A Few Words About A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Dave H]

I'm going to purely speculate here as I don't have inside information, nor have I even viewed the disc yet.

I think Warner decided to just use an older master (2002?) and decided this title wasn't in the same classic realm as upcoming titles such as Gone With The Wind, etc. which are/have been going through major re-work.

In addition, given the terrible economic conditions that are not going to resolved anytime soon, I fear unless it's a big blockbuster catalog title or ultimate classic, many other titles will suffer similar fate as Amadeus. I just don't think the studios are going to be doing new masters for most catalog titles anytime soon in order to minimize costs unless it's a huge title which they think will sell very well. All we can do is keep our fingers crossed that an older master was done at least fairly well (minimal or no DNR and EE) for a particular, upcoming title.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Again, not Warner, but The Saul Zaentz Company.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Interesting...I don't recall One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - another SZC production released by WB - looking overly processed on Blu. Wonder what went wrong here? A change of guard...?

 

[Dave H]

Yes, but doesn't the buck start and stop still with Warner?

 

[Brian Borst]

Well, this is an easy port of the special edition dvd to begin with. It's cheaper for them to do this, than to start all over again on every title they have. I'm certain Amadeus will be re-released as a decent BD at one point. For one thing: the Theatrical Cut is still missing. It's just a matter of when?

 

[PaulDA]

There are conflicting impulses at work. First, there is the clamour for more catalogue titles. Second, there is the cost of making them BD ready. Third, there is a balance between releasing a lot of titles to meet pent-up demands (at the cost of letting some sub-par transfers slip by) vs. a more patient approach that, by its nature, makes some people grumble impatiently at the lack of catalogue titles. Add to the mix an economic downturn where EVERY company is re-thinking where and how to spend its dollars and you get an increase of "well, it's good enough for most people, and few who will really care are too small a margin to be profitable". (This is not aimed at any one studio in particular.)

Until the economy turns around, I believe we'll see more "it's good enough" releases than we otherwise might and, consequently, it could be many years before better versions are released (I mean this broadly--I'm sure a select few titles will be refurbished and re-released sooner AND I'm sure a select few titles will be given the "royal treatment" [Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur and North by Northwest are among those I hope will receive such treatment]). So then it become a matter of individual priorities. For many, "better than SD DVD" will be a sufficient reason to pick up a title that does not meet the loftier standards held by people like RAH (who are quite qualified to make such judgements). For others, compromise will not be in the equation. And, I believe, a third group will emerge (I include myself in this one) who, on a case by case basis, will decide that a particular title is flawed yet still "better than SD DVD" and, for the right price, will live with the flaws and upgrade later (the basic "better than SD DVD" crowd likely would not upgrade later, as I see it). The third group will be less tolerant than the first yet more tolerant than the second of flaws (whatever they may be).

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Brandon Conway]

^ Well said, Paul.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Yep. I'm probably in that 3rd group that Paul described. That's why I'm asking so much about Amadeus (even though I had previously passed on Patton). I just don't wanna end up w/ something like Trading Places or XXX just because I settled w/ the attractive $15 price tag -- I actually only paid like $8-9 for those others (and had never owned XXX before).

From the sound of it, maybe Amadeus is actually a lot like Pan's Labyrinth, which I do own. If so, I guess I could probably live w/ that for $15 -- though it still sucks to not get the theatrical cut included. It also doesn't help that we have no idea when/if they will ever redo this title and give it the kind of classic treatment it deserves.

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Alright. I caved on this one (and ordered it along w/ a couple others from Amazon) after checking out Xylon's screen grabs over on AVS. It'll probably look good enough on my 61" RPTV from 9-to-10ft away. Judging from the screen grabs, it's probably no worse than Dark City (in terms of DNR+EE) -- and at least won't have the occasional jarringly blurry/soft extra shots of Jennifer Connelley thrown in -- and might actually be somewhat better than Pan's Labyrinth. One indoor screen grab (the last one? w/ the Emperor and his court advisors) does look overcooked to the point of being almost like Trading Places, but not quite that bad.

The old DVD is really that bad though, which makes holding out rather difficult even though this BD does not include the theatrical cut. Maybe we should all write Warner about this, especially those of us who actually bought the thing, so they know that we're not happy about this subpar release. Then again, if they're really reading this site, especially RAH's review thread, maybe that'll do...

_Man_

 

[arsh]

Mine arrived today along with Gandhi, booklet, cd package is itself worth $15, film is free.

