Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > "The Meaning of Life" Problems with the transfer?

Reply
Thread Tools

"The Meaning of Life" Problems with the transfer?

 
 
On-Liner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-12-2003

"Erik Harris" wrote
> Blarg wrote:
> >I was happy with how Universal dealt with BTTF. And that was only a
> >minor error in the cropping of just a few seconds of those films. But
> >this is an annoying error that propagates throughout the entire movie.
> >(one of my all-time fav films to boot!!)

>
> Didn't it also take Universal a few months to officially acknowledge the
> problem and say they'd fix it? And then a few more months to actually do

it?
>
> >C'mon Universal, do the right thing...

>
> And hopefully a bit more promptly this time. If the problem is as simple

as
> you say, it shouldn't require any significant work on their part, and

should
> be an easier fix than BTTF was.


But it will still takes months for the corrected version to filter through
to the shops.
No company is going to recall every single faulty DVD - there's too much
profit to lose.
At best, they'll only do a direct exchange for customers who complain about
it.
What's more likely is they'll wait until the faulty versions have sold out
before re-supplying the retailers with the new, fixed version.

Damian

Visit the BEST Monty Python site
www.montypythonpages.com

Visit the ONLY John Cleese site
www.montypythonpages.com/CSection


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dr. Planarian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2003
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:14:21 GMT, "Dunf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"The Magically Delicious Mr. H***" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Today, I picked up the new special edition 2 disc set of "Monty Python's
>> The Meaning of Life" and I am not happy with the quality of the film,
>> not at all.


(Etc.)

After looking forward to this release with great anticipation (being
an absolutely rabid MPFC fan and owning everything I can get my hands
on that any of them have ever done), I purchased "Meaning of Life" on
its first day of release. After seeing the problem (every third frame
breaks up into a phase inversion ghost, causing highly distracting
jittery waves to appear in anything moving on the screen while leaving
stationary fields intact), I returned the disc for exchange, only to
have the problem persist on the replacement.

Now I have a Best Buy store credit, but I will address ridiculous
restrictive defective product return policies on a forum more
appropriate for such a discussion. I'd have much preferred cash,
which is what I paid for the product in the first place.

I find it difficult to understand how any of you can't see this
problem on the disc. Try frame-by-frame and it will become obvious to
you. Perhaps you're too accustomed to viewing VHS tapes on a machine
with fouled heads, which is what the effect resembles.

I cannot believe that this isn't an accident and Universal will recall
the defective discs. Greed only gets you so far, and something this
damaging to their reputation for quality can't be good for them in a
commercial sense, at least not as good for them in the long run as
doing the right thing.

Dr. P
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve(JazzHunter)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2003
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 15:09:26 GMT, Dr. Planarian
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 12:14:21 GMT, "Dunf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"The Magically Delicious Mr. H***" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Today, I picked up the new special edition 2 disc set of "Monty Python's
>>> The Meaning of Life" and I am not happy with the quality of the film,
>>> not at all.

>
>(Etc.)
>
>After looking forward to this release with great anticipation (being
>an absolutely rabid MPFC fan and owning everything I can get my hands
>on that any of them have ever done), I purchased "Meaning of Life" on
>its first day of release. After seeing the problem (every third frame
>breaks up into a phase inversion ghost, causing highly distracting
>jittery waves to appear in anything moving on the screen while leaving
>stationary fields intact), I returned the disc for exchange, only to
>have the problem persist on the replacement.
>
>Now I have a Best Buy store credit, but I will address ridiculous
>restrictive defective product return policies on a forum more
>appropriate for such a discussion. I'd have much preferred cash,
>which is what I paid for the product in the first place.
>
>I find it difficult to understand how any of you can't see this
>problem on the disc. Try frame-by-frame and it will become obvious to
>you. Perhaps you're too accustomed to viewing VHS tapes on a machine
>with fouled heads, which is what the effect resembles.


The encode was done with incorrect field order. The source AVI or
video stream was lower field first, the render upper first, the result
is that after the pulldown flags are added frames 4 and 5 are
reversed, either causing interlacing or jerky playback depending upon
the player. This is for 30fps, I'm betting that those using 24 FPS
progressive playback won't see a problem because there is no
interlacing or pulldown flags for 29..97 recovery.. It's a very bad
disc with an inexcusable error.
>
>I cannot believe that this isn't an accident and Universal will recall
>the defective discs. Greed only gets you so far, and something this
>damaging to their reputation for quality can't be good for them in a
>commercial sense, at least not as good for them in the long run as
>doing the right thing.


