Forum - View topicStrengthening the A/V portions of reviews
|
|
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
dewlwieldthedarpachief
 Posts: 751 Location: Canada |
|
|||
|
I'm curious, is there any reason ANN doesn't take a closer look at the A/V qualities of discs?
Reading the latest such article for Sentai's new Grave of the Fireflies release, I'm reminded of why I don't pay this portion of ANN very much attention: the critical attention to the disc itself, or lack thereof. Theron writes: The “remastered” status doesn't seem to mean much, as there has not been a clear upgrade in visual quality compared to the 2002 release, and the English dub and subtitles have remained constant, so this release is entirely for people who have never owned and/or been exposed to the movie before. Still, Sentai deserves credit for keeping this very important title in active circulation. "Remastered" certainly is one of those buzz words that doesn't consistently mean much in the home video industry. Moreover, it's not uncommon to see anime releases repackaged with nary a byte of data altered from the previous release! Well, yawn. I suppose there's nothing to see here, were not the detail characteristic of the rest of the review nowhere to be found. Curious, I consult Neil Lumbard's review of the disc at DVDTalk (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/53952/grave-of-the-fireflies/): Sentai Filmworks has presented Grave of the Fireflies in a remastered presentation that preserves the original 1.85:1 theatrical presentation. It is a 16:9 anamorphic widescreen DVD release with slight window-boxing (minor black bars around the entire image). This is certainly a common aspect of some theatrical anime releases and it doesn't have a dramatic impact on the overall high quality of the presentation. This rerelease will make a solid addition to the DVD collection of any film fan who did not already own a prior release and it may even be worth a purchase as an upgrade. The transfer is relatively clean without distracting dirt and other print imperfections or damage. The color design isn't as vivid when compared to some of the other Studio Ghibli releases but this may be a result of the animation's artistic design. Granted, this is a marginally longer review from a website that specializes in reviews, however there are several important pieces of information in this portion nowhere to be found in the ANN review. Anamorphic widescreen is easy to confirm, as is windowboxing and the original scope. Further, the DVDTalk review informs its comparison with provided screen captures of this release and the one prior, making it very clear the ADV disc is not only saturated out the wazoo, it's a significantly cropped image! Neil heartily recommends this disc as an upgrade, as it most definitely is. Perhaps more importantly, he conveys some key details that communicate the quality of this disc in no uncertain terms. My impression of Theron's review is that this is absolutely the last thing on his to-do list, and I suspect that reflects the expectations ANN sets for DVD reviewing. I would put it to ANN, however, that not only is it painless and quick to describe these details, it is more relevant in a review than ever. The presence of streaming and frugality of the consumer base might leave some thinking carefully about their purchases. If readers look to ANN's reviews to make informed decisions about what they buy, why not take a minute to make (or break) a case for the disc itself? In summary, my suggestion is that all DVD reviews publish the technical details of the release (e.g. Anamorphic widescreen 1:85:, Dolby Digital 2.0) with the production's credits and reviewers take pause and note qualities readily apparent in the transfer itself (e.g. windowboxing, dirt in the transfer, apparent artifacing) instead of speculating on quality based on a comparison that has not actually taken place. While it's completely understandable that previous versions might not be readily available to this end, doing so regardless is misrepresentative of the release and leads reviewers like Theron to conclusions about disc quality that are not accurate. |
||||
|
||||
Saffire
 Posts: 1255 Location: Iowa, USA |
|
|||
|
The case in question has already been corrected, but I suspect that a major reason that's not part of the reviews is simply that the reviewers aren't versed in that kind of thing. (Though I probably shouldn't assume that.) If you care about the technical details, you probably know where to find them anyways.
|
||||
|
||||
|
dewlwieldthedarpachief
Posts: 751 Location: Canada |
|
|||
|
It's really great that some effort has been made to correct the conclusions of the review; in a matter of hours, no less. I realize that I may have added to the difficulty, citing another website, and the aversion to resembling it may have a role in the vaguery of these new comments. While it is true that this looks to be sourced from an HD remaster and Akira is an example of a show that is HD remastered, the process for restoring Akira was ardous and extensive on both the Video and Audio fronts, even for a masterpiece. Niggles like windowboxing remain omitted as well.