 

[Chris S]

Echoes my thoughts and feelings exactly! And far be it from me to begrudge anyone from falling into and/or out of any of these catagories as I easily fall somewhere between the second and final group. Some titles are on a case-by-case basis while others I consider beyond compromise.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I agree that no one should feel guilty or be judged for buying any title on any format, DVD, BD or otherwise, that doesn't meet the very highest standards possible.

However, I also don't want it to be considered "lofty" to actually want a 1080p HD transfer to look and sound like the actual movie. That shouldn't be some esoteric goal embraced by a minority, it should be the desire for all HT enthusiasts, even those of who may buy a particular title that falls short of that goal.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Just went to the bits and pulled some contact information for WB studios. It never hurts to send a hard-copy letter, even though I have no doubt that WB eyes are privy to this thread.

Warner Home Video
4000 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91522
818-954-6000

their on-line comment form is here:

Warner Bros : Help

 

[PaulDA]

I don't want it to be considered "lofty" either. However, the reality is that it IS a minority that has such standards. It is the same in music releases--I certainly don't want the overcompressed nonsense that has become the norm in pop/rock releases. I have become a greater fan of classical (in the broad sense of that term) music, in part, because its recordings DON'T suffer from overcompression and limited dynamic range (the more significant reason is because I've come to appreciate the music, but the quality of the recordings is not an insignificant consideration). Despite the less than ideal recording quality of pop/rock, however, I still buy some because the music appeals to me, even if the presentation is lacking and I know it can be better (I have many examples of "better" on my shelves already).

In the end, I think, sadly, that movies on BD will be somewhat analogous. Some excellent releases, as they should all be, some decent releases that could be better, some mediocre to poor releases whose content will, on a case by case basis, cause some people to live with the flaws and some truly wretched releases that are no improvement over a lesser format (as, apparently, Gangs of New York--I've yet to see that film in any format, but I will likely settle for a used copy of the SD DVD in terms of spending money for poor quality, judging from everything I've read. The only reason I would buy it at all is my professional interest in historical feature films from an academic standpoint. But I digress.).

It is my hope that, on balance, the majority of releases will be decent to exemplary. It is my expectation, however, that I will be disappointed more often than is necessary and that the current economic crisis will serve as an excuse (sometimes legitimate, sometimes not) to release sub-par transfers because of an unwillingness to spend the extra money to "do it right".

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Paul,

I don't disagree that your comments may reflect the landscape of how things may really be versus how we would like them to be, but my hope is that since the primary motivation for consumers embracing the more expensive Blu-ray Disc format over DVD is the improvement in image (and sound) quality, that the case for leveraging image and sound quality are stronger for Blu-ray Disc than they are for DVD given the motivation for consumers migrating to the format in the first place.


Agreed.

And when the inevitable sub-par disappointment crosses my path, I'll also exercise my ability to let the studio know of my displeasure, and encourage other like-minded HT enthusiasts to do the same. We may not be in direct control of the decisions that guide the HD releases made available to us to buy, but we don't have to passively accept what we're given when it's not up to par. Our voices will make a difference, just like they did with DVD.

 

[Dick]

Well, now we get into murky territory. I completely admire Mr. Harris's restoration work and his opinions regarding DVD/Blu-ray releases on this forum. I do not purport to be an expert in technical issues. I am like the guy standing in the art gallery saying, "I just know what I like."

Mr. Harris is so (deservedly) revered in this forum that anytime someone feels the need to question or contradict him, he needs to precede his remarks with the very kinds of platitudes I have just proferred.

But with regards to PATTON and AMADEUS, I have this to say: I think they look great. This is a personal reaction, but so is anyone's to any film. Mr. Harris' reactions are also personal. That does not mean a multitude of us cannot enjoy the Blu-ray transfers he finds wanting, even though he has technical knowledge that leaves most of us in the dust. PATTON and AMADEUS may seem too "processed" or lacking in film grain or seeming in one way or another unlike "film," but to me both look stellar on Blu-ray (as does THE LONGEST DAY) and I am, if not an expert, a huge movie aficionado who now watches movies on a 46" Sony and am quite critical of picture quality.

This is not to criticize Mr. Harris' reviews or to suggest he is wrong in his evaluations, but to suggest that those who decide not to purchase a certain title based solely upon his reviews might wish to rent a copy to see wheather or not it appears the same way to his/her eyes. It might not.

We all view life (and movies) through different eyes.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Dick,


With all due respect to your love for movies and your fantastic TV (I also have a 46" Sony and love it), that scree size and the distance that you sit from it are not "wide angle" and don't reveal the kinds of problems RAH and others are talking about. You need to be viewing an image from closer than 2-screen widths, (1.5 is ideal) to create a "theater" experience and chances are that you're sitting well beyond 2 screen widths away from that 46" screen.

What looks great on my Sony 46" can look really, really inferior when I watch it on my 106" 1080p projection system, which I view from about 12 feet away to preserve a theater-wide viewing angle. That's where Blu-ray Discs that all look "great!" on the TV suddenly differentiate themselves into some that look like film, and some that look like overprocessed, over-scrubbed/filtered video.

Amadeus falls into the later category when viewed at a theater-wide viewing angle.

Before everyone assumes I'm criticizing folks who like to view on their 46" set, I AM NOT. Watch your Blu-ray Discs on whatever set you like and enjoy it!!! Only be aware that movies were indeed composed to be viewed "wide angle" and 1080p Blu-ray Disc is able to do films justice at theater-viewing-angles when properly mastered for those who wish to replicate theater-wide viewing in their home. It's a shame that such a stunning film as Amadeus isn't mastered properly and so falls short of the goal when viewed at a theater-wide angle of approximately 1.5 screen widths, though certainly it looks good when viewed from greater than 2 screen widths away.

 

[Robert Harris]

Points taken, and you are not incorrect.

However the major point of difference here is not your eyes, but your viewing environment.

When I originally viewed Patton on a 30" Sony HD CRT in my office, I had a feeling that we had a winner. So much so that I couldn't wait to view examine it in my home theater.

But there's the rub.

Although I haven't viewed Amadeus on a 50, I would surmise that it could look quite pleasing on that size screen.

My point in regard to "DNR," which is a term of art that we'll use to denote all the various incarnations and permutations of both proprietary as well as plug-in noise or grain reduction, is that its use should have limitations, and those limited uses should only be by those with a knowledge of the damage that it may (or may not) do to the overall image quality.

In my original discussions re: Patton, I made it clear that my concern was overall, and not limited to those with large viewing environments, but rather the entire marketplace, as I don't believe that one should purchase a Blu-ray disc based upon the size of their monitor.

But that is precisely what is occurring.

During the Patton debates, there were many individuals who liked and defended the look of Patton, and usually based upon the size of their monitor. Had they the ability to view the film on a larger screen, they may not have been quite as accepting of the disc's "merits."

My point is that the consumer, when purchasing a Blu-ray disc, should have no concern about quality. For those with smaller screening environments, there should be no reticence to make the purchase, with the knowledge that should they desire to move to a larger format, their needs will already have been met.

No need to purchase the 50"+ or 90"+ versions.

The one purchased for that 32" Costco LCD monitor will still work, only better on larger screens.

A final point in regard to Patton vs. Amadeus.

If one were to put them on a 20 point level with zero as a mid-point, a recent release such as Gandhi or The Sand Pebbles would rate well into the +9 category.

Patton would have the honor of a negative 8 or 9, while I'd probably place Amadeus at around a positive 3. While the image quality as viewed WITHIN A LARGER VIEWING SPACE of Patton would be in the Impermissible category, Amadeus would just be annoying, as while it has not been destroyed, something just isn't right.

I'm wondering if you've viewed Gangs of New York, the only negative 10 on my list, and if so, what your perceptions are as to how it looked on your monitor?

I hope this makes sense to you.

RAH

 

[PaulDA]

Such a scale not only makes sense, but would facilitate decision making in terms of individual tolerance for flawed presentations, I would think. However, it would probably alter the nature of your "A few words about..." approach, which is quite good, and may prove to be too much of a distraction from your observations if done with all the films upon which you comment. But in cases like these (Amadeus, Patton and Gangs...), perhaps a nod to such a scale would be useful?

 

[Paul Arnette]

David, I'm not seeing where he stated how far away he was sitting from the screen, or did I just miss it?

Regardless, is the consensus that 46" or 50" displays are too small to reveal these deficiencies regardless of the viewing angle? I sit about 6.5 to 7 feet away from my 50" plasma, which according to the website below is about the maximum recommended SMPTE viewing distance (30 degree viewing angle).

Viewing Distance Calculator