How I Make A Blu-ray or 4K UHD Disc Review
Credibility score: 62/100 — Mostly Credible. Mixed credibility - some claims are solid, others need verification.
BSmeter analyzed "How I Make A Blu-ray or 4K UHD Disc Review" and rated it 62/100 for credibility (a BS score of 38/100 — mostly credible), on 2026-07-06. Its weakest claim — "Framing his reviews as 'projects' due to detail and research" — scored 45/100 and was flagged as loaded language. 23 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 23 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 10 between 40 and 69, and 13 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Setting the stage for a 'how-to' video on disc reviews, framing it as a helpful guide. — No Frame (75/100)
At 0:00
Just setting up the topic — straightforward intro, no real framing tricks here.
Why this score: The speaker is clearly stating the purpose of the video: to explain their process for making Blu-ray reviews and offer advice to others. This is a direct and transparent introduction, not attempting to manipulate or persuade with loaded language or omitted context. It's a clean setup for an informative video.
Original quote: “hello and welcome back to this damn full
idealistic Crusade I've been asked a
number of times how I go about making
videos or how does one put together a
Blu-ray review for example so I thought
it might be interesting or at least uh
hopefully a little helpful if you decide
you uh might wish to try…”
Framing his reviews as 'projects' due to detail and research — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Calling reviews 'projects' elevates their perceived effort and complexity — it's a subtle way to set expectations.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'projects' to describe his reviews, which, while potentially true, also serves to frame them as exceptionally thorough and time-consuming. This word choice subtly primes the audience to appreciate the effort involved, even before seeing the actual review process. It's a form of 'loaded language' that enhances the perceived value of his work.
Original quote: “but because I try to make
reviews as detailed and as researched
and as comprehensive as possible they
they become projects in and of
themselves”
Speaker frames reviews as 'loose and free form' for 'intimate conversation' — a 'No Frame' approach to engagement. — No Frame (75/100)
At 2:30
Describes his review style as unscripted and conversational, aiming for intimacy. — This is a straightforward description of his content strategy.
Why this score: The speaker is transparent about his goal: to make his reviews feel like a natural dialogue rather than a rigid, scripted presentation. This is a clear statement of intent regarding his content's tone and structure, not an attempt to manipulate perception. He's setting expectations for the viewer, which is good framing.
Original quote: “my reviews are I you know I I do put time stamps in so you can go to the section you you wish to find but I do try to keep them a bit loose and free form so it still feels like an open conversation like I'm having a dialogue with you on the other end of YouTube wherever you may be uh so that that…”
Claiming most reviews list but don't fully review supplemental features — a critique of industry standards. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:30
He says 'most reviews' but doesn't back it up with any data or examples. It's a broad generalization without specifics.
Why this score: The speaker makes a strong claim about 'most reviews' not thoroughly covering supplemental features. While this might be his personal observation, it's presented as a general truth about the industry without any supporting evidence, examples, or a definition of what constitutes 'most reviews.' It lacks specific context or data to verify the extent of this alleged oversight.
Original quote: “supplemental features most reviews when you look at them they'll list the supplemental features but not a whole lot of them actually go through all of them and then actually do a root complete review of the special features and obviously that takes time particularly on disk with a lot of extras but…”
Emphasizes listening to all commentary tracks, even with limited time, as crucial for reviews. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:30
He states 'you need to really listen' to all commentaries, but then immediately acknowledges 'you don't have a lot of time' — a common hurdle he doesn't fully address.
Why this score: The speaker is very confident that listening to *all* commentary tracks is a 'need' for a proper review, despite the time commitment. He quickly mentions 'you don't have a lot of time' as a potential issue, but doesn't offer any practical solutions or acknowledge the significant time sink this represents for reviewers, especially with multiple tracks. It's a strong assertion without fully grappling with the practical implications, creating a slight mismatch between the ideal and the reality.
Original quote: “step four is along the same lines but it's something that again I think even more than the extras will get listed but is not utilized and that is the commentary track I I think you need to really listen to all of the commentary tracks of a release even if there's multiple ones and you don't have a…”
Claims few reviewers do 'step five' (comparison) to justify his detailed reviews. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 8:30
He's asserting his unique thoroughness without any data on other reviewers' processes. It's a self-serving claim.
