Blu-ray review page

I’ve been elsewhere the last few days. Elsewhere on this site, that is, updating and adding video bitrate graphs to a whole bunch of my Blu-ray reviews. The ‘updated’ text in the table shows which ones.

In addition, I’ve added three more of my Sound and Image Blu-ray reviews, with a Blu-ray vs DVD comparison for the superb French movie Amélie. Here’s one of the comparison shots:

Blu-ray vs DVD comparison for Amelie

Oh, loyal readers who have persisted and read to the bottom of this post, the first to ask in comments will receive a copy of the animated movie Open Season 2 on Blu-ray. Test disc, no box, no guarantee. Might be okay for the kiddies though.

Posted in Blu-ray, Disc details, DVD, Giveaway | 4 Comments

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King – Blu-ray vs DVD comparison

And now for the Blu-ray vs DVD comparison for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Here’s a sample:

LOTR3 - DVD vs Blu-ray comparison

A note on all three of these releases. I’ve amended the comparison pages by removing the suggestion I am uncertain about the special extras these discs will receive. That has been resolved: they get no special extras except for the few trailers carried on the disc.

Unless you purchase them from JB HiFi, in which case you will get a two disc set for each movie. The second disc will in each case be a DVD, the same ‘Special Extras’ DVD that came with the DVD versions of the movies (the theatrical versions).

Posted in Blu-ray, Disc details, DVD | Leave a comment

Unusual region coding

I’ve just been looked at a forthcoming Blu-ray title from Roadshow Entertainment: The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans, directed by Werner Herzog and starring Nicolas Cage and Eva Mendes. This title comes from Roadshow Entertainment and has two unusual features.

First, like a lot of Roadshow’s titles it is Region Coded B (it often has geographically limited distribution rights, and I suppose it is contractually required to do what it can to keep within those borders). Sometimes region coding is implemented in a way obvious to software, so AnyDVD HD can immediately report on the region code, but most often it is more subtely applied, in which case AnyDVD HD reports ‘Note: automatic detection of region code not possible with this disc’, as it does with this disc.

That isn’t unusual. I work out the region code restrictions of a disc simply by playing it in PowerDVD with the region code explicitly set in AnyDVD HD to first Region C, then Region A (I assume Australian discs will work in Region B!) Every Region coded disc for which I’ve done this pipes up straight away to complain that the player’s region code is incorrect.

But not this one. It plays the Roadshow video logo, then it displays the copyright information panel, and then brings up the main menu. Only if you try to start the movie proper, or one of the special extras, does it throw up its complaint and refuse to let you go any further.

The other unusual aspect? The main audio is Dolby TrueHD 5.1. The embedded legacy audio (which I’ve previously, and incorrectly called ‘core’) is Dolby Digital, as usual. But not Dolby Digital 5.1. It is Dolby Digital 2.0, yet is still gets a full 640kbps encode, so clearly it wasn’t used to save space.

Posted in Blu-ray, Disc details, Region Coding | 9 Comments

‘I’ frame rate

MPEG2, VC1 and MPEG4 AVC are all video compression systems that work both intra-frame, and inter-frame. Intra-frame is like JPEG (or like DV for that matter). Each frame of the video is treated as its own independent entity and compressed as such (lossily, throwing away some low level information). Inter-frame adds to this by comparing between different frames and making use of their similarities.

One way of thinking about this is that system will compress the first frame of the picture independently, and then for the next frame it will merely hold information about how that frame differs from the first frame, additionally compressed. The third frame could hold information about how it differs from the first or second. Indeed, this process could continue for 150,000 frames for the entire length of the movie.

In practice, though, in fairly short order there would be so much drift away from what should be that the picture quality would become dreadful. So what happens is that there are independently compressed frames placed frequently through the movie and the other frames refer to these (both forwards and backwards).

With DVDs, these ‘anchor’ frames or ‘I’ frames were typically every 12th frame, but sometimes every 15th. Sometimes in addition to being regularly spaced, additional ones were placed at hard scene cuts. That made sense: if the entire picture has changed, what’s the point of recording differences? You might as well record the original picture, which is after all the differences between it and nothing.

