Aaaaaaand the screenshots show compression issues.aox wrote:blu-ray.com
It's quite obvious on Cap 1, but also on the bottom left part of Cap 4. Caps 11 and 15 aren't much better either.
Aaaaaaand the screenshots show compression issues.aox wrote:blu-ray.com
The fact that Pro-B's Criterion reviews never mention compression issues (and/or he repeatedly insists in forum posts that there aren't any) surely doesn't help either.tenia wrote:At this point, I think it's safe to say they either don't care or haven't been able to improve their encodes.
I don't know why he doesn't want to aknowledge he seems to be missing the obvious on a title like My Own Private Idaho, but yes, it certainly won't help feedbacking the issue to Criterion...Cash Flagg wrote:The fact that Pro-B's Criterion reviews never mention compression issues (and/or he repeatedly insists in forum posts that there aren't any) surely doesn't help either.tenia wrote:At this point, I think it's safe to say they either don't care or haven't been able to improve their encodes.
Could be an idea, yes. I've emailed Criterion and they never answered me about it. Maybe I should directly talk to the guys who are hands-on on the matter.EddieLarkin wrote:It may be a better idea to contact the authoring house they use with some comparison caps (they did Shoah, so that'd be a great start), perhaps with an explanation as to why their encodes are falling short (by cribbing from the technospeak David sometimes offers up...).
To be fair, many issues visible on caps-a-holic simply aren't significant during a regular viewing, even on very large diagonals, which is why it has been deemed by some as simply being too much (and it's true in many cases).EddieLarkin wrote:Although poor compression is a bugbear of mine, I've always been willing to acknowledge that in motion it's going to be hard to appreciate the difference outside of extreme cases like Shoah. Then I watched Mulholland Drive at 108 inches; what a heap of shit that disc is when it comes to dark scenes, particularly the opening.
Yet he always find them (and "revisionist colour timing") on Arrow releases.Cash Flagg wrote:The fact that Pro-B's Criterion reviews never mention compression issues (and/or he repeatedly insists in forum posts that there aren't any) surely doesn't help either.tenia wrote:At this point, I think it's safe to say they either don't care or haven't been able to improve their encodes.
And God help you if you so much as mention his name or question why blu-ray.com doesn't offer counter reviews of Criterion product by other reviewers... there seems to be no room for dissent.Cash Flagg wrote:The fact that Pro-B's Criterion reviews never mention compression issues (and/or he repeatedly insists in forum posts that there aren't any) surely doesn't help either.tenia wrote:At this point, I think it's safe to say they either don't care or haven't been able to improve their encodes.
Following a discussion about the first minute of the French BD Lizard in a Woman's Skin, we discussed other discs like My Own Private Idaho as having much more worrying compression issues. Well, my last post there just got deleted, after the one Torrente posted there was (he even got suspended until the 23rd for this).George Drooly wrote:And God help you if you so much as mention his name or question why blu-ray.com doesn't offer counter reviews of Criterion product by other reviewers... there seems to be no room for dissent.Cash Flagg wrote:The fact that Pro-B's Criterion reviews never mention compression issues (and/or he repeatedly insists in forum posts that there aren't any) surely doesn't help either.tenia wrote:At this point, I think it's safe to say they either don't care or haven't been able to improve their encodes.
I now refuse to debate with him on Blu-ray.com because I simply don't trust him not to tamper with the discussion if it's not going the way he wants.tenia wrote:Of course, Svet's previous belittling posts haven't been removed, so he again probably is happy to have had the last word.
I'll do the same from now on. It's pointless since Svet persists in these cases to discuss the matter on the table and prefer to derail the specificity by making it broader than it is, allowing him to make irrelevant ad hominem attacks ("this guy says there are compression issues on Moonrise Kingdom but he missed black crush on Blind Chance so what does he know about anything ?").MichaelB wrote:I now refuse to debate with him on Blu-ray.com because I simply don't trust him not to tamper with the discussion if it's not going the way he wants.tenia wrote:Of course, Svet's previous belittling posts haven't been removed, so he again probably is happy to have had the last word.
For someone with a PhD, this persistent intellectual dishonesty is both shocking and shameful.
Ah Pit Stop... Another reason to thrash Arrow, of course...MichaelB wrote:By contrast, I have moderator powers in certain subforums here, but I have never used them for censorship or to stifle debate, and nor would I. Indeed, when a certain person asked me to do this on his behalf in the Pit Stop thread (no prizes for guessing who), I turned him down flat.
And even then I went back and double checked the disc and I still don't know what he's talking about so someone will have to pinpoint the moment for me.tenia wrote:("this guy says there are compression issues on Moonrise Kingdom but he missed black crush on Blind Chance so what does he know about anything ?").
Having worked in 3rd party QC for over a decade, I can tell you that this level of detail QC that could properly identify the compression detail smearing/blocking described in these threads is in no way performed once a disc is in the final stages. The budget is simply not there. IF a company even bothers to do 3rd party QC at all on the replication phase (and less and less this is the case), they likely have a single pass of the video content on the disc, with subtitles, looking for major issues only (e.g., the disc crashes, major video dropouts/hits, audio drop-outs, etc.)George Drooly wrote:But you'd think they (the second party, and then especially Criterion) would, you know, check the results.
Exactly. 3rd Party QC is simply not set up / budgeted for this particular level of scrutiny. Criterion themselves or the authoring house would need to determine this type of issue with review of their encoding & compression process.tenia wrote:I'm not sure the issue is with QC, but simply that the authoring house shouldn't be happy with what they're outputting on disc.
It's not a question on quality control, but simply of quality.
I can't think of a site that has more than 2 reviewers on a given film outside of HTF's primary reviewer and RAH's take (Although he doesn't opine on all Criterion releases). The best way to get counter reviews is to seek out reviews from multiple sites.George Drooly wrote:And God help you if you so much as mention his name or question why blu-ray.com doesn't offer counter reviews of Criterion product by other reviewers... there seems to be no room for dissent.Cash Flagg wrote:The fact that Pro-B's Criterion reviews never mention compression issues (and/or he repeatedly insists in forum posts that there aren't any) surely doesn't help either.tenia wrote:At this point, I think it's safe to say they either don't care or haven't been able to improve their encodes.