by Jeff McNeal, editor - The BIG Picture
By and large, DVD's have evolved nicely in their infancy. "Flippers" have given way to RSDL technology. We're seeing the pseudo-standardization of packaging, with Amaray-style keepcases and Warner-style snapper cases sharing the top billing. Both have their advantages and drawbacks, but they are roughly the same size and are both convenient to use. We like the fold-out cardboard snappers that make reading the liner notes convenient and easy. We like how the keepcases with their protective plastic sheathing double as drink coasters. Terrific. In our view, the keepcases edge out the snappers though, because the raised plastic framing of the snappers snag on adjacent snapper covers when lined up side-by-side on our shelves. That's being real picky -- but why not? As Willie Wonka once said: "We are the music makers -- and we are the dreamers of dreams". We are the consumers.
We've been taking note of more "extra's" on discs from Columbia Tri-Star and others that only offered plain-vanilla movies in the beginning. Universal is starting to release more 16:9 enhanced discs -- something that Warner Brothers has done from the beginning, but more consistently, Columbia Tri-Star has, also. While we support Widescreen and full-frame (not to be confused with pan and scan) versions of films on each disc to encourage the transition to 16:9 from consumers that are still in a 4:3 world, it should be abundantly clear to everyone on the inside-track that 16:9 anamorphic is the future of DVD. The sooner that all studios authoring DVD's catch on to this, the better.
In general, DVD is moving in the right direction and we're totally immersed in this fun, convenient and high-quality format. Oops. I meant to say usually high-quality format.
The time has come to ask those in charge of DVD authoring and distribution to take a really hard look at some of the discs they're stamping their good names upon and selling to a trusting and enthusiastic public. All too often we are seeing discs of such poor quality that we can't begin to understand how such substandard transfers are even making it into the shrink wrap, let alone the store shelves and finally, our DVD players. My guess is that they're not supervising the transfers on monitors as large as our 120" reference screen -- but perhaps they should be.
I suppose The BIG Picture should be grateful for the wide range of quality found on DVD. After all, if every disc looked perfect, there would be no need for our popular ratings page. However, we find it disturbing that some studios, notably MGM and Warner Brothers, are allowing a few technically-abhorrant DVD's to leave their facilities. These proverbial "bad apples" -- titles like Outland and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and now Thief:SE threaten to spoil the whole format if they are allowed to proliferate and go unchallenged. There is simply no excuse for shoddy workmanship given this age of immense technological advancements in film restoration and DVD authoring. Just take a look at The Chaplin Mutuals -- filmed in 1916 and 1917. Or High Noon, filmed in 1952. These DVD's look absolutely wonderful, given their respective ages, yet more recent films like Bullitt or Thief:SE look like they were transfered to DVD while the technician in charge was out playing golf. It's hard for us to understand how The Good, The Bad and The Ugly could look so great, while The Great Escape could look so poor in comparison -- not with the technology available today. It boggles my mind that millions of dollars would be spent restoring Spartucus to pristine theatrical condition, yet a new anamorphic print couldn't be commissioned for the DVD authoring. From the standpoint of film preservation alone, one would think that the studios responsible for these timeless, classic masterpieces would use every available means to ensure the highest possible quality transfer to DVD.
It is in the studios' best interest to ensure that the product they are distributing is of the highest possible quality that current and future technology allows. This means more time for each title perhaps, additional expense, probably -- and no shortcuts. The reason I say that it's in the studios' best interest is because all-else being equal, the studios that offer the best-quality and the best value are going to be the big winners. It's also important from a consistency standpoint. While I've been dazzled by many of the Warner titles -- notably Mars Attacks, Mad City, Conspiracy Theory and others that earned high marks for image quality -- I've also been horrifed by the awful authoring treatment of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and Outland, for example. MGM has become one of the worst offenders of this practice. While Singing In The Rain, Wizard of Oz, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and others shine with excellent quality, many of their recent titles -- the latest Bond title a notable exception-- have fallen short. Way short.
Much to our grave disappointment, MGM seems to have moved away from anamorphic transfers in general, and if Thief:SE -- one of their latest offerings is any indication, we could be up for some serious disappointments in the months ahead. One of the most highly anticipated titles from the MGM vault is Gone With The Wind - and after over a year and a half of waiting from their initial announcement, what kind of transfer can we expect? Given the time it's taken, we're expecting the best! But with our recent experiences, our anticipation has given way to apprehension. Once quality-control is compromised, so goes the credibility of the issuing studio. I really wish MGM could provide a more consistent product.
It makes no sense to gussy up a disc with extras like a director's commentary, theatrical trailer and cool animated chapter menus, when so little regard goes into the main attraction -- the feature itself. For example, our pressing of Thief:Director's Edition contained two serious glitches -- at 4:24 into chapter 3 and again at 1:41 into chapter 25. According to two sources involved with the authoring of this title, John DeGroof (see his post on The BIG Picture Forum) and Dave Miller with MGM, these glitches were not seen in test copies they received and should not be there. I'll take them on their word and get a replacement copy from a different distributor. However, both acknowledged that the grain and low contrast issues were artistic preferences by the director Michael Mann, who personally supervised and approved the DVD transfer -- and both acknowledged what I consider to be the most serious complaint of all -- motion artifacts . According to Miller: "He (director Michael Mann) likes his films to be transferred a certain way... you'll see it on Heat also and Last of The Mohicans." Miller continued, "He likes his films to be dark, low-contrast, dark and grainy -- these attributes... plays havoc with compression, creates the blurring and slowing artifacts... and can enhance the grain in the film itself." According to Miller, the original transfer to DVD of Thief was rejected as unacceptable because of the compression-related problems. To compensate for this, MGM chose to make this release a dual-layer disc, even though it was in one aspect ratio only and isn't a particularly long film. By doing this, less compression was needed and the previously "unreleasable" title was "much improved" and considered good enough for release by the honchos at MGM and the director who oversaw the transfer. Good enough? You be the judge. Personally, I think the offending studios need to raise their standards and do a better job. In fairness, I know it's a delicate balancing act. Cost, timing and availability of authoring and pressing facilities are all mitigating factors, but I stand by the assertion that some lines just shouldn't be crossed in deference to expediency or profit.
In our opinion, no title with blurry images or motion artifacts is acceptable. That is, unless these effect were part of the original theatrical release. While grain, darkness and contrast might be a debatable issue -- motion artifacts and unintentionally soft images have no artistic merit whatsoever. They are flaws that ruin the home theater experience.
While most objectionable artifacts such as the ones we mentioned here are less noticible on smaller displays, more and more households are discovering The BIG Picture -- investing thousands of dollars into the installion of elaborate home theater systems. We are a voice for these enthusiasts -- and those who will be in the years to come as their budgets allow and the price of the technology becomes more affordable. Why invest in a high-end home theater to watch low or marginal quality transfers? I hereby call upon all studios to raise the benchmark and put more care into your product. We consumers -- the ones driving this new technology with our hard-earned dollars -- deserve the best that you can offer. With the notable exception of Columbia Tri-Star, in which nearly every title has rated our highest honors for image quality (well-deservedly, I might add), all other studios should take notice and strive for that kind of consistency.
If I were the head of a motion picture studio providing DVD product, I'd chomp on my big cigar and shout into the intercom to my assistant: "Find out the name of the person in charge of Columbia Tri-Star's great DVD image transfers and GET THEM OVER HERE."
That's my opinion -- what's yours? Post your comments to The BIG Picture Forum.
Jeff McNeal, Editor
The BIG Picture
Copyright 1998, by Jeff McNeal Productions. Click here to see our legal notice.