But that was fairly rare. Most DVDs seem to just use a 1:12 or 1:15 regular meter for ‘I’ frames.

Blu-ray discs seem to be more variable. I have not conducted a formal study, so the next remark is merely my impression so far, and may be subject to confirmation bias. However, with VC1 discs in particular I regularly see ‘I’ frames not at hard scene cuts, but at the next frame after that. That makes sense given that these compression systems can compare ahead, as well as behind.

Now in a previous post I talked about the different number of ‘I’ frames in the first two Lord of the Rings movies. I didn’t have a record of how many there were in the first one, but I do know for certain that there were between 12,000 and 12,999, and I seem to remember that it was not near either of those extremes, so I’m going to assume that there were 12,500 (rather than rip all the frames again, which takes all night).

I now have the precise count for the second and third installments. So let’s check them out:

Movie Run time
(h:m:s)
# of ‘I’ frames ‘I’ frames:total frames
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 2:58:24 12,188 1:21.1
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 2:59:24 19,721 1:13.1
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 3:21:01 13,479 1:21.5

So what affect does the proportion of ‘I’ to all frames have on picture quality? On the evidence so far, within a reasonable range, none. According to the Blu-ray.com review of this trilogy, the picture quality in the above order is mediocre, hugely better, slightly better again. No correlation to the above figures at all.

Update (10:34am): Two corrections above. First, I made a dumb mistake, the reason for which I’m not even going to attempt to explain since it seems even dumber than the mistake. But anyway, I added an extra thousand to the number of ‘I’ frames in The Two Towers, bringing it to 20,721 when it should have been 19,721. I have now changed this in the table above and recalculated the ratio.

Second, Chris (aka CinemaSquid) in comments points out that his wonderful utility program, BDInfo, actually counts the number of ‘I’, ‘P’ and ‘B’ frames in the video stream, something which I had quite forgotten. So instead of ripping all the ‘I’ frames from a movie in order to count them, I can simply scan it with BDInfo! Which means, it takes about an hour instead of six or seven. So I’ve gotten a precise count for The Fellowship of the Ring, put that in the table and recalculated the ratio for that one as well.

The new figures don’t change the conclusion.

(As a test — since I like to recheck things as much as possible — I shall now rescan The Return of the King in BDInfo and see if it reports 13,479 ‘I’ frames.)

Update 2 (11:54am): Scan completed. BDInfo reports 13,480 ‘I’ frames. When one technique gives a result that differs from another by less than 0.01%, that’ll do for me.

Update 2 (1:28pm): Also did The Two Towers. Same result as shown in the table.

Posted in Blu-ray, Codecs, Compression, How Things Work, Video | 4 Comments

Old, old music

Got a yen to hear some acoustic recordings? That is, music from the early decades of the 20th Century when musicians sat before a horn attached to a cutting stylus. No electricity involved, except possibly to power the motor of the turntable.

Then check out ‘The Lateral Cut‘. It isn’t all acoustic. Some from the late 1920s and 1930s is electrical. You can even hear Cab Calloway (known most commonly today from The Blues Brothers) as a 23 year old back in 1930.

via Dr Boli’s Celebrated Magazine (enormously funny), which in turn was via Yet another weird SF fan (enormously interesting).

Posted in Analogue, Misc | Leave a comment

Blu-ray reviewing – verity or result?

In comments on an earlier post, Peter draws attention to another negative review of The Fellowship of the Ring. This gives 3/5 stars for video quality. The other review suggests 2.5/5.

Once again, the finger is pointed at digital noise reduction, but other stuff as well. Let me quote from this review:

Detail is far from consistent, as from shot to shot in any scene, it’s almost like watching the film from multiple grade sources culled together. There are moments were distance shots boast brilliant clarity and the finest of minute detail, then a close up will follow that’s muddled beyond belief. While I cannot say what created this issue, I can say that DNR (yes, Digital Noise Reduction) played a large part. There are numerous excessively smoothed and muddy moments, and they’re hardly difficult to spot.

