DVD is a wonderful medium for movies. It is by
far the best medium available to us, the consumer, at this point in time.
It has a number of compelling advantages which make it so, but DVD producers
seem to have a knack for losing the plot sometimes and forgetting about
these advantages.
It's all about the movie. Sure, the latest and greatest interactive extras are great adjuncts to the movie, but the main reason I buy a DVD is because I want to see the movie, and I want to see it in its best possible format.
PAL DVDs have 20% more resolution than NTSC DVDs. This translates into a potentially much sharper picture, all other factors being equal.
I want my DVDs in PAL, please.
I want my DVDs 16x9 enhanced, please.
MPEG-2 video compression is not a lossless compression. That is, when the video imagery is reconstructed from the compressed data, it is not exactly the same as it was before it was compressed. If needed, the MPEG-2 video compression discards what the algorithm considers to be unnecessary picture information. The usual place that data is discarded from is in the backgrounds of scenes. The way this is done is by lowering the image resolution in these areas as compared to the foreground areas of the scenes.
MPEG-2 video compression is also a variable rate compression algorithm. This means that the compression ratio can be varied up and down, according to the needs of the image at any given time. For high motion, high impact scenes, the compression can be turned down and the data rate increased to cope with these scenes and minimize the appearance of compression artefacts. As the degree of compression goes up, so too does the size and frequency of the compression artefacts. An ideally compressed DVD should show no visible compression artefacts when viewed at normal speed. The lower the degree of compression, the less likely it is for discernible compression artefacts to appear.
The degree of compression required for a movie is dependent on two factors; the length of the movie, and the space available for the movie to be compressed into.
Dual layered DVDs provide almost twice the amount of data storage space of single layered DVDs. All else being equal, a movie stored on a dual layer DVD will require significantly less compression than a movie stored on a single layer DVD. This translates into a better looking DVD, with more definition in the backgrounds of scenes.
I want my DVDs dual layered, please.
I want my DVDs widescreen, please.
Firstly, dual sided DVDs are fingerprint magnets. It is all but impossible to keep a DVD of this format clean of fingerprints, all the more so if people less careful about handling DVDs than you or I get their hands on them.
Secondly, with the current state of DVD production technology, a dual sided DVD is pretty much required to be single layered on each side. Since I want my DVDs dual layered, I guess I'll have to settle for widescreen-only movies, right? Wrong. The DVD specification allows the encoding of automatic pan & scan information onto a widescreen transfer. The result: both the widescreen camp and the full-screen camp can be satisfied with the one dual layered DVD. When I watch the DVD, I'll be happy. When my still-to-be-convinced-about-widescreen friends watch the DVD, they'll be happy. You can please all of the people all of the time.
Sadly, this is a grossly underutilized feature of DVD at this present moment in time.
I want my DVDs automatically encoded for Pan & Scan, please.
Reusing old transfers created for laserdisc is simply not on. They look awful. Backdraft is a perfect example of this shoddy approach to DVD mastering. A great movie is all but ruined by an awful looking transfer.
I want my DVDs to be mastered from downconverted high definition masters, please.
I want my DVDs to have both the original theatrical soundtrack and a 5.1 remastered one, please.
What I do want, however, is the theatrical trailer, still frame notes on the production and the personnel involved, and I want a commentary track. I want the movie's director to educate me about the movie and to explain why things were done in a certain way. Usually, the director does a much better job of speaking about the movie if some of the cast & crew are present as well, so I want them included.
I don't want a 60 minute documentary included on my DVD if it will impact on the quality of the presentation of the movie. The Thing is a classic example of this approach, where a massive quantity of extras are provided on the DVD, but the transfer itself is slipshod and not up to scratch. If the producers of a DVD want to put together such a lengthy package of extras, put them on another DVD and release the package as a Dual Disc Collector's Edition. Don't overcompress the movie to fit in the extras.
I want my DVDs to have an audio commentary and good quality extras, please, but not at the expense of the transfer quality.
I don't want my DVDs in those awful cases with the single round button that you push in the middle of the case that almost breaks the DVD every time you try and extract it from the case.
I don't want my DVDs in opaque Amaray cases - too many of them arrive with the DVD holder in the middle broken and the DVD flopping around inside the case, scratched.
I like the case that Columbia Tristar used to use with a three-segmented button in the middle (the Brackley case), and I don't mind the Transparent Amaray case.
I want my DVDs in either a Brackley case or a Transparent Amaray case, please.
I want my DVDs labelled correctly, please.
I want my DVDs to have the same features as the US version, please.
© Michael Demtschyna
17th April 2000