What ultimately determines picture quality?

xbdestroya · 12-12-06, 02:00 PM

What ultimately determines the picture quality of a given film?

rover2002 · 12-12-06, 02:05 PM

The Master/D5 its taken from is a start.

darinp2 · 12-12-06, 02:19 PM

I voted for the 3rd choice as I felt it was the closest for me. The director and other people working on the original film, as well as those doing the transfers play big rolls, but the capabilities provided by the formats are also relevant.

--Darin

proudx · 12-12-06, 02:22 PM

and with that said, when everything is shot in digital and no film to digital transfer is involved, HD-DVD will likely not yield the great benefits over SD-DVD for the average joe on his typical sized HDTV.

fa8362 · 12-12-06, 02:43 PM

I voted for the last choice, but if you're talking about perceived quality, you can't ignore the role of playback and display equipment, visual acuity, individual perceptions of what constitutes quality reproduction, and/or how far people sit from their displays. All of these factors are involved in an individual's assessment of image quality and that's why people differ in their opinions for any specific disc.

marcusm750 · 12-12-06, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rover2002

The Master/D5 its taken from is a start.

Actually... The condition of the original film negative, the quality of the high-contrast transfer postive, the age and calibration of the Rank-Cintel telecine machine, the dedication and experience of the color timer, etc. all come before the final video output. That's really where it all starts.

marcusm750 · 12-12-06, 03:49 PM

I voted for the second. The various examples of reference-level mastering in either HD DVD or BD (or even SD DVD for that matter) show the potential for high quality the respective format can deliver. It's been my experience that if a particular title falls short, more than likely it was the studio mucking it up rather than a technical issue. They control the storage of the original negatives, they control the transfer process, they control the authoring, they control the bit rates. The studios have the greatest influence on the final quality of a home video release, regardless of the format.

Of course the frustrating thing is: If they can do it so right sometimes, why can't they do it right all the time?

stockwiz · 12-12-06, 04:57 PM

waterworld, although you could tell it was in HD format, was grainy and full of film artifacts... the masters make a big difference, as does whether they bother to clean up all the garbage or leave it....

Mr.D · 12-12-06, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcusm750

the age and calibration of the Rank-Cintel telecine machine, .

Video masters tend to originate from datacines or are subsampled directly from a 4k or 2k DI ( almost the same difference). They tend to use the conformed neg although an interpos represents very little loss with regard to a 1080p master.

Art Sonneborn · 12-13-06, 11:45 AM

The capability of the format is the least important factor since ,although different, in most circumstances it simply isn't the limiting factor. The care from telecine to compression to choice of and quality of original source elements makes the difference. We've seen this rather dramatically in early BD releases being poorer than the same films over HBO !

Art

marcusm750 · 12-13-06, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.D

Quote:

the age and calibration of the Rank-Cintel telecine machine

Video masters tend to originate from datacines or are subsampled directly from a 4k or 2k DI ( almost the same difference). They tend to use the conformed neg although an interpos represents very little loss with regard to a 1080p master.

I must admit my reference might be a little stale nowadays. I know the good ol' Rank-Cintel flying-spot scanner (with a D1 4:4:4 video output) used to be the standard for telecine transfers, but technology does keep marching on and I'm sure by now they've probably been superseded. Yeah, I did know that they've been able to get away from the interpositive and go directly off the negative with reposterizing in post-processing.

I acutally had the chance once to see a Rank-Cintel in action and I must say it was quite impressive!

marcusm750 · 12-13-06, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn

The capability of the format is the least important factor since ,although different, in most circumstances it simply isn't the limiting factor. The care from telecine to compression to choice of and quality of original source elements makes the difference. We've seen this rather dramatically in early BD releases being poorer than the same films over HBO!

Absolutely true. Maybe I didn't make my original point as clearly as I could have so let me rephrase: The technological performance of any format only represents the potential level of quality possible. If the studios don't use the format to it's fullest extent, then sub-par quality will result. I saw this time and time again going from LaserDisc to DVD. While DVD is technologically superior, the studios would be cheap and use the old masters over again, resulting in "remastered" DVDs that looked no better than their LD counterparts during side-by-side comparisons. I see the same thing happening with HD DVD and BD.

In any event, the studios are in complete control of authoring, mastering and producing home-video releases and they have the greatest influence in final quality to the customer.

fa8362 · 12-13-06, 12:57 PM

Choice 3 doesn't imply that bitrates are the most important factor.

Frank J Manrique · 12-29-06, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fa8362

I voted for the last choice, but if you're talking about perceived quality, you can't ignore the role of playback and display equipment, visual acuity, individual perceptions of what constitutes quality reproduction, and/or how far people sit from their displays. All of these factors are involved in an individual's assessment of image quality and that's why people differ in their opinions for any specific disc.

Friend, please remember the dictum: "garbage in...garbage out"...

-THTS

DaveKennett · 01-01-07, 03:00 PM

What ultimately determines picture quality? The weakest link!

Dave

Wesley5 · 01-01-07, 03:13 PM

Studio's attitude !

If they care, they can give old films top-notch PQ; if they don't, well, we have seen enough crappy releases, no technology can help.

rdjam · 01-07-07, 04:05 PM

XB - sorry to jump in here, but I noticed you using the results of this poll in another thread and just wanted to point out that the poll is not accurate.

As a result, I have chosen OPTION 3, a combination of all and other factors - I'll explain:

This poll leaves out some of the major realities that have contributed to bad releases to date.

1) What if you are a Bluray studio and expected to have 50 Gig discs available for you, but only got 25 Gigs? Some studios are now getting 50 gigs, but others are still being given 25 Gigs, apparently due to rationing of production.