Now here’s my problem: if you want to apply DNR to a movie to prepare it for transfer to Blu-ray — for whatever reason — how do you do it? Do you sit down and carefully apply different levels on a scene by scene, moment by moment basis? Or do you click the ‘Mild’, ‘Medium’ or ‘High’ radio button in the DNR section of the encoding software, and let the automatic processes do their work. I suspect the latter.

That would give a consistent look, though, not a variable one.

So what if all the complaints about this movie should apply not to the Blu-ray but to the movie itself? What if the Blu-ray rendition is actually a very good representation of the movie, as it originally appeared at the cinemas?

Might it be? I don’t think we’ll ever know.

You see, movie reviewers rarely seem to comment on technical issues, except when they interfere with the story telling. When was the last time you read a movie review in a newspaper or magazine — and here I’m talking about current release movies, showing only at the cinema — which devoted a paragraph to the amount of detail in the cinematography, differences from scene to scene in film grain, and so on. No, they are all about the story and the characters.

In any case, back in 2001 the reviews I read suggested that the viewers were mostly blown away by the special effects. Now, nine years later, the special effects sometimes seem rather too obvious. At the time they didn’t. Each new generation of special effects seem convincing to that generation, but after a few years seem artificial. Especially animation ones. Presumably people back in the 1980s people thought that Terminator Arnie’s metal skeleton walking through the fire, or his fake head having its eye extracted, were realistic (enough, anyway, to suspend disbelief). Likewise, ED209 in Robocop is horribly clunky.

Blu-ray reviewers are far more interested in the technical stuff. They’re selected for their roles by that interest. I’m like that too. Last night I watched a couple of episodes of ‘Claymore‘ on Blu-ray and ended up spending more time rewinding and rewatching a few short segments, over and over, trying to nail down an issue in the picture quality, than actually watching the show as a story. How many reviewers will even notice that there’s a strange shimmer on the grill of a car 1:22 into Public Enemies. Movie? Disc? Equipment? Still to be determined.

All of which leads me to a question, and I’d appreciate feedback on this one. The ‘Video Quality’ rating on my reviews, and just about every else’s Blu-ray reviews, is meant to summarise our discussions of the picture quality. But should we give five stars for a great looking final result, or five stars for an extremely accurate rendition of the movie?

What if The Fellowship of the Ring was a bit weak in terms of picture quality at the time that it was released to cinema (they were still learning, I expect, and would have gotten better in the next two installments)? What if they did (as I suspect) soften the overall image during the movie production just a little to better disguise the live-action/special effects transitions? Is this the fault of the Blu-ray producers?

I can easily imagine that the actual transfer to Blu-ray of a movie might be the most accurate ever achieved, indeed the most accurate achievable, yet score poorly because the movie itself is full of less than transparent digital effects.

And then we get to older movies. On Blu-ray Dr No looks good, and The Godfather looks much improved, but both of these were restored. How many stars do we give to the Lowry Process used on the former, even if some of the detail is actually invented by the automated digital processes, rather than originally appearing on the film?

So, should I give five stars because the Blu-ray of a movie looks good, or because it is accurate? And how do I know if it actually is accurate? And what do I do if those two things are in tension with each other?

Thoughts?

Posted in Blu-ray, Cinema, Rant, Testing | 6 Comments

Don’t Crush at the White End

Crushing is what happens when you have the ‘brightness’ control of your TV turned down too low, or the ‘contrast’ control turned up too high.

Ignore the names. The brightness control does control the brightness … of the black levels. The contrast control can control the contrast, but what it really does is control the white levels. If you turn the brightness control down too much, then the near-black bits of the picture will become fully black, and therefore merge into it, becoming indistinguishable. So details in darker scenes may become quite impossible to see.

This is called ‘crushing’. Near blacks get ‘crushed’ into fully black.

The same can happen at the white end. Turn up the ‘contrast’ control too high, and near white becomes indistinguishable from full white. Consider this scene from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers:

Scene from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

It’s all too easy to simply make Gandalf’s eyes disappear by having the ‘contrast’ too high, ‘crushing’ the whites.

