacrifice video quality for extras. This never made sense to me, but to each his own.

I rarely watch extras -- few exceptions. Video quality is number one to me --- even over audio --- and I am always in favor of NOT including DTS unless it doesn't affect video even by .5%.

How many DVDs does everyone think would have looked better if the studio had released it with fewer extras?

In my experience, it's been very few. In fact, the biggest video problem I hear complained about is edge enhancement, which has nothing to do with extra space on the DVD.

I don't think it's really ever been a question of picture quality vs. extras. It's always been a question of how much effort the studio is willing to put into a DVD release, at least in my opinion. :)

Max, I think the lack of catalog releases has more to do with the studios' thinking they wouldn't sell well or trying to time their releases to maximize sales than with being able to get together extras for a DVD.

I'm probably the exception in that the extras are half the reason I buy a DVD. I want these deleted scenes and well done behind the scenes documentaries and commentaries. I think with the arrival of 2,3 and 4 disk SE's there's no reason we have to choose picture over extras. But to be honest, if I really had to I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of image quality for extras. Within reason of course. I have a standard 27-inch tv and I tend to doubt a Superbits picture would look all that different from a well mastered standard dvd. Now if I owned a 72-inch HDTV, I might feel a bit different. But I doubt I'll be owning anything like that in the foreseeable future.

Every disc should be Superbit.

This is a rediculous statement. Every disc should be bare bones with DD 5.1 and DTS tracks? :rolleyes:
Extras are very important. They can be very informative and really extend the "life" of the disc. I know I wouldn't want to watch Pear Harbor over and over again just for the picture, but the stunning Vista edition has not only terrific picture and amazing DTS sound, but three informative audio tracks and hours of interesting supplements as well. With DVD production as cheap as it is, you shouldn't have to choose between pictures and extras, you just put out a multi-disc set. Being able to put the extras on a seperate disc cheaply makes it possible for any movie to get the deluxe treatment, without sacrificing quality. And although Columbia Tristar would never admit it, a commentary track is not much of a space hog at all. If they were truly interested in giving people the optimal picture and sound, they would include a full-bit DTS track and get rid of the DD 5.1. This is supposedly for the true audiophile, surely they have a DTS setup by now. They could easily improve the sound, throw in the commentary track and put out a nice disc, but of course that would kill their marketing stragegy.

Are mistakes made with SE DVDs, is the picture ever sacrificed for extras? Yes. Disney's Beauty and the Beast, for example killed the picture quality by trying to suqueeze too many versions of the same movie onto one disc. Nevertheless for the most part a terrific package with both good picture and great extras can be put together if the studio really cares.

Extras schmextras... Sure, I like the docs and behind the scenes stuff as much as the next guy but it's all about the movie... Commentary tracks? Blah, I rarely listen... Not enough time in the world to listen to commentary tracks... There are certain *rare* exceptions to this rule (Citizen Kane, Notorious CC, etc) but generally, I - personally - could care less about a commentary track.

Gimme' the best PQ and sound possible and I'm good to go... Even better, do it, ditch the extras, drop the price.

Of course, all that said, I've certainly watched - and enjoyed - my fair share of extras material... But the extras in no way influenced my decision to buy the DVD.

OK, i missed my own point there :) I ment the movie itself, either with DD or DTS (not both please) been put to disc one, nothing more. All possible extras should be always put on 2nd disc.

Recently an annoying habit has spead over to local Scandinavian releases. They put first Dolby 5.1 (448kbps) and *full* bitrate DTS 5.1 and even Dolby 2.0 commentary track PLUS extras on same disc... not a good idea at all. Mulholland Dr. was one of those.

I want quality in A/V w/ extras on a second disc... I dont like these SE on one disc that the picture has to suffer. I love lots of goodies on there but if I have to lose them, then fine but they better make it $15 or less :D

Exactly! And I know that I'd rather have a really good, insightful making-of documentary and just a DD 5.1 track than no documentary but DD AND DTS tracks.

It's obvious that the studios can put a lot of extras on a DVD and it still has good video quality. See The Wizard of Oz, Remember the Titans, A Bug's Life CE, Rushmore CC, or any other DVD that packs a lot of content onto the movie disc and the feature still looks great.

give me good a/v over extras any day. The extras I watch maybe once, most of the time not even that, but I do think they are just what we call them, a nice "extra". I prefer the 1 disc movie with the second disc for extras.

