The Soviet Influence: Battleship Potemkin/Drifters

[Kris]

It may also depend on the size of your screen, but on 55 inches - and probably on every projection bigger than that - the pixels are visible even in motion, let alone on the title cards. That's why noticed the problem in the first place, I don't usually go over still images with a magnifying glass.

One more comparison, taken from feckless boy's (left, BFI) and naersjoen's (right, Kino) captures, in 200% enlargement:



Once more: The Grierson films on the same disc look absolutely fine, no jaggies whatsoever.

[Ozu Teapot]

Then I think the screen size must be why I'm not seeing a problem - my TV is only 32" - because I could clearly see there was an issue from your original photos of your screen Kris (which I couldn't see on mine).

So are the BFI and Kino from different sources?

[naersjoen]

According to the back covers/booklets both companies licensed Potemkin from Transit Film, who restored the film a few years ago under the supervision of Enno Palates (this Kino press release provides some background on the restoration). (Patalas also worked on restorations of M, Metropolis and Die Nibelungen.)

MichaelB's article one page back talks about the issues the BFI had to overcome to present the film in what is believed to be the "correct" frame rate of 18 fps. I don't think the method they used ("additional frames are spaced at regular intervals" to get from 18 fps to 24 fps, while maintaining the perceived playback speed of 18 fps) would result in the visible pixels we see in feckless boy's screen caps. I have yet to see the BFI disc in motion, so can't comment on how visible the pixels are.

[jmp]

I received my copy yesterday and I could immediately tell that something had gone horribly wrong with the transfer: resolution seemed to be too low for Blu-ray.

My only player is Oppo so I can't take any screenshots myself but I opened the pictures posted by feckless boy in an image editor and after zooming in, it was easy to see the real problem. Horizontal resolution is full 1440 pixels as it should be in this aspect ratio, but in the vertical dimension every pixel is doubled which means that the effective resolution is only 1440*540 pixels (stretched to 1440*1080 pixels). (To be exact, the two pixel values in each pixel pair are not always completely identical but very close to each other.)

The other films on the disc look fine.

It's quite surprising that BFI did not catch this error before releasing the disc.

[TMDaines]

Well, this will surely result in a recall.

[Calvin]

Looking closely, it does appear that there's a problem but I haven't seen it mentioned in any reviews. Could the review copies have a different transfer to the retail?

[MichaelB]

Sorry about the uncharacteristic silence, but I've been keeping the BFI fully up to speed with this issue from the moment it first appeared, and they've investigated and asked me to issue this interim statement:

The BFI is dismayed to find that there is an issue concerning the image quality of Battleship Potemkin on the final pressed discs of its recent Soviet Influence Volume 2 release. We are working hard to identify the cause of the problem and will be rectifying it as soon as we possibly can. We will make a further announcement once we have a clear indication of when we will be in a position to offer customers a replacement disc.

In the meantime, we sincerely apologise for the problem and are grateful for your patience and understanding on this matter.

[TMDaines]

Hopefully we don't have a long wait like we did with The Leopard and then not be reimbursed for having to send the discs off ourselves. Incidentally, I'm now sadly two and two on pre-ordered BFI discs being faulty on release.

[swo17]

I think a few months wait and a few more dollars out of my pocket is still considerably preferable to having to live with a botched release whose deficiencies are never even acknowledged by the manufacturer. It's encouraging to know that the BFI actually listen to complaints about issues like this, and go so far as to correct them, surely at a great cost.

[TMDaines]

Oh, absolutely. I don't disagree, but at the same time it shouldn't cost me a single penny to exchange my faulty copy for a proper one.

[Kris]

... interim statement ...

Thanks MichaelB, these are very good news indeed. I was absolutely not looking forward to purchasing the US-disc again and having to frown daily upon an imperfect BFI-package sitting on my shelf.

[triodelover]

I may be remembering incorrectly, but didn't BFI send out replacements disks for a film a couple of years ago without requesting the defective disks back? I don't remember the film (except that I bought it and got one of the replacements) and can't find it through a search, but I think MichaelB posted a contact e-mail.

[TMDaines]

I'm 98% sure they requested The Leopard discs back.

[MichaelB]

I'm 98% sure they requested The Leopard discs back.

They did, but they also gave you a discount code by way of apologising for the inconvenience.

[tenia]

On the other end, they haven't asked to send them back the Autumn Afternoon disc which was encoded at a low bitrate.

[MichaelB]

Since this sort of thing happens very rarely indeed (off the top of my head, I can think of just four instances over the last six or seven years where discs had to be replaced, including this one), I suspect there isn't a standard playbook.

[Ozu Teapot]

On the other end, they haven't asked to send them back the Autumn Afternoon disc which was encoded at a low bitrate.

Hopefully the'll do the same in this case.

The thing that bugs me is that I hadn't noticed a problem (on my 32" screen) and just checking again - even going close enough to the screeen to see the screen's pixels - the masts and sails still seem to have pretty solid edges. Nothing like the jaggy edges seen in Kris's pictures. It makes me wonder how much I'm "wallowing in ignorance" with the quality of other discs I own...

[peerpee]

The thing that bugs me is that I hadn't noticed a problem (on my 32" screen) and just checking again - even going close enough to the screeen to see the screen's pixels - the masts and sails still seem to have pretty solid edges. Nothing like the jaggy edges seen in Kris's pictures. It makes me wonder how much I'm "wallowing in ignorance" with the quality of other discs I own...

If you have a 32" screen, is it even 1080p? If it's 720p, then you're not seeing what's on a Blu-ray properly.

[MichaelB]

The problem is clearly visible on my 27" screen - but that is full 1080p.

[Ozu Teapot]

Yes it's 1080p.

I've just been sat here fannying around with the TV settings and I think I've found out what the "problem" is. The PNR (Picture Noise Reduction) was on. I presume one of the kids has been experimenting with the settings. Anyway I've turned it off and now my Potemkin disc looks horrible like everyone elses.

[MichaelB]

Anyway I've turned it off and now my Potemkin disc looks horrible like everyone elses.

So are you going to turn it back on?

[Ozu Teapot]

So are you going to switch it back on?

Well no, because I feel it's not letting me see discs "as they're meant to be seen" - and although it's given me a good impression of a "bad" disc I'm concerned it won't give me the true quality of a great disc. Annoyingly I don't know how long it's been on!

[peerpee]

27" and 32" are very small displays on which to be looking at 1080p material! There seems to be a consensus that 40" is the ideal lowest size on which to properly resolve a 1080p image.

Another important thing to look for, which doesn't get discussed much, is to make sure your display is outputting in "Full pixel mode (that's Sony's terminology), which means that each pixel on the Blu-ray is perfectly mapped to a pixel on your display. Many displays do not default to "Full pixel mode" and are thus automatically doing a form of overscanning and misrepresenting the pixels (which, in the case of this particular POTEMKIN issue, would register completely differently).

[MichaelB]

27" and 32" are very small displays on which to be looking at 1080p material! There seems to be a consensus that 40" is the ideal lowest size on which to properly resolve a 1080p image.

I suspect the viewing distance is a pretty crucial factor, though - downstairs, the sofa must be a good ten feet away from my 42" plasma, but I'm typically only about two feet away from the 27" screen in my office. So I really do see more detail in the latter, especially as it's the screen that's been professionally calibrated.

[Forrest Taft]

I may be remembering incorrectly, but didn't BFI send out replacements disks for a film a couple of years ago without requesting the defective disks back? I don't remember the film (except that I bought it and got one of the replacements) and can't find it through a search, but I think MichaelB posted a contact e-mail.

Chaplin at Keystone. I just sent them an e-mail saying I had received the set with the faulty disc. They sent me a replacement disc free of charge, and I did not have to send them my faulty disc. And I'm in Norway, so they ship replacements internationally too.