Universal has no quality control whatosever, bad framing on BTTF, bad
film transfers on Benny Goodman, an inexplicable recall of "Duel" -
the list is endless.

. Steve .
>
>Dr. P


 
Reply With Quote
 
IA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2003
The level of noticeable defects--and consequent picture quality--can
greatly depend on the quality of your DVD player as well.
I tried playing the first disc on one of those panasonic DVD/VCR
combos and the picture was plagued by continual instability whenever
fast action took place. Then I tried it on my Lasonic 8090 and it
played fine, and without any really, really noticeable glitches.
Anyway, I went to Universal's website and sent them an irate message
about the disc, but thank God in the meantime for quality DVD players.
IA
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dr. Planarian
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2003
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:34:40 -0400, "Steve(JazzHunter)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>The encode was done with incorrect field order. The source AVI or
>video stream was lower field first, the render upper first, the result
>is that after the pulldown flags are added frames 4 and 5 are
>reversed, either causing interlacing or jerky playback depending upon
>the player. This is for 30fps, I'm betting that those using 24 FPS
>progressive playback won't see a problem because there is no
>interlacing or pulldown flags for 29..97 recovery.. It's a very bad
>disc with an inexcusable error.


That sounds like what I'm seeing. I have a high quality but older
model Toshiba DVD player without progressive scan, and every other DVD
I have ever bought plays absolutely beautifully on it, with the
biggest problem I've ever encountered being an occasional brief
(usually <1 second, once or twice up to three seconds) freeze between
layers.

>>I cannot believe that this isn't an accident and Universal will recall
>>the defective discs. Greed only gets you so far, and something this
>>damaging to their reputation for quality can't be good for them in a
>>commercial sense, at least not as good for them in the long run as
>>doing the right thing.

>
>Universal has no quality control whatosever, bad framing on BTTF, bad
>film transfers on Benny Goodman, an inexplicable recall of "Duel" -
>the list is endless.


It seems that most of my DVDs are Universal. I have maybe 120 now and
this is the first I've ever had any problem with beyond my daughter's
fingerprints that I could just wipe off on my robe.

But why THIS DVD, fer cryin' out loud! Don't they realize that Monty
Python fans are more anal about such things than anyone else?

I too wrote a note to Universal, but not a nasty angry one, hoping
that maybe they'll hearken better to softer words. I did mention that
I returned one for exchange, and then returned the second for store
credit. Perhaps if we all return ours to the stores and they get
buried in a mountain of returns they'll do something about it.

Dr. P
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr. Fishface
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2003
I bought MOL when it came out and returned it after hearing all the problems
about the transfer without even opening it. I decided to pick it up again
today at costco, put it in my cyberhome 500 and much to my surprise it
looked perfect. Not a thing people have been complaining about.



"IA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> The level of noticeable defects--and consequent picture quality--can
> greatly depend on the quality of your DVD player as well.
> I tried playing the first disc on one of those panasonic DVD/VCR
> combos and the picture was plagued by continual instability whenever
> fast action took place. Then I tried it on my Lasonic 8090 and it
> played fine, and without any really, really noticeable glitches.
> Anyway, I went to Universal's website and sent them an irate message
> about the disc, but thank God in the meantime for quality DVD players.
> IA



 
Reply With Quote
 
Keeper of the Purple Twilight
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2003
In article <ZLT8b.6549$(E-Mail Removed). net>, Mr.
Fishface <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I bought MOL when it came out and returned it after hearing all the problems
> about the transfer without even opening it. I decided to pick it up again
> today at costco, put it in my cyberhome 500 and much to my surprise it
> looked perfect. Not a thing people have been complaining about.


I haven't had any problems with this disc either. Absolutely none.
Looks as near to perfect as can be for a film this age. (My player is
a JVC model, progressive scan)

Am I correct in assuming that anyone using progressive scan would never
notice this disc's "problem" anyway?