Nonetheless, this does address the overall impression the review gives of the disc, and this was the heart of the matter. However, this much is a band-aid for what must be a deficiency somewhere in the process of appreciating and prioritizing the DVD's craftsmanship in reviews. I don't really know what to say other than what I mentioned earlier; this is not especially demanding of a technical skillset so much as observatation. Be that as it may, I think Justin Sevakis must be very familiar with this area. Perhaps he would be able to give reviewers some input. @Saffire: If the attitude is "well, if details matter you know where to find them", there is the appeal of maintaining the status quo and not having to think about this problem. However, this cuts down on the prospective audience for reviews, as well as the image of DVD reviews on ANN*; after all, isn't it rather ridiculous to suggest that a DVD review not review the DVD? This is not an attitude that cherishes the intelligence of the review's audience. Especially when there are already countless reviews of a film like Grave of the Fireflies, it's difficult to say anything fresh or new about the production; the DVD itself is what is significant here. *edited to clarify ANN isn't primarily a review website Last edited by dewlwieldthedarpachief on Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||
|
||||
|
Saffire
Posts: 1255 Location: Iowa, USA |
|
|||
|
Well, I'm probably the wrong person to comment on this in the first place. All I care about is "Does it look nice?", which does get answered. Even if the fact that it's 1.85 anamorphic widescreen was included, for example, that wouldn't actually tell me anything about whether it looks good. It's just a fact with no content.
I can understand wanting such details, but claiming that it's slighting your intelligence to not do so is a little extreme. I also cannot agree that describing the presentation is more significant than the movie itself, even if it is an older title with plenty said about it. If that's the case, then it shouldn't be a review at all; they should just post a list of tech specs and leave the opinion out of it. I thought the DVDTalk review you linked was rather dry. I wonder how much the DVDTalk reviewer would have commented on the improvement if he hadn't been shown the side by side comparison beforehand, because that's not his own comparison. |
||||
|
||||
|
dewlwieldthedarpachief
Posts: 751 Location: Canada |
|
|||
|
Obviously, we both go to reviews with different expectations. A few points of contention:
It's not a bad thing to confirm certain details about a disc; e-retailers like Amazon have been known for inaccurate specification, and sometimes the box itself falsely describes or omits information. The advantage of a review is that there is a person confirming the details. Regarding the 1:85 anamorphic video specifically, it's relevant to know that this is a release with the original aspect ratio and that it isn't letterboxed. This is informative in and of itself (i.e. the transfer isn't hampered at the outset by not taking advantage of the DVD's full resolution, the scope itself isn't messing with the film's framing).
It wouldn't be hard to investigate this much by examining the author's other reviews, but why should it matter? My point isn't that ANN needs to compete and surpass other websites; on the contrary, ANN's reviews are auxiliary to the news portion of the website. However, ANN has made a lot of renovations and matured over the years; if they decide it's worth their while, I'd be delighted to see this area develop as well. |
||||
|
||||
|
noigeL
Posts: 149 |
|
|||
|
The thing is ANN isn't really a DVD review site, it seems to be more about content with this site. I do agree that an effort should be made to provide accurate technical info when applicable, and I'm glad Theron decided to update his review on the DVD video for Grave. That shows more flexibility than reviewers on other sites that refuse to update reviews even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of what they wrote.
Generally speaking though I'd actually advocate for the opposite; if ANN reviewers aren't that technically inclined they shouldn't feel the need to include technical video details in their reviews, at least not all the time. If technical details are necessary, and for Grave I tend to agree it's important to note the improved video, the reviewer should make an effort to double check their conclusions if possible to ensure they don't unintentionally provide misleading or incorrect information. |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group