Posted in Blu-ray, How Things Work, Video | Leave a comment

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers – Blu-ray vs DVD comparison

Last night I put up a Blu-ray vs DVD comparison for The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.  The picture on this one is clearly much sharper than that on The Fellowship of the Ring. Here’s a sample from LOTR2:

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers comparison

Posted in Blu-ray, Disc details, DVD | Leave a comment

12 Monkeys Blu-ray vs DVD comparison

Apparently back in January I ripped ten thousand frames from the Blu-ray for 12 Monkeys, and then forgot all about it. I stumbled across it the other day, so it made doing a comparison relatively easy. I’m hoping I won’t forget about the nineteen thousand plus frames I’ve ripped from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which I’ve done in preparation for another comparison.

But back to 12 Monkeys. This is not a sharply shot film, and in some scenes there was hardly any difference between the DVD and Blu-ray. In others there was a lot. In any case, the Blu-ray certainly cleaned up the compression artefacts from the DVD. Here’s a sample:

12 Monkeys, Blu-ray vs DVD comparison

Posted in Blu-ray, Disc details, DVD | Leave a comment

LOTR Picture Quality

Peter comments on the previous post that the picture quality of The Fellowship of the Ring has been criticised at blu-ray.com.

That site seems especially critical of what it claims to be digital noise reduction applied to this movie. If anyone knows how you tell digital noise reduction applied as part of the disc production process from digital noise reduction — or other processes — applied in the creation of the movie in the first place, please tell me. I’d genuinely love to know.

Anyway, I foolishly put a 4.5 star rating on the top of my Blu-ray vs DVD comparison when I started preparing it, and neither re-assessed it afterwards, nor thought better and removed it completely until after I’d actually watched the disc. I’ve now removed it until I can give a proper assessment.

As I remarked to my daughter as I was nearing the end of the comparison, the picture seemed a bit soft, but I figured that Peter Jackson had done it intentionally that way in the movie itself to ensure cleaner integration of the CGI stuff into the live action.

That theory remains valid. The site mentioned above suggests that LOTR2 is much better, and LOTR3 better still. But that could be because Peter Jackson’s team got better at creating convincing CGI with practice. Thus my query above.

Anyway, if you look at the figures in my post, the actual average video bitrate goes in the reverse direction: a reasonable 23.35 for the first one, falling to 22.75 for the second movie, and then a marked reduction to 19.14 for the third one.

Once again, this demonstrates that video bitrates at reasonable levels do not seem to correlate well with picture quality. But it also raises the question: why would DNR be used on the first one, but not the second? The point of DNR is to reduce noise, which being random is hard to encode in a lossy system such as VC1. Oh, it might have been done to make it look glossier, but why would you do that to one and not the others.

In other words, given that Fellowship and Two Towers are about the same length, have about the same video bitrate, and are being released at the same time, why would different production techniques be applied?

I don’t know, but in one respect they certainly were.

My comparison technique involves ripping all the ‘I’ frames from the Blu-ray as a first step. The ‘I’ frames are standalone ones that do not require other frames to be reconstructed.

As it happens, there somewhere between 12,000 and 12,999 ‘I’ frames (I have deleted all but about 30 of them, so I don’t have a precise count) in the Fellowship of the Ring Blu-ray, and 20,721 ‘I’ frames in The Two Towers. So about every twelve-and-a-halfth frame on LOTR2 was an ‘I’ frame, and every twenty-and-a-halfth frame on LOTR1 was an ‘I’ frame. Can this make that big a difference to picture quality?

Update (9:55pm): I’m selecting frames from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers in preparation for the comparison. There is no doubt that this installment is a great deal sharper than The Fellowship of the Ring. The blu-ray.com review mentioned above hypothesised that the Blu-ray version of LOTR1 may have been pulled from an early telecine of the film. But while the framing between the DVD and Blu-ray versions of LOTR1 are slightly different to each other, for LOTR2 this isn’t the case at all – the appear to be identical. These are more likely to have come from the same telecine than the two versions of LOTR1.

Posted in Blu-ray | Leave a comment