Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > Re: Is Anchor Bay 2nd Best After Criterion ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Is Anchor Bay 2nd Best After Criterion ?

 
 
Grand Inquisitor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2003
Harold Butterass wrote:
> When someone says "It's an Anchor Bay release", is it understood that
> the end product will be one of high standards? Is it a foregone
> conclusion that the DVD should be purchased ?
>
> If not, which other companies get respect like Criterion ?
>


Probably none, because even though there are companies that put out a
lot of Criterion type of movies, none have the reputation for being A:
one of the most influential organizations in home video history, and B:
putting out such stupdenous extras and quality transfers.

Anchor Bay isn't bad but I'd rank them below Kino and Image. Image and
Kino (as well as Anchor Bay) are a lot like Criterion, except their
transfers aren't as sharp. See the Anchor Bay release of Notorious and
then the Criterion release, the difference is very noticeable. Newer
films have fine transfers though, I'm quite pleased with my Anchor Bay
copy of Adventures of Baron Munchausen (though I wish Criterion could
redo the LD with the Gilliam commentary track).

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dougb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2003
Grand Inquisitor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<KJd1b.29527$(E-Mail Removed)>...

> Anchor Bay isn't bad but I'd rank them below Kino and Image. Image and
> Kino (as well as Anchor Bay) are a lot like Criterion, except their
> transfers aren't as sharp. See the Anchor Bay release of Notorious and
> then the Criterion release, the difference is very noticeable. Newer
> films have fine transfers though, I'm quite pleased with my Anchor Bay
> copy of Adventures of Baron Munchausen (though I wish Criterion could
> redo the LD with the Gilliam commentary track).


GI, wasn't the Baron put out by Columbia? I know AB did Time Bandits,
but I think I'm right about Munchausen. I agree it would be far with
a deluxe treatment.

Which reminds me, it is generally understood that the R2 version of
Time Bandits (put out by Anchor Bay UK) is the one to own, superior to
the US Anchor Bay and the Criterion. I guess it's anamorphic and has
more and better extras. A couple other notable titles that AB got
right were their most recent iteration of "Sleuth" and the Three
Musketeers/Four Musketeers twofer. But I guess that just proves
they're a mixed bag.

On the other hand, is Criterion overrated? . . .

(Donning the flame-retardent gear)

DB
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Grand Inquisitor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2003
dougb wrote:

> Grand Inquisitor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<KJd1b.29527$(E-Mail Removed)>...
>
>
>>Anchor Bay isn't bad but I'd rank them below Kino and Image. Image and
>>Kino (as well as Anchor Bay) are a lot like Criterion, except their
>>transfers aren't as sharp. See the Anchor Bay release of Notorious and
>>then the Criterion release, the difference is very noticeable. Newer
>>films have fine transfers though, I'm quite pleased with my Anchor Bay
>>copy of Adventures of Baron Munchausen (though I wish Criterion could
>>redo the LD with the Gilliam commentary track).

>
>
> GI, wasn't the Baron put out by Columbia? I know AB did Time Bandits,
> but I think I'm right about Munchausen. I agree it would be far with
> a deluxe treatment.
>


Get the Criterion Time Bandits, not the AB. Let me go check...well,
you're right, Columbia did Munchausen. Don't know why I thought AB did.
Looks like the only AB DVDs I have are Are You Being Served: The
Movie (and I'm eternally grateful to them for putting this out, it was
non-existant on VHS in this country), Return to Oz, and Zombie.

> Which reminds me, it is generally understood that the R2 version of
> Time Bandits (put out by Anchor Bay UK) is the one to own, superior to
> the US Anchor Bay and the Criterion. I guess it's anamorphic and has
> more and better extras. A couple other notable titles that AB got
> right were their most recent iteration of "Sleuth" and the Three
> Musketeers/Four Musketeers twofer. But I guess that just proves
> they're a mixed bag.
>


Looks like it has more extras (though the commentary must be licensed
from Criterion) than the CC release, but I'll take non-anamorphic NTSC
with fewer extras over time-corrected PAL with more extras anyday.

> On the other hand, is Criterion overrated? . . .


Not really. People forget how much Criterion shaped the home video
industry. There was no letterboxing until Criterion came along. There
were no special features, trailers, commentary tracks, scripts, and all
of those extras we take for granted until Criterion came along, put out
serious, well-transferred prints of quality films on Laserdisc.
Criterion saved Laserdisc from the Beta/CED bin, and set the stage for DVD.

Yes, sometimes it seems like we're paying too much (such as the bare
bones $40 Amarcord); yes, sometimes they put out crap like Warhol films
when they could be restoring another early Hitchcock; yes, they don't
have as much pull with some of the studios as they did in the Laserdisc
days; and yes, some early DVDs were not 16:9 enhanced. That said, they
are still the most consistently good home video company there is.

Unless somebody's claiming they are near-perfect, then they're not being
over-rated.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

 
Reply With Quote
 
ML-78
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-22-2003
> Looks like it has more extras (though the commentary must be licensed
> from Criterion) than the CC release, but I'll take non-anamorphic NTSC
> with fewer extras over time-corrected PAL with more extras anyday.


Why would you choose NTSC over PAL? If a release is otherwise identical I always
go for the PAL because of higher resolution, no 3:2 pulldown effects etc.


ML-78


 
Reply With Quote
 
Grand Inquisitor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2003
ML-78 wrote:
>>Looks like it has more extras (though the commentary must be licensed
>>from Criterion) than the CC release, but I'll take non-anamorphic NTSC
>>with fewer extras over time-corrected PAL with more extras anyday.

>
>
> Why would you choose NTSC over PAL? If a release is otherwise identical I always
> go for the PAL because of higher resolution, no 3:2 pulldown effects etc.


Well one day I'll have an HDTV and 3:2 pulldown will be a thing of the
past. Plus I don't like the time-correction on PAL DVDs.

--
"Get rid of the Range Rover. You are not responsible for patrolling
Australia's Dingo Barrier Fence, nor do you work the Savannah, capturing
and tagging wildebeests."
--Michael J. Nelson

Grand Inquisitor
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=Oost

 
Reply With Quote
 
ML-78
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2003
> On NTSC film runs at the correct 24fps and there ARE no "pulldown
> effects" on the computer or progressive-scan display - if the DVD is
> properly mastered for film at 24fps.


Ok, I was assuming the viewing was done with a regular TV set and DVD player.
Still, it doesn't solve the problem of lower resolution.

> I ALWAYS go for NTSC, and hate to have to settle for an off-speed PAL
> transfer.


The PAL speed-up is hardly noticeable. The greatest and most visible difference
between the two formats is the resolution and here the PAL format wins.


ML-78


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve(JazzHunter)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2003
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:49:59 +0200, "ML-78"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> On NTSC film runs at the correct 24fps and there ARE no "pulldown
>> effects" on the computer or progressive-scan display - if the DVD is
>> properly mastered for film at 24fps.

>
>Ok, I was assuming the viewing was done with a regular TV set and DVD player.
>Still, it doesn't solve the problem of lower resolution.
>
>> I ALWAYS go for NTSC, and hate to have to settle for an off-speed PAL
>> transfer.

>
>The PAL speed-up is hardly noticeable. The greatest and most visible difference
>between the two formats is the resolution and here the PAL format wins.


Only for vertical lines, 320 line effective resolution for NTSC versus
384 effective for PAL. Both standards have an effective horizontal
res of 480 lines. On the other hand, considering a scan rate of 23.97
for NTSC and 25fps for PAL (on film) the bitrate for PAL has to be
higher both to describe the higher frame rate and to define higher
vertical resolution. That is, at a given mpeg bitrate, digital PAL is
more likely to have motion artifacts.

Incidently, I know the vertical pixel count is 576 and 480, and scan
lines 625 and 525, but for either progressive scan or interlaced, PC
or composite monitor, the VISIBLE vertical resolution is 384 and 320.
Just as the VISIBLE horizontal resolution for 720 pixels horizontal is
about 480 lines. This is the 2X3 rule, where to define one line you
need two transitions, but adjacent pixels in the other direction help
define detail also.

For such a minor difference in resolution, but considering the more
effective bitrate plus accurate frame rate NTSC wins hand down as the
preferred format for archiving film. And as others have pointed out,
in the coming age of HDTV video can be watched at film rate, meaning
an advanced European standard will ALSO be at 24fps film rate, rather
than at 25fps Video rate. Current 24fps film transfers will translate
much better to new standards than existing 25fps transfers.

... Steve ..

 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve(JazzHunter)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2003
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:08:48 +0200, "ML-78"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> >The PAL speed-up is hardly noticeable. The greatest and most visible

>difference
>> >between the two formats is the resolution and here the PAL format wins.

>>
>> Only for vertical lines, 320 line effective resolution for NTSC versus
>> 384 effective for PAL. Both standards have an effective horizontal
>> res of 480 lines.

>
>No, PAL has 576 horizontal lines effectively, whereas NTSC has 480. That is a
>visible difference.


RESOLUTION, not lines. Eg. The720 pixels horizontally of a DVD,
that's left to right, translates into a RESOLUTION of approx 480
lines. This is the same as a video bandwidth of 6 Megahertz. As I say
you need two pixels to define one edge, and two transitions to define
one line. This is basic graphics. Likewise the vertical resolution,
top to bottom, of NTSC (484 active scan lines plus sync and blanking)
has always been considered to be effectively 320 lines or so, and of
PAL (580 active scan lines plus sync etc.) 380 or so. This is a basic
technical specification dating back to the dawn of television
standards. With interlacing and the "dead spot" between lines, one
scanning line can not possibly define one line of vertical detail.
480 vertical pixels OR scanning lines = about 320 individual
horizontal lines that can be demarcated.
>
>> On the other hand, considering a scan rate of 23.97
>> for NTSC and 25fps for PAL (on film) the bitrate for PAL has to be
>> higher both to describe the higher frame rate and to define higher
>> vertical resolution. That is, at a given mpeg bitrate, digital PAL is
>> more likely to have motion artifacts.