Why this score: The speaker frames his review process as superior by claiming 'very few' others perform 'step five' (comparing with older releases). This is an appeal to his own authority and a subtle dig at competitors, but he provides no evidence or survey data to back up the assertion that his method is rare. It's a common way to elevate one's own work by implying others are less diligent.
Original quote: “step five is one that very few do and this is part of why I make uh such detailed reviews is I kind of got frustrated on wondering about information I never finding it most places”
Claiming film sound often gets 'modernized' like music, losing quality on new editions. This is presented as a niche, expert observation. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 10:30
He's positioning himself as one of the 'few people' who understand this issue, lending weight to his subjective preference. 🤔
Why this score: The speaker frames his observation about sound quality as a unique insight, implying a level of expertise or discernment that others lack. While his experience is valid, presenting it as a widely overlooked 'unfortunate problem' by 'one of the few people' is a subtle appeal to anonymous authority, suggesting his view is more informed without providing external evidence or specific examples of films where this is demonstrably true. A neutral framing would simply state his preference and the technical reasons without the 'few people' qualifier.
Original quote: “something I run into all the time and I'm one of the few people who actually discusses this but it's an unfortunate problem that still continues that film sound frequently gets the same treatment as music in terms of dynamic range production modernization of the audio with EQ applied overzealous…”
Framing disc ripping as 'personal usage' and 'same process' as home server setup. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:30
Uses 'personal usage' and 'same process' to normalize ripping copyrighted material, even if for review purposes. — It's a common rhetorical move to align a potentially grey area activity with a widely accepted one.
Why this score: The speaker frames the act of ripping discs (which can have copyright implications depending on jurisdiction and intent) as 'entirely for personal usage' and equates it to building a 'home movie server.' This uses loaded language to make the activity sound innocuous and common, even though the legalities of ripping copyrighted content, even for personal use or review, can be complex and vary by region. It minimizes potential legal or ethical considerations by associating it with a seemingly benign, widespread practice.
Original quote: “this is entirely for personal usage it's the same process you would do if you were building a home movie server which a lot of people do in this day and age they like to rip all their discs to a lossless format and just run everything off of a hard drive or a computer that's a home theater PC and…”
Claiming a method is 'the best way' while immediately detailing its significant drawbacks. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 14:30
Calls it 'the best way' then immediately explains how incredibly tedious and time-consuming it is. The confidence doesn't match the effort required. 😅
Why this score: The speaker initially frames their method as 'the best way' to compare audio tracks, implying efficiency or superiority. However, they immediately follow this with a detailed explanation of the extensive, real-time, and analog-heavy work involved (VCR, LaserDisc, 2+ hours per feature). This creates a mismatch between the confident 'best way' assertion and the practical reality presented, which sounds anything but simple or universally 'best' for most users.
Original quote: “this is really the best way to do this because you have everything right there
but saying that sounds simple but of course that that requires a lot more work because for older analog releases that means I have to do an audio capture of a uh from a VCR or from my laser displayer and that's in real…”
Describes his screen cap process, including taking 500-1000 caps per review. Straightforward explanation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 16:30
Just walking through his process, no spin here. He's detailing his workflow clearly.
Why this score: The speaker is simply explaining his methodology for creating screen captures for his reviews. He provides specific numbers (500-1000 caps, whittled down to 300-500) and the rationale behind his choices, like backing up as MKV for efficiency. This is a direct, transparent explanation of a personal process, not an attempt to persuade or mislead.
Original quote: “now steps 9 and 10 go hand in hand uh step nine is then making screen caps of the of the disk itself so this is where it's really handy to have a a disk backed up as an MKV because it doesn't have to actually because you can have the the disk going but the disc will have to spin up and you know if…”
Claiming research is 'most important' but 'many people don't do this' — a subtle confidence mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 18:30
Says research is 'most important' but then implies 'many people don't do this' without any data. It's a strong claim about others' habits with no evidence. 🤔
Why this score: The speaker asserts that general research is 'one of the most important things if not the most important' for a review, which is a strong, subjective claim. They then follow it up by saying 'unfortunately I don't think many people do this.' This creates a confidence mismatch because they're making a broad generalization about what 'many people' do or don't do without providing any basis for that observation. It's an assumption about others' practices, framed as a widely overlooked critical step.
