Spider Man movie

[ReferenceDivx]

What do you guys think about the mastering of the movie. It seems that several scenes were taken out. The audio also seems to be dubbed over in several scenes, or my dvd player was off. You can notice at the end of the movie at the funeral scene how the voices seem to not be coming from the actors at their location.

Anyways, it was a pretty good movie overall. The special effects were pretty impressive in several scenes.

[markrb]

I have a promo copy that is not the same as the DVD, no extra's etc... It was exactly the same as the theatrical release as I saw it both in the theater and at home on the same day.
I still ended up buying the DVD, but haven't watched it yet.
If I think it's different I will do a direct compare.

Mark

[Dagon]

I just encoded it this past weekend, and didn't notice anything out of synch. Of course I didn't pay too much attention to the movie either since I've seen it already.

Incidently, at 720 X 4XX resolution with AC3 sound at 320kbps it fits nicely on 2cds. Infact, I'd suggest Lanczos resize, and some moderate sharpening to help it out, as I noticed with Divx 5.02 (no psych, B-frames) it's still a little too blurry.

[JohnMK]

It most certainly does not fit nicely on 2 CDs. It fits, but not nicely. Nicely in my mind means the results of the compressibility check would be above 70% at at least 704 resolution. Then I might use Lanczos Resize. Since you didn't resize, and you used very high bitrate audio, I'm making a highly educated guess (because I encoded this movie this weekend too) that your compress check % was along the lines of 40%. I suggest picking a resolution that keeps you at 60% quality after compressibility check, such as 512x whatever. I believe for my encode I chose 576xwhatever, but I used a significantly smaller audio file, ogg vorbis quality 2.5 (.250 as reported by BeSweet).

[Dagon]

I'll check what settings, and compression percentage I got, and get back to you. Incidently the end result was a 1.35 (not 1.36) gig file, if that helps.

I'm pretty sure I didn't get such low compression(based on sharp bicubic) %though.

Needless to say, the movie looks "to me" VERY good with those settings. no credits of course.

To bad we can't swap files and compare. :devil:

[JohnMK]

My suggested method:

1) Choose resolution of 512H.
2) Run compressibility check.
3) Change resolution till you get to 60%. This may mean increasing or decreasing resolution. If you have to go below 480H to get to 60% compressibility quality, consider going for 2 CD if you really care about the movie.

Final point: I can't stress this enough. Resolution should be incidental to achieving 60% compressibility quality. If you're still not satisfied with the resolution @ 60%, don't just increase the resolution! The result will arguably look even worse like stretching a rubber band too far, which'll stretch and tear and possibly even snap! Oh, and never use LanczosResize or Sharp Bicubic unless you're dealing with a movie as compressible as Panic Room. Probably less than 2% of movies are anywhere close to that compressible. Those resizers use bits that could either
a) be better allocated to increasing the resolution or
b) better allocated to increasing encode ~quality~ %.

[wmansir]

I'm making a 3 disc SVCD of this title. One problem is the Spidey Facts subtitles track. The subtitles fade in and out so there are 20 subtitles on the disc for each subtitle displayed (each with a different alpha blend setting). So the result is 11,000+ different subtitles.

I was lazy and decided to just throw them on as is, but my player didn't like switching subtitles that fast which lead to the movie freezing. So I wrote a little perl script which rips out the fade in/fade out subs, cutting the number subtitles to less than 600. This also shaved 30mb from each disc. Time to re-encode the video...

[Arkay]

Sorry Guys but sometimes I just don't understand the obsessiveness of getting it in the smallest space possible. I ripped Spiderman a week or so ago, as a 3 CD rip with AC3 sound entact. I use 640 by XXX res. A CD costs me about 50 cents now. Why the hell not have the best quality rip possible in as much space as it takes. I'd much rather see a smaller filesize than I specified meaning I've squeezed every last drop out of the codec than to have something fitting on 2 CD's that really wanted 3?

I don't understand it. Storage space gets larger and cheaper by the day, eventually I plan on having all my (300+ DVD's) directly on-line and available on my TV (TV On Demand), from my house server.

It won't be long before we see Terrabyte drives.

Why make a less than optimal rip now for the sake of 1 CD?

Please explain.

Cheers,
Arkay.

[JohnMK]

There are practical necessities in the here and now for most of us.

[Arkay]

Originally posted by JohnMK
There are practical necessities in the here and now for most of us.

I understand what you mean, and we all suffer from the limitation of the here and now, but in a few years, maybe 10 years from now, a 3 CD rip of today will look like a tiny little mp3 does on your 40 gig drive now. I understand the need for serious compression for transfer via networks but for my own backups I see it far more important than a 50c CD to keep the quality. Just my opinion but I was curious as to why it seems sooooo important to get that elusive 1 CD rip. I can't see myself having a home server with all my movies on it in the near future but I certainly expect to see it ten years from now as an affordable luxury for the masses. Only thing that may stop this is some new funky format that blows even DVD away and makes DivX look like VHS.. Which probably will happen now I think about it :) Oh well...

Cheers,
Arkay

[Dagon]

Sure enough the compression was 49%.

I tried at the lowering the resolution (comp 69%) and with neutral bicubic and to be honest it didn't look any better. I'm keeping my orig encode.:sly:

[JohnMK]

How did you simulate the loss in compressibility by using Lanczos? Did you choose 'sharp bicubic' for the compress check?

[Dagon]

Originally posted by JohnMK
How did you simulate the loss in compressibility by using Lanczos? Did you choose 'sharp bicubic' for the compress check?


I just used sharp bicubic for the compression check..

[JohnMK]

Interesting. I can't recommend anyone follow in your path. I'm glad you're happy with your results though. Just make sure you realize what you're getting yourself into. You better maximize post-processing to get rid of macro-blocks (see, DivX will lower the resolution for you, in a matter of speaking, if you don't do it for it) and ringing around edges of objects. Even maximum post-processing won't help to that end very much, but it's still worth doing.

[JohnMK]

Just downloaded my Spider Man encode from my server @ home (it takes a while @ 40kbit/s) and much to my amazement, it seems I was able to use a resolution of 624x336. Which means of course, that my compress check figure for that res was 60%+. Hope this helps someone.