>
>PAL is *not* more likely to have motion artifacts since the bitrate difference
>(which effectively is not that huge) is not very important. The major source for
>motion artifacts is actually the 3:2 pulldown (which admittedly is only a real
>factor during fast movement).


The required bitrate of PAL needs to be about 22% higher than that of
NTSC. This reflects a higher hoirizontal scan rate as well as more
horizontal scans total. This is a bigger factor than merely the
difference between 24 and 25fps. And I have actually done encodes of
the same material at 480X480 and 480X576 (superVCD) which show the
obvious difference in quality at a given average bitrate. In no way
is the difference "minor!"
>
>> Incidently, I know the vertical pixel count is 576 and 480, and scan
>> lines 625 and 525, but for either progressive scan or interlaced, PC
>> or composite monitor, the VISIBLE vertical resolution is 384 and 320.

>
>I'm of course not talking about PC monitors or the like, but how a DVD movie
>looks on a TV screen.


The very slight (18-20%) difference in vertical resolution is not
noticeable, whereas the incorrect film speed is an irritant, and the
higher required bitrate for SuperVCD or DVD is significant. And PC
playback all but eliminates scanning artifacts, which improves
vertical resolution somewhat.
>
>> For such a minor difference in resolution, but considering the more
>> effective bitrate plus accurate frame rate NTSC wins hand down as the
>> preferred format for archiving film.

>
>Now this is surely turning things upside down The difference in resolution
>is not minor (20% more lines for PAL), whereas the bitrate difference isn't very
>important. Of course you don't get better quality by throwing away information,
>even though it means less compression.


Bitrate as I say IS significant.
>
>The most substantial critique against PAL is the flickering due to fewer fields
>pr. second. But again, this is practically only partially noticeable (mostly
>during still images) and not as significat as the resolution difference.
>Then there are some other differences too such as the less truthful color
>reproduction for NTSC.


High end sets use framestores with 100 Hz progressive scanning to
eliminate 50 Hz flicker.

The "less truthful" colour reproduction of NTSC is a myth. PAL is
BASED upon NTSC, with additional 90-degree dithering of the colour
burst phase to counteract phase errors. Saturation is still not
locked in in either standard, and modern NTSC has all but eliminated
phase errors. The actual colorimetry of the two standards is
identical now BUT the original NTSC actually had BETTER skin tone
definition because of a lower Red value. PAL and modern NTSC have
scrapped that in favour of a brighter picture. Also the Chroma
bandwidth in the critical Cyan-Orange axis is higher in NTSC than in
PAL.
>
>> And as others have pointed out,
>> in the coming age of HDTV video can be watched at film rate, meaning
>> an advanced European standard will ALSO be at 24fps film rate, rather
>> than at 25fps Video rate. Current 24fps film transfers will translate
>> much better to new standards than existing 25fps transfers.

>
>I agree that *future* formats will reduce the differences between PAL and NTSC.


. Steve ..
>
>
>ML-78
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
ML-78
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-23-2003
> The very slight (18-20%) difference in vertical resolution is not
> noticeable,


Even the most overt NTSC defenders would disagree with this. Have you actually
*seen* a PAL image? The higher resolution gives somewhat greater detail than the
NTSC image - not a world of difference but still in favor of PAL and certainly
noticeable. But if you watch your movies on a PC monitor perhaps you're right
there isn't much difference

One thing is to say "only slightly noticeable", but "not noticable"?
And 20% becomes a very slight difference?

> whereas the incorrect film speed is an irritant,


How so? Sure, it seems logical that if one format plays the correct speed and
the other does not, you should choose the former. It is, however, only an
irritant on grounds of principle because as the film plays you simply don't see
it running faster. The sound, on the other hand, will either be higher pitched
(which would be audible in *some* cases) or equalized, so if it's a music DVD I
would probably go for NTSC.

I'm surprised you call the resolution difference "not noticeable" and at the
same time emphasize a rather indifferent factor such as speed-up, which is only
detectable because of what the timer shows.

> >Now this is surely turning things upside down The difference in

resolution
> >is not minor (20% more lines for PAL), whereas the bitrate difference isn't

very
> >important. Of course you don't get better quality by throwing away

information,
> >even though it means less compression.

>
> Bitrate as I say IS significant.


And higher vertical resolution more so.


ML-78


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NEW Anchor Bay Titles out early at Best Buy Jeffman DVD Video 5 04-27-2004 05:32 PM
Re: Is Anchor Bay 2nd Best After Criterion ? Arthur Lipscomb DVD Video 9 09-02-2003 01:32 AM
Re: Is Anchor Bay 2nd Best After Criterion ? Eric R. DVD Video 3 08-22-2003 09:03 PM
Re: Is Anchor Bay 2nd Best After Criterion ? ML-78 DVD Video 0 08-22-2003 02:40 AM



Advertisments