'The Silence of the Lambs' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

Peter has reviewed 'The Silence of the Lambs.' He says this is simply a modern classic. This Blu-ray is fine, with good video and audio, and juicy supplements. Tech specs are lacking, but this is definitely worth a look.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/586/...fthelambs.html

[darkash]

Great review and great movie. In the video section, Peter says the movie is encoded with Mpeg-2, but the side bar states Mpeg-4. Which one is correct?

[Jimbo976]

It's MPEG2.

[hi-def-fanboy]

I think this title deserved a full frame by frame restoration (like Blade Runner) and given better than MPEG 2.

[DigitalFreakNYC]

It's too bad this version is missing the Jodie Foster/Jonathan Demme interviews that were included on the most recent version. They were an hour long and brand new.

[Jimbo976]

Originally Posted by hi-def-fanboy

I think this title deserved a full frame by frame restoration (like Blade Runner) and given better than MPEG 2.

I agree but since I have never bought this in any format this is the version of it for me to own.

[-zombie-]

What's with this line in the review?

this is a decent encode for MPEG-2

Um MPEG-2 doesn't mean "lower your expectations." There are several BDs using MPEG-2 with excellent PQ.

[nmcmahan52]

yeah and the criterion dvd i have is, in my opinion, horrible so this is a huge step up

[Super-VHS]

Originally Posted by -zombie-

Um MPEG-2 doesn't mean "lower your expectations." There are several BDs using MPEG-2 with excellent PQ.

No, MPEG-2 doesn't instantly mean "horrible PQ"...... but, it is a codec that, on average, produces encodes that have more noticeable artifacts than the other options out there.

MPEG-2 is not by any means a bad codec and I don't think Peter means that at all.... it just isn't as refined as AVC or VC-1 (and I don't think anyone can refute that). And, in this case, with the bitrates we're talking about (~ 18 mbps average) there are more than a few artifacts — which is to be expected from the codec at those rates.

Also, most of the reference and decent looking releases with MPEG-2 are on BD-50s, encoded for that spec. Silence is not. This encode was most likely produced for the original cancelled blu-ray which was supposed to be a BD-25. Its file size is a mere 22 gigs which, for MPEG-2, on a film that is 2 hours long, is less than "optimal".

Silence by no means looks terrible though.... and this isn't a Fifth Element or Echo Bridge style release that barely looks HD. As I think Pete makes it quite clear this has a decent picture for blu-ray. Not the best the film could look and it's not a reference quality disc by any means but, at least to me, this is a noticeable upgrade over any version before. It's worth a buy at the right price (I only paid $12 for mine and that was way more than a good deal for me).

.....

Now, Peter, a few comments on the review.... you don't mention that the blu-ray has a new 20 minute special feature called "Understanding the Madness". It's the only feature in 1080p AVC/MPEG-4. And, not that it really matters but, the short Hopkins "Phone Messege" is absent from your review too.

Also, about the picture-in-picture track..... it's not really Profile 1.1 but rather a second standard def (not a typo) encode with the burnt in PiP commentary and faux pop-up trivia. Again, a standard definition encode - with 2.0 Dolby Digital sound. Strange as hell if you ask me....

[Super-VHS]

Also, anyone using the included HD trailer as a reference point needs to stop. If you look at it more closely you can see that it's stretched. The framing may be different than the BD (closer to the Criterion DVD) and the grain more filmlike.... but it's stretched and the grain is more intense that it sould be (niether the BD nor the trailer is correct with the amount of grain IMO).

Again, that trailer is not a reference point.

[Brad1963]

I just watched this over the weekend. It actually is a film that gets better with age.

[Blu-News.com]

Originally Posted by Super-VHS

Also, anyone using the included HD trailer as a reference point needs to stop. If you look at it more closely you can see that it's stretched. The framing may be different than the BD (closer to the Criterion DVD) and the grain more filmlike.... but it's stretched and the grain is more intense that it sould be (niether the BD nor the trailer is correct with the amount of grain IMO).

Again, that trailer is not a reference point.

I don't think anyone ever said it was. I personally think it looks better, despite being stretched though. I wouldn't want it stretched of course, but as far as detail I thought it was more impressive.

[krylonman]

Originally Posted by -zombie-

Um MPEG-2 doesn't mean "lower your expectations." There are several BDs using MPEG-2 with excellent PQ.

Yeah, but far fewer than any other codec in my experience. For every 'Mission: Impossible III' or 'The Sand Pebbles' there are ten others that look mediocre to awful. It's just not a codec that handles a small space well. This does look pretty good, but the trailer is also here, in AVC, and the level of detail there is way above what's in the movie. Trailers usually use footage before it's had all the post-production tweaking it's going to have, so who knows how much of a factor that is...but I was pretty startled at how much sharper it looked.



And then I saw this...

Originally Posted by Super-VHS

Also, anyone using the included HD trailer as a reference point needs to stop. If you look at it more closely you can see that it's stretched. The framing may be different than the BD (closer to the Criterion DVD) and the grain more filmlike.... but it's stretched and the grain is more intense that it sould be (niether the BD nor the trailer is correct with the amount of grain IMO).

I'd say the simple fact that it's a trailer may also have something to do with it being grainier. It's footage taken from the source rather than a finished release print, assembled and printed with a less obsessive attention to how it's going to look, so it does often look different from the movie itself (ie grainer, different colors, etc.). You definitely can't compare it and expect that the movie should look exactly the same; that's just not the way trailers are, especially from almost twenty years ago. But there is more genuine detail as far as I can see.

[Lone_Gunmen]

Saw a few screenshots on another site and it actually looked alright. Not GREAT, but still alright.

Will pick it up when it's cheaper, but until then, my region 4 2 disc MGM one on DVD will do the job fine.

[zaphod]

Lo and behold, it's by MGM/Fox and it's region free! Will miracles ever cease to happen?

Will be getting this as soon as the price hits reasonable levels.