Extras are probably my favorite part of the DVD format. There's a few reasons why:
1. It enables you to put the movie in context. For example, you understand what the director and other crew members were trying to accomplish and can evaluate how successful they were.
2. It enhances the replay value of the disc. Having commentary tracks allows you to watch the same movie several times without getting too bored.
3. I give you an appreciation of the film-making process (which is pretty interesting in itself) and just how much work it was to get that image on the screen

Whenever extras are spare or missing, the DVD loses a lot of appeal for me. For example: the Coen brothers make fantastic movies, but the extras on their DVDs are so thin that you have no idea what they were trying to do. Their movies are extremely complicated and tightly directed, so it would be helpful to know what they were driving at. What they do provide usually just whets your appetite to know more and doesn't fill in the gaps. That makes their DVDs disappointing to me.

Having said all of this, when I see a crap transfer like the old "Ran" disc or the old "Conan the barbarian" disc, it bothers me. If a transfer is awful, it makes the DVD not worth owning for me. Luckly, very few major studios release discs with crap transfers. That means that the difference in quality to the lay person (such as myself) is fairly minute. Sure, I can tell the difference between the transfer on "The Fifth Element" and "Diva", but beyond that, the differences are pretty minor.

So, guess what I'm saying that a pretty good transfer and excellent extras makes for a better disc to me than an absolutely perfect transfer and thin extras.

I don't give a crap about extras. If every DVD made was a Superbit, it wouldn't bother me.

I've got to play to the needs of my setup. As long as I'm blowing up the image to 65", I want all the picture quality I can get.

I'm with matome. If every DVD was like a superbit, you'd never hear me complain about the lack of extras.

Although this may not be the most cost-saving way for a studio...

I am VERY much in favor of releasing barebones editions - which sell $5.00-$10.00 less than editions with extras. I like what Fox started to do with Independence Day, Cast Away, etc. For those people who want extras, let them pay for them. For those who don't want them, let them just pay for the movie.

Again, I don't know how efficient this is for a studio to produce, etc.

Picture quality!!


I'd rather studios spend money to clean up old prints than put extras on the disc

just my opinion but here goes...

extras be damned, use the available space to max out bit rates for video and sound.

cheers,

Red Sox and Yankees suck, both bow to the mighty Blue Jays, in sweeps no less.

So the breakdown is:

People with an interest in the behind-the-scenes aspect of filmmaking and an average sized tv - Want their extras, could care less about whether or not it's all on one disc

People with an interest in the behind-the-scenes aspect of filmmaking and a large tv - Want their extras, but on a separate disc

People with no interest in the behind-the-scenes aspect of filmmaking and a large tv - Just the movie using the disc's full capacity, screw the second disc

People with no interest in the behind-the-scenes aspect of filmmaking and an average tv - Probably couldn't care less about any of it

Can anybody name some titles, released in the last year, where the picture quality has suffered because of extras?

I say every good-to-great movie (epic) should be a four disc set, like FOTR: EE. That set kicked ass in every way, and placed the benchmark for extras galore. Even the dvd case for that film was amazing. I usually hate cardboard cases like the slew from WB, but, this one was hardcover! Amazing!

1) Audio quality
2) Picture quality
3) Extras

I'm just an audio nut :)

Picture quality is the most important thing for me. Extras are just that -- extras, icing on the cake if you will. While I love an informative commentary track, it's the movie I'm buying, not all the promotional junk the studio tries to fill the disc with. I probably have several dozen DVDs that I have yet to explore any of the extras on.

I guess this is the main question here...anyone have an answer?

I doubt it was because of the extras, I don't know, but "The Good Girl" had a really soft picture and poor rendition of dark areas -- in dark shots, character's hair appeared blue. It's not my display's fault, that much I know. I've got the ISF calibration report to back me up there.

Whether it's fault of the transfer itself or poor/heavy compression, I don't rightly know.

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.

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?

The question really is, would these titles that have extras look even better? I mean some very good transfers could look great without the extras on the same side of the disc.

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.

Ditto! One thing I hate about the Superbit titles is the lack of a second disc of extras. Instead they release 2 versions of the same film. They could easily just release 2 disc Superbt titles. If they really wanted to make some money they should also look into spine numbers. ;)

Superbit has always been a marketing gimmick. It's an excuse for Sony to release 2-3 versions of the same movie(or in the case of Men In Black, about a half dozen). Why is it so hard to get a DVD right the first time around? It drives me nutz to see studios like New Line, Fox, Dreamworks, and Universal(now that they've abandoned the "Ultimate Edition" fiasco) giving us loaded SEs with tons of extras, great picture quality, AND DD and DTS tracks, and meanwhile with Sony we've gotta decide whether we want the initial bare bones release, the SE re-release with extras, or the Superbit re-re-release with better picture quality and DTS. It's no wonder that lately I've been passing on Sony discs altogether and spending my money elsewhere.

I don't think I could compare. Both are available these days so it's a moot point.

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.

If you choose to not watch the extras, that's fine. The rest of us would appreciate at least having the option.

Here's an excerpt from DVDTalk's review on MIB:Superbit: