Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > DVD and Blu-ray Discussion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 22-11-2009, 18:03   #61
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"I'd still claim that someone with a knowledge of what goes into transferring a film to BD, is a better judge than you."

While they certainly would know more about the technical process of transferring than I (that is not my line of work and I rarely comment on DNR or any of these other little catch phrases), the leap to the idea that if they had no idea what the film originally looked like that they'd know more than someone who does is, well, rather a leap. The fact is that with many Warners DVDs they clearly had someone in the telecine room who was trying to make older films have the yellow/brown bias of today's films. I remember when the whole Searchers brouhaha erupted that it came to light that they'd never actually viewed their IB Tech reference print. Had they, it would have been a much different transfer.

I have also never said any of the words or thought any of the thoughts you ascribe to me, and that is why you can never win and why I will never play. I've never said I'm the most knowledgeable anything. I have never said that professionals who really know film know less than I. I know what I know and it's worth whatever it's worth. Your posts about me say more about you than they do about me, I'm afraid. And the fact that you cannot stop making them is a little nutty to me.

As to the Beaver's caps, I said they were terrible and have no relation to what the discs actually look like. What's your point? If you're speaking specifically about the fact that on his early Blu-Ray or HD reviews he took photos of his TV screen - I actually hadn't read that, so had no idea. That said, they don't look any better or any more accurate now that he presumably does them the "right" way. When he first posted the Brief Encounter caps I simply looked at them and they were awful. I didn't have an all-region player then and even though I was purchasing certain region B things just to have them when the day arrived that I would have an all-region player, I did not purchase that disc, which was ignorant of me. I should have known better. And now I do.

Last edited by haineshisway; 22-11-2009 at 18:05.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2009, 18:08   #62
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoelCairo View Post
I saw this movie during its original general release in the U. K. It had drab visuals and did look like a low budget movie so the Blu-ray may be accurate.
I'm sure it looks better than the prints, which were done by MGM, who were then doing the worst release prints of anyone. I know this from personal experience
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2009, 18:29   #63
statto
Jedi Master
 
statto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 15,514
Thanks: 111
Thanked 405 Times in 194 Posts
Having just got a PS3, my main criteria for buying a bluray version of a film (well, an older film, anyway) is going to be whether it's significantly better than the version I already own, whether that be on VHS or DVD. I'd guess the "armchair experts" are well enough qualified to do that, and as it's unlikely I'll have seen a print of any of the films in question, that'll be good enough for me.

Slightly more seriously, with all due respect to your expertise, if I like a movie and it comes out on bluray then I'll buy it regardless of what you or anyone else says about it. If I decide that it's not as good as a version I already own then I'll sell it on.
statto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2009, 18:42   #64
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It's a given that everyone's mileage may vary and everyone's tolerance level will be different. I would never call myself an "expert" but because I have seen a lot of films and owned a lot of films I do have some knowledge of what those films (and films from those eras) should look like.

Last edited by haineshisway; 22-11-2009 at 18:46.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2009, 20:00   #65
AndyWilson
--------old-geek
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 11,598
Thanks: 67
Thanked 171 Times in 114 Posts
Given that very few people could accurately describe a stranger they saw 2 minutes ago - memory just doesn't work like that - I'm a bit sceptical about anyone's ability to compare a Blu Ray transfer with their memories of what they saw at the cinema - be it 2 days or 2 decades ago.
AndyWilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2009, 20:35   #66
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Then be sceptical (sic). That is your choice.

Last edited by haineshisway; 22-11-2009 at 21:26.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2009, 22:21   #67
Niceguygeoff
I Do Deny Them My Essence
 
Niceguygeoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Swanage, Dorset
Posts: 10,176
Thanks: 129
Thanked 49 Times in 30 Posts
Assault on Precinct 13: lovely looking as far as grain and detail are concerned, but the colour is far too yellow for my liking.
Niceguygeoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2009, 23:05   #68
AndyWilson
--------old-geek
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 11,598
Thanks: 67
Thanked 171 Times in 114 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post
Then be sceptical (sic). That is your choice.
Not really sure what the use of the (sic) is implying there?

And don't you think we deserve some justification of why you think your memory for details of film presentation is so accurate - and how you have tested its accuracy?

I certainly don't mind your criticisms of DVD Beavers reliance on static screen caps to make judgements on the quality of a moving image, but I'd never claim to be able to judge whether a DVD or BR was an accurate representation of what I saw at the cinema, without actually doing a direct side by side comparison.
AndyWilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2009, 23:36   #69
JoelCairo
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,123
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The Professionals

The Professionals has received a splendid Blu-ray transfer. I'm not surprised because the DVD - one of the first I bought - was excellent with stable images and considerable depth of focus.

The Blu-ray of The Professionals confirms what I have suspected for a long time, that High Definition will bring most benefit to large scale movies. The extra detail and depth of focus provided by Blu-ray really pays off in the wide angle shots of desert vistas.

I was particularly impressed by the range of colours captured by this transfer. When the movie was first released in this country, cinematographer Conrad Hall was criticised in some quarters because his desert visuals all seemed to be yellow with a total lack of variety. Looking at this Blu-ray, it occurs to me that we may simply have been supplied with bad prints.

The high quality of this Blu-ray transfer raises an interesting and important question. We hear frequently how enormous time and expense is involved in preparing old movies for High Definition, but what about those movies where the elements are still in good condition? If the original camera negative or existing prints are unblemished, can a Blu-ray transfer be carried out at minimal cost? In the past few years I have seen DVDs of old movies which seem to have been from perfect prints. The French DVD of A Time To Love And A Time To Die and the Region 1 DVD of Pete Kelly's Blues are two such examples. The Tarnished Angels is a third. How much work and expense would be involved in bringing these films to Blu-ray?
JoelCairo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 03:51   #70
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyWilson View Post
Not really sure what the use of the (sic) is implying there?

And don't you think we deserve some justification of why you think your memory for details of film presentation is so accurate - and how you have tested its accuracy?

I certainly don't mind your criticisms of DVD Beavers reliance on static screen caps to make judgements on the quality of a moving image, but I'd never claim to be able to judge whether a DVD or BR was an accurate representation of what I saw at the cinema, without actually doing a direct side by side comparison.
Nothing I can tell you is going to make one or even two whits of difference to you. But I have an amazing memory for detail, and that, coupled with the fact that I see 35mm prints of classic films once a week and have owned one of the largest collections in the country, enables me to have excellent recall. If your memory is not that, then your memory is not that. I have remembered things in extreme detail from when I was five, let alone twenty-five. I remember where I saw mostly every movie I've ever seen, I've hummed theme music for films I haven't seen for fifty years and when I catch up with the film it's note for note correct. I will not go into it here, but in the last ten years I've had occasion to remember specific films from specific years and where I saw them. Thirty or forty films. And when I decided to see just how infallible my memory was, I went to the main library in Los Angeles, got out the microfiche for all those movies and years and I was NEVER wrong, not once. So, I, for one, trust my memory a lot. But with the classics I'm not having to remember all that far back because I've seen them recently or seen them so many times that their images are indelibly printed on my brain.

Last edited by haineshisway; 23-11-2009 at 06:33.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 03:53   #71
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoelCairo View Post
The Professionals has received a splendid Blu-ray transfer. I'm not surprised because the DVD - one of the first I bought - was excellent with stable images and considerable depth of focus.

The Blu-ray of The Professionals confirms what I have suspected for a long time, that High Definition will bring most benefit to large scale movies. The extra detail and depth of focus provided by Blu-ray really pays off in the wide angle shots of desert vistas.

I was particularly impressed by the range of colours captured by this transfer. When the movie was first released in this country, cinematographer Conrad Hall was criticised in some quarters because his desert visuals all seemed to be yellow with a total lack of variety. Looking at this Blu-ray, it occurs to me that we may simply have been supplied with bad prints.

The high quality of this Blu-ray transfer raises an interesting and important question. We hear frequently how enormous time and expense is involved in preparing old movies for High Definition, but what about those movies where the elements are still in good condition? If the original camera negative or existing prints are unblemished, can a Blu-ray transfer be carried out at minimal cost? In the past few years I have seen DVDs of old movies which seem to have been from perfect prints. The French DVD of A Time To Love And A Time To Die and the Region 1 DVD of Pete Kelly's Blues are two such examples. The Tarnished Angels is a third. How much work and expense would be involved in bringing these films to Blu-ray?
Interesting question - I think that a lot of great transfers are simply putting up the source element and doing the transfer. I know we hear how this negative is shot or faded or this source is problematic, but then we see a transfer from the same year shot on the same stock and it's perfect with absolutely no "restoration." It does make you wonder at times. And I completely agree about The Professionals. The first three Blu-Rays I watched when I first got my player were 2001, The Professionals, and Black Narcissus, and all three blew me away.

Last edited by haineshisway; 23-11-2009 at 03:54.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 03:56   #72
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyWilson View Post
Not really sure what the use of the (sic) is implying there?

And don't you think we deserve some justification of why you think your memory for details of film presentation is so accurate - and how you have tested its accuracy?

I certainly don't mind your criticisms of DVD Beavers reliance on static screen caps to make judgements on the quality of a moving image, but I'd never claim to be able to judge whether a DVD or BR was an accurate representation of what I saw at the cinema, without actually doing a direct side by side comparison.
Well, it's sic on my side of the pond - I forget about variant spellings elsewhere.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 06:23   #73
Guest 45586
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 912
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I used to know Marty Scorsese in the 1980s - he was extremely hyper then, veered between highs and lows, yet had this amazing passion for movies backed up by a deep knowledge and MEMORY of what he saw back in the 1950s and what it looked like and sounded like. Today, Marty has quietened down, gone respectable, even ambassadorial, and when he pops up on a documentary and says he remembers seeing this or that movie at, say, the Criterion in New York in CinemaScope, no one questions him.

What I'm saying is this: Haineshisway reminds me of Marty - a bit hyper, a bit sensitive, easy to aggravate, easy to offend, yet possessing a passion and a knowledge that I personally admire and trust.
Guest 45586 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 06:35   #74
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Armbruster View Post
I used to know Marty Scorsese in the 1980s - he was extremely hyper then, veered between highs and lows, yet had this amazing passion for movies backed up by a deep knowledge and MEMORY of what he saw back in the 1950s and what it looked like and sounded like. Today, Marty has quietened down, gone respectable, even ambassadorial, and when he pops up on a documentary and says he remembers seeing this or that movie at, say, the Criterion in New York in CinemaScope, no one questions him.

What I'm saying is this: Haineshisway reminds me of Marty - a bit hyper, a bit sensitive, easy to aggravate, easy to offend, yet possessing a passion and a knowledge that I personally admire and trust.
Thank you for the nice post, much appreciated. The first time I was ever lucky enough to see Black Narcissus in IB Tech was Mr. Scorsese's print. And a few of the things in his collection, in a circuitous way, came from my collection when I sold it off.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 06:53   #75
Alan b
Administrator
 
Alan b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 35,049
Thanks: 171
Thanked 1,285 Times in 581 Posts
haineshisway, please use the multi quote function.
Alan b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 08:14   #76
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan b View Post
haineshisway, please use the multi quote function.
For the computer illiterate - what exactly does that mean? Happy to do it, but I have no idea what it is. I just click Quote if I'm quoting a post. If that's not what we're supposed to do (as I did above) please just let me know exactly how to do it. Thanks.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 08:26   #77
splobber
Administrator
 
splobber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lake Titicaca
Posts: 67,115
Thanks: 40
Thanked 728 Times in 360 Posts
Rather then clicking the quote button, click the multi-quote button (to the right of the quote one) against all the posts that you wish to reply to and then hit the quote button. This will then load all the posts into a single post which you can reply to, which helps in keeping the thread tidy.
splobber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2009, 19:09   #78
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by splobber View Post
Rather then clicking the quote button, click the multi-quote button (to the right of the quote one) against all the posts that you wish to reply to and then hit the quote button. This will then load all the posts into a single post which you can reply to, which helps in keeping the thread tidy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post
For the computer illiterate - what exactly does that mean? Happy to do it, but I have no idea what it is. I just click Quote if I'm quoting a post. If that's not what we're supposed to do (as I did above) please just let me know exactly how to do it. Thanks.
I think I just did it right. You have to click multiquote in all the posts you wish to quote, then click the quote button - got it, and I shall now contribute to the neat and tidy aspect of this thread.

Last edited by haineshisway; 23-11-2009 at 19:09.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2009, 06:30   #79
Guest 53019
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,216
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I haven't seen much written about the new Henson Blu-Rays, The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth. I can start with Labyrinth, which I just finished watching. A really terrific transfer with beautiful color and contrast. The young Jennifer Connelly is impossibly beautiful and luminous, the creatures are amazingly done, and David Bowie, well, is David Bowie and I cannot imagine WHAT children must have made of him back in the 80s. It's wonderfully sharp, and knowing the release prints and stock of movies back in that era, I would doubt it looked this good. Which brings me to something I've been pondering lately.

I had occasion to see a screening on Rob Marshall's film of Nine at the DGA in LA. It's a scope film, and they were obviously showing a newly-minted release print. It looked good, but when you've been watching incredibly sharp Blu-Rays in the home environment, it's weird how not sharp this film looked - and yes, the DGA has the best projection in LA. And therein lies the difference between actual film and Blu-Ray 1080p. No matter how great the Blu-Ray is, no matter how "film-like" the pundits say it is, the fact is that Blu-Ray does not really resemble film, actual film. Film stock has a density, a weight and you see it immediately on the screen. And the handful of times I've gone to see digital projection, that density and weight are gone. It's not that it doesn't look good - it just doesn't feel like a FILM. I don't know if I'm being clear, but I was just astonished how film-like actual film looks and how "light" Blu-Rays, for all their beauty and sharpness, look.
Guest 53019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2009, 08:04   #80
Guest 66681
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 174
Thanks: 5
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post
I haven't seen much written about the new Henson Blu-Rays, The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth. I can start with Labyrinth, which I just finished watching. A really terrific transfer with beautiful color and contrast. The young Jennifer Connelly is impossibly beautiful and luminous, the creatures are amazingly done, and David Bowie, well, is David Bowie and I cannot imagine WHAT children must have made of him back in the 80s. It's wonderfully sharp, and knowing the release prints and stock of movies back in that era, I would doubt it looked this good. Which brings me to something I've been pondering lately.

I had occasion to see a screening on Rob Marshall's film of Nine at the DGA in LA. It's a scope film, and they were obviously showing a newly-minted release print. It looked good, but when you've been watching incredibly sharp Blu-Rays in the home environment, it's weird how not sharp this film looked - and yes, the DGA has the best projection in LA. And therein lies the difference between actual film and Blu-Ray 1080p. No matter how great the Blu-Ray is, no matter how "film-like" the pundits say it is, the fact is that Blu-Ray does not really resemble film, actual film. Film stock has a density, a weight and you see it immediately on the screen. And the handful of times I've gone to see digital projection, that density and weight are gone. It's not that it doesn't look good - it just doesn't feel like a FILM. I don't know if I'm being clear, but I was just astonished how film-like actual film looks and how "light" Blu-Rays, for all their beauty and sharpness, look.
I have tbh and say that for most the strategy of marketing a blu-ray is exactly this point that you raise above....Since like myself not too many people have the expertise of film like yourself then I would say films like The Searchers (John Wayne) blu-ray look fantastic to most people but I know from a previous comment that you had a different view in relation to how it should have actually looked had it been transferred onto blu-ray correctly...
My point being that I loved the Searchers transfer and I believe that most people would have done so too...So why not give the people what they want? I know they are doing this with audio from older films being updated and no mention on this thread has been given to that, with older mono tracks being dropped in some cases

Last edited by ben001; 24-11-2009 at 08:17.
Guest 66681 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
blu-ray, Blu-ray Disc, compendium, Releases, thoughts

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[BOOK] The Walking Dead Compendium - Volume 1 - £30 inc. Guest 243 Bargain Forum 13 18-06-2009 14:02
'Luxury Games Compendium' at Tesco - £6.25!! Ds3 Bargain Forum 0 01-02-2007 19:09
Family Guy Compendium (Entire 3 Seasons + Bonus Discs) Guest 21253 Bargain Forum 62 14-05-2004 02:19
Family Guy Compendium Set - Missing Episodes Or Scenes? Guest 3174 Television Discussion 7 07-03-2004 17:54
Family Guy Compendium Set - Missing Episodes Or Scenes? Guest 3174 Film Discussion 3 07-03-2004 17:54

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018 Poisonous Monkey Ltd. Part of The Digital Fix Network