"I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see one".

I know what you're talking about. I was very happy with a lot of DVDs I had until I started taking screenshots for the Movie Quiz, and saw them on my computer, as this brought forward a lot of faults in the transfers I previously couldn't notice.

Not entirely fair though, because I generally don't watch movies on my computer frame-by-frame. If it looks fine during normal running speed on my 32'' 720p television I don't feel cheated.

My TV is a piece of crap. If I can see disc flaws watching on that thing, the disc has serious, serious issues. As a fan of Hong Kong films I have a lot of discs with serious, serious issues. Basically I have a choice between surround sound and a crappy picture, or watching on the computer with an excellent picture and headphones.

I don't make the jump to HD until I can make that jump on my terms, which means one reasonably priced, all-region player for DVD, Blu-ray, HD-DVD, and yes, even lowly VCD. A player that can be made to ignore useless anti-consumer restrictions such as resolution lockdowns on non-HDMI outputs implemented in the name of stopping piracy. It's bullshit, pardon my language, an insult to my intelligence as a consumer. HD bootlegs don't come from ripping the uncompressed DVI or component signals en route to the monitor - that's just an insane amount of data to process and a completely impractical method of pirating anything in the first place. That resolution lockdown has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with forcing you to buy new home theater equipment that's compatible with their useless, anti-consumer HDMI "standard". Don't piss on my leg and call it wet sunshine, because I can smell the pissy vapors and I know exactly what you're doing. I don't like it, and I won't play ball.

big ups on the simpsons reference, logboy.

I'm still a bit confused when you say you "found" an explanation and then there's a double-line break - is all of this article your text? If not, what are you referencing?



It's true that the viewing equipment is rarely mentioned, but even when a DVD transfer is scrutinised more, it's usual in terms of the detail of the still frame which is still a small part of the overall quality of a DVD transfer. This does, however, follow the general obsession of sharpness and detail over other factors. But what about the motion between frames handled by the qualities of "progressiveness" or motion estimation? Rarely do I see anyone talk about colour balance or saturation when a lot of TV sets can have particular colours boosted. When considering all these aspects, the so-called "level playing field" of CRTs can sometimes be superior to the latest LCD sets (remember people used to think fondly of plasma too).

chris - yes, all of what i've written here is mine.

true, dvd transfer is scrutinised in still-frame respects more often than in terms of motion (though i see captures of combing which is a reference to motion). i'm not sure, personally, over the obsession with sharpness and details, wondering if it's affected by a large non-pro coverage of pro product and both the inability or lack of desire to get too anal about non-film aspects more than it's about a selective, efficient, personal or learnt-from-others most important aspect kind of reviewing technique.

i think i understand the central aspect of what you say about CRT being superior. when you first fire up a non-CRT HD set and stick a progressive signal into it (and this is the phenomena i'm talking about, or trying to) you'll notice that the level of information that's increasingly getting through actually reveals faults by representing it so well - this, then, is the opposite effect of a CRT set, where the lack of ability to represent the information actually covers up blemishes; note the stories in USA news broadcasts about TV and film stars concerned HD productions will show just how made-up and wrinkly they are!

we're kind of used to CRT, so when you fist go for a higher method of conveying information you'll get the same effect (this is the analogy or metaphor i'm trying to explain) as when you upgraid all / some of your stereo - you get the effect that my brother describes as '"punching a hole in your collection", where certain good recording shine, but confusingly (at first) there's a new selection of recordings shown up (for the first time perhaps) as being sub-par. sure, there's aspects of production values we'll all cope with (i like GBV's 'alien lanes' on my stereo even though it's 4-track recordings, but this is partly because i'm sure that's how the recording were made), and I'm not saying there's a holy grail of quality that must be found and we can't accept anything less. i'm saying there's discs more likely to be revealed as bad with a more substantial test, and that reviewing doesn't necessarily reveal a definitive answer to this because it's trying to compensate for a confusing situation that's grown from an unspoken misplaced faith that DVD compensates by vertue of it's possible characteristics rather than general, commonplace automatic characteristics...even though we know this to be the case, we may well not totally realise it. it's like taking a CD to a friends stereo and saying the stereo is at fault for it sounding crap, but knowing the stereo's actually revealing the recording to be at fault because it's only able to convey what it's given, not by vertue of it being expensive, but by vertue of experience in it's ability and how it relates to a series of good production values embodied in it during the recording and mastering, a DVD can have the same process to go through with a journey to a different set-up which may also reveal that a review on a/v aspects isn't definitive; you can't polish a turd though, but a better test gives more clues as to where the relationship between DVD mastering and production values of the film lie, and this is something that interests me, particularly with regards v-cinema stuff.

it's, for me, as though the LCD / Plasma / HD technology have shown me or made me realise there's an aspect (perhaps many more i've not spotted) to TVs in relation to the information we're often talking about (DVD) that shows the aspects of reviewing that are lacking, but more importantly give a sign that there's no true test of a DVD unless you reveal to what extent you pushed it (no progress without expectation, i often think) and no true test of a DVD which accounts for the variable ways in which something will be viewed (especially in a transitional period where some use CRT and some use Plasma / LCD) by the audience. for me though, saying LCD is preferable is like Vinyl Vs CD (a preference for an older technology that has characteristics we're used to) in that it doesn't relate to the key selling factor of a/v quality. If I'm right, isn't LCD technology surpassing Plasma for its quality and not just cost or popularity?

Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply. With respect to CRTs, it's true that they'll display a certain forgiving softness to the picture. With bringing up the topic of detail, I was just highlighting that softness shouldn't be the only measure of a picture as CRTs are still vastly superior to either LCD or Plasma in terms of colour display and range (most graphic designers would tell you this too). In terms of high-end CRTs, the contrast range will even be superior as well (I'd take a Loewe CRT over consumer LCD any day). As reviewers rarely talk about contrast or colour, these aspects of display are not given much importance.

Yeah I never thought much of Plasma. LCD is much superior, but with laser rear-projection sets on the way it may all change yet again.

chris - "swings and roundabouts" is the phrase that springs to mind, with each method of conveying and displaying a piece of information (CD, DVD...) having some upsides and some downsides, as the saying suggests.

what i'm interested in is that the analogy of upgrading a stereo reveals how varied and illogical reviewing a/v qualities can be, not because they're unimportant or impossible to pin down, but because there's no obvious attempt to confirm each individuals benchmark or equipment and it only takes the lack of a mention for one aspect to throw things into doubt.

the upshot is that a shift in the technology shows one person can say a DVD is good and another say it's bad, but until they both reveal the full extent of their reasons, and until it's shown the disc was truly set a challenge (i.e reveal how you tested it), you'll never quite know, but there's some discs so bad that it takes little upping of the ante to reveal what, in general, many may not yet be spotting whilst we're in a transitional period of confusion relating to a form of information inherantly regarded as being about quality (DVD; contradicting to our knowledge bad discs happen, oddly, too) that's been largely displayed on something so forginving (CRT) and yet some are now applying HD TV's to it (well, LCD and Plasma) and showing up the differing situations for viewing which affect the reviewing, appreciation and expectations we could / should / might have.

again, if we can see remastering of old productions dating back 50+ years that look like they've warped through time because of how new they look, perhaps one way to decide if there's a film production value issue is to see how quickly the DVD falls apart when you give it more of a test that setting it on a forgiving CRT. there's other aspects to reviewing a/v i think get a little more complicated, but i'm trying to get across the seed of a realisation for how to start picking apart this complicated blaming game situation where you can't untangle between something made cheaply and something conveyed cheaply.

and, of course, just because one reviewer has a nice set-up doesn't mean that their opinion applies to those with lesser set-ups (and vice versa) so i wonder - even though 'shinsengumi' is, for me, an atrocious turd of a disc, quickly revealed as such with little upping of the ante in what i asked of it, yet easy to flip as being "technical incompatability" in a manner which suggests intentional "la, la, la; i'm not listening" approach that passes buck back the wrong way because it reveals what we don't want to hear - what all the various aspects should be now that i've realised there's unspoken, underlying key elements to reviews that are applied in such varied fashions?

To my memory, the indispensable DVDBeaver.com integrates all the nitpicky grievances I can see amongst these comments into its reviews and comparisons (clarity and sharpness are obviously major issues, but so to them are fluidity of movement, interlacing issues, and especially accuracy of colour saturation and balance... they even ring up industry experts to verify whether a DVD matches a source print) and usually list their viewing/listening equipment on the site.

momo - i know what you mean about nitpicky... why, it's even the reason i mention people avoiding getting anal about things.

i do think, however, people get anal to a smaller or lesser extent with good cause. firstly, i think they do it in attempt to untangle the mess of different aspects with regards trying to find a definitive set of points from which to assess or pass judgement on a DVD.

most importantly, i think they do it because there's a selling point to DVD we often forget about - it's that step-up in quality we're looking for which has most retreading their own favourites in order to get a renewed sense of the film in a more faithful representation.

it's at once anal, nitpicky as you put it, yet absolutely the reason why people are investing money in discs though, and perhaps it's all the more distasteful to some and incredibly important to others simply because there's a tangle of issues that never quite entirely get dealt with.

as for 'shinsengumi', i liken it to the lower end of records i've yet to reveal the poorness of, but which immediatley becomes apparent to be jsut that (i.e cack) the moment you put it to a more substantial test. it wasn't even good enough to face a slight challenge. and as for 'technical incompatability', it's like saying a recordings incompatable to CD because it sounds worse than the 'more compatable' vinyl of old - there's an aspect to do with showing the faults up in the original recording that vinyl can't do (but it's a format we're used to) and which CD all too quickly manages (but we've yet to get used to seeing that affect for this precise reason).

And Momo,

You're right about Beaver doing it's reviews justice, I'm delighted whenever they have a review up of a movie I'm intending to buy beacuse at least I'll be well-informed.

Unfortunately they don't have all movies reviewed (I assume a factor in this is that Gary Tooze doesn't have 20 hands and 5 heads) so I often need to look elsewhere. And when you see a transfer maligned on one website and praised on the other, chances are the guys who were maligning it had better equipment...