R1 DVD - First full-length review

[Joseph DeMartino]

The Cinema Laser has their review of the R1 set up. Over-all quite favorable. I have a feeling the critic may be a bit pickier than I am, because I read similar comments about the CGI in In the Beginning and frankly those shots looked fine to me - better, in fact, than the same shots on the laserdisc version.

Waiting every more eagerly for my set to arrive. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,

Joe

 

[zantarous]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Since all of the special effects shots have been digitally "blown up" to fill the dimensions of wide screen televisions, they are somewhat soft and fuzzy looking

[/quote]

I have heard this being discussed in another forum. To be honest I still can't notice it. However I am watching on a 20" 4:3 set, do things like this become more apparent when viewing on a 16:9?

 

[PillowRock]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I am watching on a 20" 4:3 set, do things like this become more apparent when viewing on a 16:9?

[/quote]

Assuming that the widescreen set is an HD set, then you would notice it by comparison to things which were rendered for the higher resolution. It isn't that DVD playing would look worse than you remember it. It would end up looking like the difference that you can see when looking at a traditional TV and an HDTV side by side. Since the total number of pixels available in B5 (or any show created for standard TV resolution) is only what existed in the older standard, then it will still look like a standard TV picture when it is shown on an HDTV. You won't get the "extra" detail and crispness that HD offers.

 

[zantarous]

Aahhhh HDTV. Unfortuntley us tree dwelling cavemen Europeans arn't due HDTV until sometime in the year 3000 or there abouts

 

[KoshN]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
I have a feeling the critic may be a bit pickier than I am, ...

[/quote]

Somebody's pickier than Joe? /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[GKarsEye]

I don't think I understand what you're saying? Why would a DVD look any different on an HD vs standard TV (all other things being equal)? HD refers to television broadcast, which doesn't apply here.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I keep reminding myself, "Its season 1, the weakest season, especially the early episodes," and even still, I can't wait for the darn thing to arrive. I went with Amazon's free shipping (the slowest) and am now wishing I paid the bucks for overnight.

This is a bigger deal to me than LoTR, extended version, Spider Man or Episode 2. This is, for me, the equivalent of Sting's intro to the Dire Straits biggest hit, "I want my Babylon 5....... I want my Babylon 5................" /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
However I am watching on a 20" 4:3 set, do things like this become more apparent when viewing on a 16:9?

[/quote]

The short answer is "it depends" /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif Any flaw in a TV picture is going to become more noticeable on a larger screen, whether 4:3 or 16:9, HD or standard. When I went from a 19" tube set to a 46" RPTV most of my homemade VHS tapes immediately became unwatchable. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif There is just so much processing being done to the scenes in question. (Matting the 4:3 frame to 16:9, zooming it slightly to match the dimensions of the rest of the shots, then applying the anamorphic squeeze to the final DVD image. Then downconverting it back to matted letterbox for a 4:3 TV or sending the raw signal to a 16:9 set so that it can be "unsqueezed".) I can see reasons why it might look better or worse on either kind of set. Guess I'll have to wait until I actually have the discs and look at them myself. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As for why any DVD might look better on an HDTV. Even though the input signal isn't HD (which, as GKE notes is currently only delivered via broadcast/cable/satellite - oh, and most recently D-VHS) the set is capable of making a DVD look better. Nearly all HDTV sets have built-in line multipliers which "interpolate" additional lines of resolution into the picture based on the adjacent lines in the source signal. They can often increase the apparent resolution by 2 or even 4 times as compared to a standard NTSC display.

Regards,

Joe

 

[KoshN]

It's pretty amazing that the reviewer, as a "big BABYLON 5 fan," wasn't aware of the CGI/Composite CGI issues, and didn't mention the word "cropping" in relation to the CGI. /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

 

[Elric]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Since all of the special effects shots have been digitally "blown up" to fill the dimensions of wide screen televisions, they are somewhat soft and fuzzy looking


[/quote]

I'm watching it on a 28" widescreen TV and I have not noticed any fuzzy CGI either. I would be interested to hear if ANYONE has noticed this...

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

A review appeared on another website today, but it is so riddled with errors (including Stuart Copeland doing the music and Johnny Sekka playing Dr. Benjamin Kyle) that I have serious doubts the guy even watched any of the episodes. (I suspect he watched the extras, then dug out his The Gathering review on the assumption that everything else would be pretty much the same.) He also complains about the "Dolby Digital 2.0" sound, and claims that there is "controversy" about the aspect ratio the live action was shot in - and then provides a link to a web page that exactly describes how the show was shot and settles the alleged "controversy". I will not bother linking to the review, which I think is worthless at this point.

To update the "Sky" situation, here's a comment from Derek Germano of The Cinema Laser:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Let me chime in on the R1 disc, which I double checked for the episode "...And the Sky Full of Stars" at the 1:24 mark.

The defect that is described as being present in the R2 disc does not carry over to its R1 counterpart. The effect shots are blown up and cropped to the proper 16:9 format, without any distortion.

[/quote]

There, Kosh. He used the word "cropped". Happy? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Regards,

Joe

 

[KoshN]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Anomymous Reviewer (not BABYLON 5- THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON:SIGNS AND PORTENTS (by The Cinema Laser): </font color>
Let me chime in on the R1 disc, which I double checked for the episode "...And the Sky Full of Stars" at the 1:24 mark.

The defect that is described as being present in the R2 disc does not carry over to its R1 counterpart. The effect shots are blown up and cropped to the proper 16:9 format, without any distortion.

[/quote]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
<font color="yellow"> Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino: </font color>
There, Kosh. He used the word "cropped". Happy? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/quote]

Just didn't want it to be glossed over.

Happy? No. I'd be perfectly happy with a 4:3 version with uncropped CGI.

I am happy that "The defect that is described as being present in the R2 disc (re. "...And the Sky Full of Stars" at the 1:24 mark) does not carry over to its R1 counterpart."

 

[zantarous]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I have serious doubts the guy even watched any of the episodes

[/quote]

I have read the review that you mention and the exact same thought went through my mind as well. Though he is positive about B5 on the whole, I will never trust another review from an untrusted source again.

 

[kingfish]

Hi,
The only way to get a preview of And The Sky was Full Of Stars would be to watch the In The beginning DVD. In it the Sinclair shots are from the episode. The footage of the battle plus Sinclair's capture/interrogation are the same.


Paul

Paul

 

[FlipperPA]

They may be the same - and I hope, given what I've heard that the R1DVD is fine - however, should the FX shots in "Sky Full" be incorrect, yet correct in "In the Beginning" and other TiVo'd episodes... I'll have to do my own mix. Its easy enough these days with DVD-Rs costing under $300.00....

-Tim

 

[PillowRock]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I will never trust another review from an untrusted source again.

[/quote]

That sounds like a tautology to me. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

So why did ever trust information from an untrusted source? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[A_Ranger]

Oh god, I actually know what a tautology is...I'm scared

 

[Capt. Neville]

I only know what one is because I just read the nifty little article from Douglas Adams that mentioned it (as reprinted in his post-mortem book The Salmon of Doubt; I highly recommend it btw, esp to any DNA fans out there /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Still scary tho :O /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cheers,
--mcn

 

[PillowRock]

Why would that scare you?

What would scare me is if someone who used "Mathematics is the only universal truth" as their sig didn't recognize the term.

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif


I would expect anyone who has ever had to do a "proof" (whether in a geometry class or a symbolic logic class) to have that word in their working vocabulary. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[A_Ranger]

I'm scared because I'm a theater major, and I know stuff about math(not to mention comp sci). I fear the contradiction will cause my head to implode