I havent noticed any problems with Dracula either, in my opinion the SB looks alot more like film than video (and that's a positive comment by the way).

But that's the whole point we're trying to make... Superbit isn't a process, it isn't a special thing on Superbit has. It's just a high quality transfer (and that's missing on some titles!) Anyone can make a high quality transfer. But when it's slapped with the Superbit title and it has no extras? it's considered amazing.

The blacks on Dracula just do not look solid and deep. Looks very murky and SLIGHTLY grainy and hazy. No real heavy grain anywhere on the print, but many of the scenes aren't very "dead on" blacks. Perhaps you're right, as it may be part of the movie to make it look like film rather than a video. Overall the picture is good, but nothing spectacular or reference quality. Something about the picture doesn't seem right. My television is properly calibrated with component video, by the way.

The ones I have been impressed by:

Fifth Element
Desperado
Bad Boys

The typical response of what is now the typical DVD buyer.

Any comparison of, in this case, the Superbit edition of Bram Stoker's Dracula to anything else except another video version of Bram Stoker's Dracula means exactly nothing. Every film is unique in its tones, textures, and lighting. Different films stocks, different cameras, different lenses, different filters, different people behind the camera, all bring something to the "look" of a film. Then add to that any number of variations in technique in the video transfer process and the mastering onto DVD. With all the variation, comapring even two movies that came out at the same time and from the same studio is useless.

If you want a useful comparison for the Superbit Bram Stoker's Dracula, compare it to the previous DVD release on a calibrated large screen system that is actually capable of resolving the often admittedly subtle differences between a Superbit mastering and a non-Superbit. Then, for some real fun, compare it to the previous two laserdisc releases, even the highly touted Criterion edition. You might have a greater appreciation of what Superbit is about.

Or not.

Who told you that? Something you just assume?

I've seen minor picture improvements on the few Superbit upgrades I did. I mostly get them for the DTS track if the film warrants it.

Superbit is just a marketing name for giving the highest bitrate possible to the image.

That doesn't mean that some Superbits don't look great - just that there's nothing more special about a Superbit than there could be from other studios who devote much of the disc to image quality.

I mean, look at the Indiana Jones trilogy. All three films are movie-only and have fairly high bit rates and excellent pictures for the age of the films.

Meanwhile, the Adaptation Superbit had only a mediocre transfer for being such a new film. Lower average bit rate than the Indy movies.

"Superbit" is indeed a registered trademark by Columbia Tristar Home Video, but the rest of your "definition" is inaccurate. Bit rate is only part of what Superbit is, and perhaps not even the biggest part.

Superbit mastering is different from the average DVD mastering in that there is less high frequency filtering enabling somewhat higher resolution and fine detail. This lack of filtering requires a higher bit rate to avoid aliasing and other compression related artifacts. Although there are some that believe a Superbit disc is simply the same as the previous non-Superbit mastering with a higher bit rate, that is in fact not true.

However, everyone is free to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish.

Robert, you seem to be taking it a little personally, and unnecessarily so.

I've always seen Superbit as a methodology, and not a separate technology. It simply has to be to still be able to be called a DVD according to the spec set forth by the DVD Forum.
I've no doubt any other studio could do the same thing, and market it as some sort of higher end product, and produce similar results (though as you pointed out earlier, no two films are exactly the same, the only way it could be compared objectively is to compare the same movie that changed studio hands. Though I suppose comparing films from the same cinematographer might give you some inkling. )

I think what gets under everybodys' skin (inluding mine) is that we're pretty sure that they could squeeze a commentary onto the feature disc without a noticeable difference, since so many other studios manage to do so and still have transfers that those in the know give high marks for quality. Strip off all the motion menus and forced ads that take up space, also any extraneous dub tracks. Then throw in a second disc for the extras, and you've got what DVD should be.

The only Superbit I've got is BS's Dracula. I didn't have the previous DVD, and I thought it would make a good companion to the Criterion LD (which I'll make DVDR's of someday and have a really bitchin' Superbit Deluxe )

There's no other title that has appealed to me enough to pick up.

The Punch-Drunk Love Superbit is very nice, and has a second disc of extras (such as they are).

The original Riverdance NYC DVD was pretty fuzzy, perhaps because of the mystical mumbo jumbo aspect of the show. Can't blame Superbit for that.

You CAN blame Superbit for converting a 1.78 anamorphic transfer to a 1.55 non-anamorphic. Perhaps they're following the "Warner rule" of non-anamorphic when it's under a certain aspect ratio, but who knows why they trimmed the picture in the first place.

The Superbit does look better, and the original disc was a crappy flipper with useless bonus features.

No kidding.

I generally pass on these anyway. Only pick them up if I didn't own the original release so far. I never upgrade if the original is OAR, Anamorphic and DD 5.1 or DTS. I'm not an audio/videophile and buy DVDs mainly for movies, so slightly better picture and sound is nothing for me to re-buy a movie over. I'd rather buy a movie I don't already own.

Speaking of the Punch Drunk Love superbit - there's enough room left over on the movie disc to easily accomidate all the extras on the second disc - but then they couldn't call it a "Super-Bit", could they?

I may upgrade to the "Lawrence of Arabia" Superbit, because the old version had many problems.

But I'll keep the old set for the excellent documentary that was for some reason left out of the SB release.

Thanks for this, Robert - it may be the clearest description I've heard of what a Superbit disc is all about.

If it is so different (I have my doubts) Why can't Sony do this for their regular releases instead of screwing the consumer? That is the fundamental question.

I think it all depends on the particular setup you are using to view the DVDs. If you play a SuperBit title on a 30" Tube TV, yeah, you might not notice a difference in the video quality. In my case, using a 60" LCD HDTV, there is a huge difference in quality with almost every SuperBit DVD I have tried. The Desperado DVD looks steller, and is probably the best one I own. I also bought the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon SuperBit and noticed a slight increase in fine detail for the ornate wood carvings and Chinese artifacts that adorne every scene.

To a certain extent this is true, in the same way that it holds true for any discussion of the quality of a transfer - the better your set, the more you'll appreciate a better transfer.

However, I've also seen this argument used as a kind of elitist "Well, if you can't see the difference between a Superbit and a regular DVD, you don't have a good enough TV" argument, which is misleading.

I've watched all the Superbit titles I've reviewed on a 55" widescreen set, which should be more than sufficient to show up the improved picture. My general impression is that some of the Superbit titles do indeed have extremely good image quality; some are so-so; and some look like crap. In other words, they correspond to the bell curve of DVD transfers in general, which in my mind conflicts with the advertised image of Superbit as being, well, super-good.

Frankly, I have a lot more respect for the studios that just do really good transfers of their films without any extra fanfare!

Because as it says, it uses a higher bit rate. If so that means less space for extras, and that's the main selling point for the average consumer.

Also, many people have pointed out that over the years, compression technology and techniques have improved by leaps and bounds over the years. I have no doubt that we will see the joining of these types of transfers and extras without the compression artifacts we may see nowadays.

Wait... they're putting out a Taxi Driver superbit?!?!?!?

I'd totally upgrade for a Taxi Driver Superbit.

I was waiting for someone to notice that already.