Original quote: “Step 11 seems simple but unfortunately I don't think many people do this and honestly this this may be one of the most important things if not the most important and that's uh simply doing some general research about the film itself uh whether that's even something as simple as reading the…”
Suggests 'boning up' on films for reviews — frames it as common sense. — No Frame (75/100)
At 20:30
This is straightforward advice, framed as a natural part of his process. No hidden agenda here.
Why this score: The speaker is sharing his personal process for reviewing films, emphasizing the importance of research. He frames it as a natural, almost instinctive part of his routine ('this is what I do anyway'). This isn't a manipulative frame, but rather a transparent sharing of his methodology, which he then extends as a general recommendation. It's clean framing because he's not trying to hide anything or push a specific, unverified agenda; he's just explaining his approach.
Original quote: “you know maybe look and see if anybody's written uh you know a a nice newer article I hadn't come across online you know just just a cursory search or you're basically boning up a little bit on something to then make you think even more about the film and maybe come up with a Viewpoint she hadn't…”
Using external reviews to self-correct and validate findings — a transparent, methodical approach. — No Frame (75/100)
At 22:30
This is a solid, transparent explanation of how he uses external input to refine his own work.
Why this score: The speaker clearly outlines his process for using external reviews and forum discussions. He emphasizes self-correction ('double check yourself'), acknowledging potential blind spots ('something I've missed,' 'not everyone else is seeing') and the possibility of equipment issues. This shows a commitment to accuracy and a willingness to question his own findings, which is a sign of good methodology. It's a very straightforward and honest description of his review process, not trying to manipulate or mislead.
Original quote: “really more to see if there's anything I've missed and also to see what the sort of General consensus is because sometimes you're not going to agree with that or I might be seeing something that uh you know not everyone else is seeing and then that makes me think oh well you know do I have…”
Acknowledges disagreement with other reviews — sets up his unique perspective. — No Frame (75/100)
At 24:30
He's just stating his personal experience and motivation here — no tricks.
Why this score: This is straightforward. He's not trying to discredit others, just explaining why he puts extra effort into his own reviews. It frames his work as diligent and thorough.
Original quote: “reviews that I simply do not agree with”
Claiming phone camera quality is so good, pro cameras need 'significant' investment to surpass it. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 26:30
He's confident about 'significant amount' but doesn't quantify it. What's 'significant' to him might be different for others. 🤷♂️
Why this score: While modern phone cameras are indeed impressive, the claim that you need to spend a 'significant amount' for a professional camera to 'even begin to outstrip' their quality is a bit of a confidence mismatch. He doesn't define 'significant amount,' which could mean different things to different people. A mid-range mirrorless camera (which isn't 'significant' for many prosumers) can offer advantages in low light, dynamic range, and lens flexibility that a phone can't match, even with its computational photography. He's framing it to emphasize the phone's value, which is fair, but the…
Original quote: “I am actually using using my phone because the the quality you can get out of a cell phone camera these days is such that you will have to spend a significant amount for a more professional camera to even begin to outstrip the Quality you can get in a camera”
Acknowledging a 'janky' setup — honest self-assessment. — No Frame (75/100)
At 28:30
Speaker admits their setup is 'janky' but functional, building trust through transparency.
Why this score: This is straightforward framing. The speaker is openly admitting a limitation ('janky') but immediately follows up with its effectiveness ('it does work'). This builds credibility by being upfront and relatable, rather than trying to hide imperfections or oversell a basic setup. It's a good example of transparent communication.
Original quote: “so that's why I'm it's it's it's a little janky admittedly but it does work”
Recommends Shortcut as the best free video editor — strong personal endorsement. — Plain Sales Pitch (75/100)
At 30:30
He's really selling Shortcut here, calling it the 'best piece of free software' he's found. It's a strong endorsement, but it's his personal opinion.
Why this score: This is a straightforward personal endorsement, almost a 'plain sales pitch' for a free product. He's not making a universal claim about its objective superiority, but rather framing it as the best *he's found* and highlighting its key benefits (free, works, no export limits). It's honest and direct, not manipulative, but still a clear pitch.
