Considering what a mythical reference title
The Fifth Element was when released on DVD (and Superbit, and Laserdisc!), it was surprising to
see it reviewed as just another softly-focused, dirty, and scratchy launch title for Blu-ray. Many reviewers and fans complained about the lackluster MPEG-2 encoding, and the general poor quality of the transfer. Sony has announced details and contact information about a
plan to exchange the first -- now discontinued -- batch of Blu-ray Discs for the remastered edition, due to be released in July. The new version is a new 1080p transfer from a different master, and includes Dolby TrueHD as well as uncompressed PCM audio. It will also be encoded in MPEG-4 AVC, which will hopefully show off the improved compression of the newer codec. Quite an olive branch from Sony for those who have already picked it up, and a show of good steps toward making Blu-ray titles the best they can be. Now the question remains,
how many of the other initial MPEG-2 Blu-ray titles will be remastered like this?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TJ @ Jun 15th 2007 1:57PM
Most of the initial MPEG-2 offerings looked fine, but it would be nice if they did some remastering and exchange programs like this. It would be great to endear them to early adopters.
I wonder if Warner will do the same with Superman Returns. They're offering a version with uncompressed audio as a frebie with the new Pioneer Elite Blu-ray Player. I don't want to spend a grand just to get a somewhat better version of a disc I already bought!
riverside_guy @ Jun 15th 2007 2:40PM
Odd, can't remember exactly when or what channel, but I've seen this on HD cable and it was fabulous, up there with the best HD quality.
Kevin Murphy @ Jun 15th 2007 2:55PM
It was fantastic on DirecTV + HBO, believe it or don't. I'll make a bet: they pull out all the stops and this will be an 11.
Kevin @ Jun 15th 2007 3:03PM
How bout Telladega Nights?
FrankTheCrank @ Jun 15th 2007 3:49PM
How about the actual information for the trade in???
Bradley Robertson @ Jun 15th 2007 4:23PM
If you click the read link it is there ;)
Asterra @ Jun 15th 2007 7:19PM
Heh. When I read the last quip about the other MPEG2 discs, I knew this couldn't be Ben reporting this news, even though HD media is his pidgin.
The more MPEG2 discs which get released, the more that will eventually need to be replaced with proper encodes. If one bothers to perform some test encodes of 1080p24 video, one can determine for themselves that 25Mbps is a good average for VC-1 or AVC but it takes about three times that for MPEG2 to match the reproduction of film grain and motion-heavy scenes (Blu-ray maxes out at 40Mbps for video, not 75). Comments to the effect that "most MPEG2 releases look fine" is simply evidence of inadequate scrutinization of the video. There's a reason why Blu-ray has a reputation of looking washed out, and the prosumers buying this stuff didn't make it up.
The only MPEG2 video which has indeed "looked fine" (for the most part) was Crank. Crank was "filmed" with digital cameras. Ergo, no film grain.
Joseph R @ Jun 15th 2007 10:21PM
- "The only MPEG2 video which has indeed 'looked fine' (for the most part) was Crank."
You are nuts! MOST of the MPEG2 discs look great, especially "Underworld Evolution", "Tears of the Sun", and "Kingdom of Heaven" among others. Just because a disc is MPEG2 doesn't means it's from a poor HD master!
But a few of the initial 6 or so Sony MPEG2 releases on Blu-ray were not mastered properly in HD (like "The Fifth Element"), and most notably HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS, which couples mediocre video quality with outstanding uncompressed PCM audio.
For those initial discs, you actually have to increase your TV's sharpness beyond "0" a little, to see the HD picture that's there (since it's so soft).
Asterra @ Jun 16th 2007 12:35AM
Looking "great" and looking "AVC / VC-1 great" are regrettably two separate things. All of the MPEG2 Blu-ray discs I have bought or rented (exception: Crank) have had a characteristic softness and a decided inability to deal with less-than-static imagery. Matters were merely worsened in the cases where the source was poor; decent sources still had film grain, which MPEG2, at inadequate bitrates, failed to properly manifest. A little familiarity with how interframe codecs deal with too much detail would be eludicating. What they produce is an effective reduction in resolution. You may be familiar with the complaint that Blu-ray tends to look scarcely more detailed than DVD. This phenomenon is engendered by efforts to push too much detail through MPEG2 at too low bitrates.
Can you honestly tell me that Casino Royale / Pirates of the Carribean have looked not one whit better than any of a plethora of MPEG2 movies? Honestly? I own these movies, and I will tell you right now that these facts aren't invented. People need to stop pretending it was a satisfactory idea to go with MPEG2 (it was, instead, a cheap decision on Sony's part). The travesty is that about 50% of contemporary releases are still being produced in MPEG2, further worsening the Blu-ray legacy.
riverside_guy @ Jun 16th 2007 10:24AM
A word of caution... without knowing the intentions of the director, one can't ascribe a visual fault 100% to the technology that quickly. It is entirely possible that a kinda soft, kinda grainy HD movie was NOT because of what codec was used, but 100% WAS the intent of the director.
Not saying there aren't inherent flaws in any technology, just that you need to really dig deeper before you claim one thing is "responsible."
Joseph R @ Jun 16th 2007 5:49PM
I agree with "riverside_guy"'s comment above about film grain. How many times have we read the unjustified complaints about U2: RATTLE AND HUM's visual grain [on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray], and yet people are ignorant of the fact that this was indeed the director's intent!
FYI: I viewed the movie in the theater, also own both the full-screen and widescreen DD5.1 LaserDiscs, plus the standard DVD and HD-DVD, and ALL of the images project the added grain-effect from the director's D.of.Photography's use of various cameras. You'll notice that later in the film [color segments], with the 35mm cameras there is hardly any grain, compared to the earlier B/W segments.
Again, the grain was intential from the director!
As for the previous poster's rebuttal to my post, stating: "This phenomenon is engendered by efforts to push too much detail through MPEG2 at too low bitrates" - again this person is nuts!
FYI: MOST of the Blu-ray MPEG2 movies I own or have rented have moderately HIGH (not low!) bit rates [between 15 to 20mps], especially in comparison to standard DVD.
Yes, VC1 and MPEG4 have their benefits [and can be used at lower bitrates too], but a proper mastering with MPEG2, at the higher bitrates that Sony has used on most every title except the first ones, have produced outstanding quality Blu-ray images.
Blu-ray (and the various codecs) offer quality that's just as good as HD-DVD, although many of the Blu-ray discs provide either none or few (lame) extras, compared to the same on standard DVD and HD-DVD.
Asterra @ Jun 16th 2007 6:33PM
I may not have made myself entirely clear. Let me be specific. 15-20Mbps is not a high bitrate for 1080p24 video. Not even for AVC or VC-1. 25Mbps AVC or VC-1 _average_ is about right for most movies as long as we're talking about a true mastering job with multiple passes. 30Mbps is far preferable.
To repeat: MPEG2 at 1080p24 and at the bitrates in question is roughly one-third as efficient as the other two codecs. Please realize what this means: If you want the same detail you get from AVC at 25Mbps, you need to give MPEG2 75Mbps.
I have made test encodes with the appropriate software. I know these things for a fact. It's not reasonable to expect just anyone to have the access or the inclination to perform similar tests (actually, it's quite easy to test MPEG2 and AVC) so I'll end by saying take the facts or continue ignoring the evidence and the general concensus.