Do all DVD reviewers suck these days?

[Beckmen]

Half of the time, they don't even bother to review the audio/video, and only list the features instead of reviewing them. They write it up a few paragraphs on the content, and don't even bother mentioning the execution.

What's worse, whoever is doing these reviews, even big ones like DVDTalk and IGN...must be watching on awful displays, or suffer from serious visual impairment. Both seasons of Dexter and 30 Rock seem to get high marks for video, when they are actually riddled with an awful amount of compression artifacts that make the image look like a fuzzy TV broadcast. Even Upcoming Discs itself is guilty of this, with the second season review of Dexter.

Or did I development some kind of super-human vision that only applies to analyzing DVD transfers? Because I am watching 30 Rock, Season 2 right now and the compression...while not causing obvious blocking, covers the screen and destroys any chance the DVD might otherwise have of looking nice and sharp with an upscaling DVD player.

At least Dex is coming to Blu ray. Hopefully it'll look good and I can chuck these awful-looking DVDs that make me wanna puke.

Sorry, I am just mad about paying 28 bucks for 30 Rock and getting a lackluster product, when if they had just spread the episodes equally across three discs, they wouldn't be cramming 10 episodes on one disc, causing the image to suffer so greatly!

[teedub]

It's becoming more of a quantity vs quality issue.  With the advent of the internet, everyone's become a writer.

I tend to find a select few reviewers that share the same opinions that I do, regarding movies that have already been released, and I stick to them.  Do a quick search for some DVD's that you're well versed in and find some reviews that reflect your own opinions.  That will generally take the guess-work out of which reviewer's work to read for upcoming releases.

[Mirage52]

I think the technology has pretty much made every new(er) movie look and sound great. A few years ago, there was still the chance that a newer movie could get a bad transfer. For instance, the soundtrack for Spider-Man and the first POTC are very lacking IMO... so I could write about that in any review I did for those movies. Nowadays more and more movies are getting great transfers so there isn't much to write about except to say they look and sound great.

[Beckmen]

I have nothing against a short, simple review of the video treatment. As long as it's honest. If there is no problem, it can be like a sentence long. BUT if the transfer has major issues, you gotta point those out for the consumer. It's your job to actively look for flaws and point them out.

[Kedrix]

I try to be as honest as possible in my reviews for the movies that I do.  My set is fine, however my eyes I guess must not be the best in the world.  I can't always tell you how good the blacks are or if there is obvious edge enhancement going on.  I just try to tell you folks the best I can on the video and point out obvious pains in the asses or if it is unbeliveably awesome. 

But no, I do not suck.  , perhaps blow...but not suck 

[Beckmen]

I wasn't trying to single anybody out really. At least not you.

[Kedrix]

I know  .  I was putting myself out there as an example.  I have zero problem with putting myself out on display to be critiqued.  Lord knows I need it sometimes.  Some reviewers, even on here need to put forth a little more effort as you describe.  There are a lot of reasons why they don't, but together we need to put them aside and put forth that effort, even if it takes us a bit longer to "complete" a disc. 

[Beckmen]

You should really put a link in your sig.

[Cron]

Yea, I rented Dexter through Netflix, and I did notice that video kinda looked like crap.  Was wondering if it was just me.

[Movie Freak]

What I find the most entertaining is these asshats that pick apart modern digital media in reviews. Why do they feel the need to included picture and sound comments for something that is in most viewers eyes better than what they saw in the theater?!?!

JUST REVIEW THE FILMS PEOPLE, WE KNOW THE PICTURE AND SOUND ARE AWESOME, WE KNOW!

 

[Kedrix]

Heh, I always had the idea of starting a dvd site called the Real Review.  A review essentially for Joe Six Pack not somebody who knew blacks & edge enhancement.  Did it look good?  Yes.  Did it sound good?  Yes.  In my reviews these days, I try to keep to that vision fairly well.  I give the goods and even though my commentary sometimes gets a bit lengthy (cause I love trashing bad movies), I think I provide an adequate job. 


Oh, and I'll get around to a link in my sig when I find something worthwhile to link to...heh maybe my column archive. 

[Beckmen]

Yea, I rented Dexter through Netflix, and I did notice that video kinda looked like crap.  Was wondering if it was just me.

Exactly! Google review for it. Most people give it like 4.5/5. Even on my computer's 15" monitor, the compression artifacts were destroying the image. I don't understand how people are not seeing it.

What I find the most entertaining is these asshats that pick apart modern digital media in reviews. Why do they feel the need to included picture and sound comments for something that is in most viewers eyes better than what they saw in the theater?!?!

JUST REVIEW THE FILMS PEOPLE, WE KNOW THE PICTURE AND SOUND ARE AWESOME, WE KNOW!

 

The video, audio and extras quality will range from disc to disc...some still suck, some are great. There isn't a magic gold standard that every DVD or BD coming off the presses adheres to. Even Blu-ray discs don't universally look great. Stargate: Continuum has all this weird noise over it, as well as some kind of weird digital artifacting (not blocking, something else), and Forgetting Sarah Marshall seems to have softness issues.