Original quote: “I primarily use the editing program shortcut if you're looking for a video editor it's the best piece of free uh software I've ever found for video editing and uh it is completely free to use so it doesn't have every option you might want it is very simple and no frills but for what it is and the…”
Explaining the detailed process of adding screen captures based on timestamps for film reviews. — No Frame (75/100)
At 32:30
He's just walking us through his workflow, very transparent about the effort involved. No hidden agenda here.
Why this score: The speaker is clearly outlining a specific, multi-step process for editing his video reviews. This is a straightforward explanation of his methodology, providing practical details without any rhetorical flourishes or attempts to persuade beyond the facts of his work. It's a direct description of his production process, which aligns with the video's title about how he makes his reviews.
Original quote: “the the film discussion I make timestamps of when I uh when I make specific points so that way when I finish editing and I have this nice lengthy list with all of these specific time code points I then do a second editing pass using those notes and that's how I'm able to then lay in all the uh all…”
Describes YouTube upload process as 'final steps' — straightforward process explanation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 34:30
Just walking through the standard YouTube upload process — no spin here, just facts for creators.
Why this score: The speaker is simply listing the technical steps involved in uploading a video to YouTube, such as adding titles, tags, and playlists. This is a factual description of a process, not an attempt to persuade or mislead. It's a neutral explanation of common YouTube creator tasks.
Original quote: “then the the final steps are of course putting the correct title in and figuring out the the tags for YouTube and then uh you know putting it into the requisite playlist on my channel things like that it's basically doing all all of the YouTube side of things once it's uploaded”
Claiming disc reviews are 'by far the most complicated' — a subjective assessment of effort. — No Frame (75/100)
At 36:30
He's just stating his personal experience with his own workflow. Totally fair to say what feels most complex to him.
Why this score: This is a personal assessment of his own work. There's no objective metric for 'most complicated' in content creation, so it's not really a claim that can be fact-checked. It's his lived experience, and that's valid. No framing tricks here, just sharing his process.
Original quote: “my disk reviews are pro are by far the most complicated and uh work intensive of any of the videos I do”
Explains the 'why' behind his reviews — to push studios for better quality. — No Frame (75/100)
At 38:30
Clearly states his motivation: to encourage better quality from studios and rights holders.
Why this score: This is a straightforward statement of purpose. He's transparent about his goal to influence the industry, which is a common and understandable motivation for reviewers. No hidden agenda or loaded language here.
Original quote: “that's that's the reason why I do disc reviews is do really get into the nitty-gritty of things and hopefully get others to uh to do the same and dig a little bit deeper and maybe get some studios and rights holders to you know start putting in more effort to put it politely because quite frankly…”
Framing YouTube as a 'fun hobby' that feels like a 'primary job' — a relatable struggle. — No Frame (75/100)
At 40:30
Acknowledges the passion and effort involved, framing it as a labor of love that transcends a mere hobby.
Why this score: The speaker is being transparent about the dedication required, even if it's not a paid gig. It's a 'no frame' situation because they're just sharing their genuine experience without trying to manipulate perception. It's a common sentiment among creators.
Original quote: “it is it is a fun hobby uh it it definitely becomes I mean I kind of feel like this is my primary job anyway because of all the work I put into it but I have to have an outlet for this stuff somehow I have no outlet for for all the stuff and fooling around in my head in my normal daily life…”
Encouraging support for physical media to keep film culture alive. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 42:30
Framing buying physical media as 'keeping film culture alive' taps into a sense of responsibility and nostalgia.
Why this score: The speaker uses the phrase 'help keep physical media and film culture alive' to encourage viewers to buy films on disc. This is an 'Emotional Button' framing technique because it connects a commercial action (buying discs) to a larger, emotionally resonant cause (preserving 'film culture'). While supporting artists and physical media is a valid goal, framing it this way is designed to evoke a stronger, more urgent response than simply saying 'buy discs to support the industry.' It implies a potential loss if viewers don't comply, leveraging a sense of duty rather than just preference.
Original quote: “but my time is Elusive and uh when when I do more and more videos that require a lot of effort and time usually the easiest part is actually recording the video it seems and then I have to edit it and do the screen caps and everything well back to work you have no idea how much it's piling up so…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →