DVD Picture Quality - Whats going on?

[GarethH]

Rush Hour - Fantastic Picture Quality (2 Years Old DVD)
Starship Troopers - Very Good Picture Quality (2.5 years Old DVD)
Ghostbusters - Very Good Picture, the DVD is over two years old and the movie transfer is over 15 years.

Rush Hour 2 - Dissapointed in the Picture Quality, Colours are a little washed out. Not too bad, but not great
Jurassic Park 3 - Soft and lacks a bit of colour.

The Rock CE - Best Picture on DVD in my opinion, ok so the DVD is new, but the transfer is a few years old.

What on earth is going on nowadays. Perhaps its a matter of cramming too much onto the disc, who knows? Surely after two years of those DVD's i mentioned at the top, you'd expect the picture quality to either improve or stay the same, not get worse.

Its not like Rush Hour 2 was made by a different company or anything, the same compression studio worked on the first one. For modern movies in which the transfers are new i'd expect to have super picture, not worse. Come on, Just compare Ghostbusers and Rush Hour 2 and you'll see what i mean.

Columbia/Tristar have maintained their picture Quality in my Opinion and BV seem to be quite good. Universal/Dreamworks titles seem to vary in pic quality however.

I expect every new DVD on the shelf to get 5/5 for picture from all the review sites.

As for sound on DVD, thats a similar story.

Anyone else agree with my statement or am i talking crap?

[john316]

All the reviews I read of RH 2 and JP 3 praise the video quality - must be just your own opinion!

[GarethH]

Don't get me wrong, they are not BAD BAD BAD, i just don't rate them too highly like i do with older titles. The reviews i've read say the same thing. When i say what i say, i mean that i expect them to be picture perfect, not just ok.

I must admit, when i put Rush Hour 2 on a Toshiba player it looked pretty good. But not on my setup or my friends Projection setup.

[Tony Keats]

Originally posted by GarethH

Ghostbusters - Very Good Picture,
Rush Hour 2 - Dissapointed in the Picture Quality, Colours are a little washed out. Not too bad, but not great. Perhaps its a matter of cramming too much onto the disc. Come on, Just compare Ghostbusers and Rush Hour 2 and you'll see what i mean.

It's an interesting pair to highlight because they were both filmed using exactly the same equipment (Panavision 35mm anamorphic), so theoretically they should both be about the same. The only thing I can think of is that Ghostbuters had some sort of restoration work performed on it and maybe that's what gives it the upper-hand.

It won't be the encoding of the disc (or cramming things on) because that would result in compression signs/artifacts rather than washed-out colours. Maybe Brett Ratner likes a slightly washed-out look and treats the film to gain that effect? Or perhaps there was a lot of composite work (wire-removal etc) giving the final print a slightly softer feel. The Phantom Menace wasn't 100% perfect either and showed signs of multiple-duplication in places.

I expect every new DVD on the shelf to get 5/5 for picture from all the review sites

This won't ever happen as certain films are intentionally soft/grainy/washed-out and some reviewers are ignorant of such practices (so they might give a technically flawless transfer a 3 because of the directors visual style). Also, there are differences of opinion about what makes a transfer perfect anyway. Some like an extra boost of contrast, some like a more cinematic feel and others are only truly happy with 100% digital conversions.

[GarethH]

Tony, you have made a very good point. Some of your comments have made me think. If you look at Saving Private Ryan, which has had a lot of colour purposly removed from it, that still looks a fantastic transer. Just look at the sharpness level (ok so it was done from a HD transfer).

Chroma levels often play a big part in how the DVD looks too. I do agree, that sometimes its often down the the equiptment your using too. I believe the Rock used a new type of transfer, and it really does show too. I just hope the companies make a bit more effort to improve the colour definition.

I do have to admit that Jurassic Park 3 does have a very similar (slightly washed out) look to that of the first movie on DVD. So maybe this was done on purpose.

It does have to be said though, that appart from the washed out look i complain about, most of todays DVDs do not have that terrible grain.

It is strange However, that BV and Columbia/Tristar DVD's always seem to be very good, even though some movies may purposly have the washed out look!

In the end, my original post was just asking what you lot though of today's picture quality. I did make it look like i was seriously ****** about it. In the end i'm just posting something to talk about. Suppose i went about it the wrong way :)

[kanedaa]

i watched Rush Hour 2 last night on my Pioneer 626D and Panny TX32PK20 and would have to say I was slightly disappointed. It was still a good transfer but like you say, for an '01 release you expect perfection but it was just lacking that little something. The opening camera swoop in particular looked quite poor.

dave

[GarethH]

Somebody agree's with me :-) But then again, we do have the Same DVD Player!!!!

[akan7]

Me too
Rush Hour 2 - Disappointed in the Picture Quality, 4/5
Same too go for JP3


MY SETUP

IXOS Scart £40 (S-video through ixos scart for sharp picture quality)

Toshiba SD100E

Panasonic TX32PK20

Denon AVR3801

Eltax liberty speaker

Humax irc5400 digital

Panasonic sky digi box

All company should release 2 type of DVD movie
1- Movie with features

2- Movie with top quality picture and sound (Superbits dvd)
For people like me who look forward to Top quality picture and sound (dts sound) on a Films