Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > HD Talk

HD Talk The place to discuss HD DVD, Blu-ray and all other forms and formats of HD and HDTV.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-23-17, 01:30 PM   #101
Dan
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: More drinks, more fun!
Posts: 14,495
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

This thread is 500 weeks old.
__________________
"...you've taken a side in an ideological battle, while pretending all the way
that you're simply defending the supposedly neutral value of free speech.
Don't think we don't notice which instances of speech you choose to defend." - Contrapoints
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 01:33 PM   #102
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,759
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan View Post
This thread is 500 weeks old.
Yay! Happy Anniversary thread!

It's coming close to it's 10 year anniversary, in October of this year.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 02:29 PM   #103
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,913
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
For one, I showed how the PAL DVD had less contrast and sharpening than the NTSC DVD.
I used to own that PAL DVD. Then I got the NTSC DVD when it was released a few months later. I compared them both when I reviewed them for DVDFile back in the day. Other than the PAL speedup and the very minor difference in resolution, they looked identical in terms of color, contrast and edge enhancement. Given that Fox distributed the movie in both territories, the two DVDs were almost certainly mastered from the same film-to-video scan. The studio wasn't going to waste money to have the movie scanned twice. DVDBeaver is well known to have had many problems taking accurate screencaps.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Last edited by Josh Z; 06-23-17 at 03:02 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 03:18 PM   #104
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,759
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I used to own that PAL DVD. Then I got the NTSC DVD when it was released a few months later. I compared them both when I reviewed them for DVDFile back in the day.... DVDBeaver is well known to have had many problems taking accurate screencaps.
If you can provide better screencaps, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, I'm going to take those images over your over-a-decade old recollection.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 03:35 PM   #105
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,759
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Interesting part of Josh Z's review of the PAL DVD:
http://web.archive.org/web/200310030...dayslater.html
Quote:
Video: How Does The Disc Look?

Shot rather inexpensively on digital video, the movie has a deliberately grungy style that works to increase the sense of tension. The DVD very much has that distinctive video-to-film-back-to-video appearance, meaning that it does not have the artificially sharp and vivid appearance of something transferred directly from a video camera source, nor does it look anything like film. It is an intentionally processed image, with colors and other picture attributes manipulated digitally when necessary. It looks neither "realistic", nor does it look like a glossy film production. It is its own thing, and for what it is, the 1.85:1 anamorphically-enhanced picture on the DVD is transferred accurately.

My only possible complaint is the presence of some edge enhancement, visible as halos ringing around objects. However, I am honestly not sure whether this is the fault of the video transfer or if the artifact was introduced by the DV cameras used. I suppose if I got off my butt to see this in the theater while I still have the chance, I might be able to tell whether the problem is present in the theatrical prints. In the meantime, I will just note it. But, along with some jaggies and other video-source defects, the edge enhancement is not necessarily out of place in such a deliberately artificial-looking image.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 04:01 PM   #106
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,913
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
If you can provide better screencaps, I'd like to see them. Otherwise, I'm going to take those images over your over-a-decade old recollection.
I doubt that I still have the PAL DVD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
Interesting part of Josh Z's review of the PAL DVD:
http://web.archive.org/web/200310030...dayslater.html
Selective reading on your part. No surprise you ignored this sentence.

"It is an intentionally processed image, with colors and other picture attributes manipulated digitally when necessary."

After writing that review of the import, I did see the movie in a theater. The edge enhancement was clear there too. Not a video transfer issue.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 04:11 PM   #107
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,759
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Selective reading on your part. No surprise you ignored this sentence.

"It is an intentionally processed image, with colors and other picture attributes manipulated digitally when necessary."
Note that you didn't write that it was intentionally processed to look bad though. I don't think anyone here was disputing that it had been processed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
After writing that review of the import, I did see the movie in a theater. The edge enhancement was clear there too. Not a video transfer issue.
So, by your admission, it could still be an artifact of the camera.

Edit, from your NTSC R1 DVD review:
http://web.archive.org/web/200310020...dayslater.html
Quote:
My only possible complaint is the presence of some edge enhancement, visible as halos ringing around objects. However, this is not the fault of the video transfer; the artifact was introduced by the DV cameras used and was present in the theatrical prints was well. However, along with some jaggies and other video-source defects, the edge enhancement is not necessarily out of place in such a deliberately artificial-looking image.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0