--
³There are no mistakes in love.²
- Patty Smyth
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve(JazzHunter)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2003
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:25:03 GMT, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <ZLT8b.6549$(E-Mail Removed). net>, Mr.
>Fishface <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I bought MOL when it came out and returned it after hearing all the problems
>> about the transfer without even opening it. I decided to pick it up again
>> today at costco, put it in my cyberhome 500 and much to my surprise it
>> looked perfect. Not a thing people have been complaining about.

>
>I haven't had any problems with this disc either. Absolutely none.
>Looks as near to perfect as can be for a film this age. (My player is
>a JVC model, progressive scan)


The problems seem to only be with interlaced field order and pulldown
flags (24 -> 30fps) so what you're saying does support what I said in
another part of this thread.

. Steve ..
>
>Am I correct in assuming that anyone using progressive scan would never
>notice this disc's "problem" anyway?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve(JazzHunter)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2003
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:11:30 GMT, Dr. Planarian
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 11:34:40 -0400, "Steve(JazzHunter)"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>The encode was done with incorrect field order. The source AVI or
>>video stream was lower field first, the render upper first, the result
>>is that after the pulldown flags are added frames 4 and 5 are
>>reversed, either causing interlacing or jerky playback depending upon
>>the player.

>That sounds like what I'm seeing. I
>>>I cannot believe that this isn't an accident and Universal will recall
>>>the defective discs. Greed only gets you so far, and something this
>>>damaging to their reputation for quality can't be good for them in a
>>>commercial sense, at least not as good for them in the long run as
>>>doing the right thing.

>>
>>Universal has no quality control whatosever, bad framing on BTTF, bad
>>film transfers on Benny Goodman, an inexplicable recall of "Duel" -
>>the list is endless.

>
>It seems that most of my DVDs are Universal. I have maybe 120 now and
>this is the first I've ever had any problem with beyond my daughter's
>fingerprints that I could just wipe off on my robe.


But Universal has screwed up several major releases as well as some
minor ones. I have about 20 Universal DVD's (my collection is more to
Kino, Criterion, Columbia, Image etc.) and out of those 20, 5 have
problems, a signifcant percentage. I presume you either have the
corrected Back to the Future or not at all, since the framing is so
awful on some scenes on discs 2 and 3 that anyone would notice it.
Also "The Benny Goodman story" is unwatchable with its claustrophobic
cropping. "The Glenn Miller Story" on the other hand is an almost
perfect transfer with outstanidng audio.

The biggest irony is that I did manage to get Duel, the cancelled
Universal release, and it's flawless, technically a perfect DVD!

.. Steve .
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Erik Harris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-14-2003
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 06:25:03 GMT, Keeper of the Purple Twilight
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Am I correct in assuming that anyone using progressive scan would never
>notice this disc's "problem" anyway?


Does your TV do progressive scan, too? A progressive scan DVD player is no
different than any other DVD player on a normal NTSC (or PAL) television.

On a digital TV that can play 480p, I suppose it would depend on how the DVD
player handles its progressive scan conversion. If it does it the smart way,
and bases its display on the 24p MPEG-2 source data, then you shouldn't
notice field order flag problems. If it does it the stupid way, and decodes
the MPEG-2 stream fully (converting it to 60Hz interlaced) and then makes its
progressive scan output from that, then you should see the problem.

I don't know which method most (or all) DVD players use, but it seems like it
would be kind of stupid to use the latter method, since it would require so
much extra computation (interpolation to get a 720x480 frame out of a 720x240
field) and slightly lower image quality.

--
Erik Harris n$wsr$ader@$harrishom$.com
AIM: KngFuJoe http://www.eharrishome.com
Chinese-Indonesian MA Club http://www.eharrishome.com/cimac/

The above email address is obfuscated to try to prevent SPAM.
Replace each dollar sign with an "e" for the correct address.
 
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
Understanding search queries, semantics, and "Meaning" ...aren't weall looking for meaning? 5lvqbwl02@sneakemail.com Python 4 01-14-2009 02:28 PM
use work.my_package.all-->what exactly meaning of this Parthav VHDL 4 01-13-2006 07:50 PM
Re: "The Meaning of Life" Problems with the transfer? Stan Brown DVD Video 14 10-18-2004 08:39 PM
Meaning of output value? Sander Odekerken VHDL 2 05-18-2004 05:41 PM
Monty Python Meaning of Life DVD hotline problems Robert Kaiser DVD Video 3 05-11-2004 05:38 AM



Advertisments