2) What if a studio WANTED to produce a disc a certain way, with specific advanced codecs, but was unable to because the BLUEPRINT software (or whichever) didn't support it, or allow it??

3) What if the studio was "forced" to use band-width-hogging L-PCM audio tracks on their Bluray releases due to consumer expectations that SOny created, even though it negatively impacted image quality?

Your poll leaves out the real factors that contributed to a large percentage of the poor quality releases to date.

So I have chosen NUMBER 3, a combination of all and other factors...

View Poll Results: What ultimately determines film picture quality?
The physical format; certain codecs naturally look better or worse on a given format	1	0.80%
The studios; film PQ is determined by the codecs used, original source material, and the encoding	76	60.80%
A combination; studios play the most direct role in PQ, but formats allow for different bitrate caps	48	38.40%
Voters: 125. You may not vote on this poll

12-12-06, 02:00 PM	#1 \| Link	<a href='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adclick.php?n=a4ac4393' target='_blank'><img src='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adview.php?what=zone:30&n=a4ac4393' border='0' alt=''></a>
xbdestroya AVS Special Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,554	What ultimately determines picture quality? What ultimately determines the picture quality of a given film?

12-12-06, 02:19 PM	#3 \| Link
darinp2 AVS Addicted Member AVS CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 20,011 Classified Rating: 100% (1)	I voted for the 3rd choice as I felt it was the closest for me. The director and other people working on the original film, as well as those doing the transfers play big rolls, but the capabilities provided by the formats are also relevant. --Darin __________________ This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

12-12-06, 02:43 PM	#5 \| Link	<a href='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adclick.php?n=a591f81a' target='_blank'><img src='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adview.php?what=zone:36&n=a591f81a' border='0' alt=''></a>
fa8362 Advanced Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 950	I voted for the last choice, but if you're talking about perceived quality, you can't ignore the role of playback and display equipment, visual acuity, individual perceptions of what constitutes quality reproduction, and/or how far people sit from their displays. All of these factors are involved in an individual's assessment of image quality and that's why people differ in their opinions for any specific disc.

12-13-06, 11:45 AM	#10 \| Link	<a href='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adclick.php?n=a591f81a' target='_blank'><img src='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adview.php?what=zone:36&n=a591f81a' border='0' alt=''></a>
Art Sonneborn ThePower & TheGlory AVS GOLD CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Battle Creek,MI USA Posts: 20,199	The capability of the format is the least important factor since ,although different, in most circumstances it simply isn't the limiting factor. The care from telecine to compression to choice of and quality of original source elements makes the difference. We've seen this rather dramatically in early BD releases being poorer than the same films over HBO ! Art __________________ My HT Get Calibrated, get Ken Whitcomb, now packing the PR-655

12-12-06, 02:05 PM	#2 \| Link
rover2002 The Dehumidifier Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 2,536	The Master/D5 its taken from is a start.

12-12-06, 02:22 PM	#4 \| Link
proudx AVS Special Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Marietta, GA USA Posts: 1,117	and with that said, when everything is shot in digital and no film to digital transfer is involved, HD-DVD will likely not yield the great benefits over SD-DVD for the average joe on his typical sized HDTV.

12-12-06, 03:49 PM	#7 \| Link
marcusm750 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 230	I voted for the second. The various examples of reference-level mastering in either HD DVD or BD (or even SD DVD for that matter) show the potential for high quality the respective format can deliver. It's been my experience that if a particular title falls short, more than likely it was the studio mucking it up rather than a technical issue. They control the storage of the original negatives, they control the transfer process, they control the authoring, they control the bit rates. The studios have the greatest influence on the final quality of a home video release, regardless of the format. Of course the frustrating thing is: If they can do it so right sometimes, why can't they do it right all the time?

12-12-06, 04:57 PM	#8 \| Link
stockwiz Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 119	waterworld, although you could tell it was in HD format, was grainy and full of film artifacts... the masters make a big difference, as does whether they bother to clean up all the garbage or leave it....

12-13-06, 12:57 PM	#13 \| Link
fa8362 Advanced Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 950	Choice 3 doesn't imply that bitrates are the most important factor.

01-01-07, 03:00 PM	#15 \| Link	<a href='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adclick.php?n=a591f81a' target='_blank'><img src='http://rev.avsforum.com/phpAdsNew/adview.php?what=zone:36&n=a591f81a' border='0' alt=''></a>
DaveKennett Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 227	What ultimately determines picture quality? The weakest link! Dave

01-01-07, 03:13 PM	#16 \| Link
Wesley5 Advanced Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 652	Studio's attitude ! If they care, they can give old films top-notch PQ; if they don't, well, we have seen enough crappy releases, no technology can help.

01-07-07, 04:05 PM	#17 \| Link
rdjam Big Fan of Goodly HD AVS GOLD CLUB MEMBER Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 8,562	XB - sorry to jump in here, but I noticed you using the results of this poll in another thread and just wanted to point out that the poll is not accurate. As a result, I have chosen OPTION 3, a combination of all and other factors - I'll explain: This poll leaves out some of the major realities that have contributed to bad releases to date. 1) What if you are a Bluray studio and expected to have 50 Gig discs available for you, but only got 25 Gigs? Some studios are now getting 50 gigs, but others are still being given 25 Gigs, apparently due to rationing of production. 2) What if a studio WANTED to produce a disc a certain way, with specific advanced codecs, but was unable to because the BLUEPRINT software (or whichever) didn't support it, or allow it?? 3) What if the studio was "forced" to use band-width-hogging L-PCM audio tracks on their Bluray releases due to consumer expectations that SOny created, even though it negatively impacted image quality? Your poll leaves out the real factors that contributed to a large percentage of the poor quality releases to date. So I have chosen NUMBER 3, a combination of all and other factors... __________________ JL Fathom f113 = Love!