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

[Edwin-S]

Well, to me, the BD looks like a very slight improvement over the DVD when looking at the DVDbeaver screen caps.

 

[frankie108]

Why do you suppose the studio's are "changing what the film was in the first place"???

 

[Michael Reuben]

There are many possible reasons: Slip-shod practices at mastering houses; recycling of outdated masters; transfer techniques that are holdovers from the days of standard-def DVD. Then, of course, there's the unfortunate perception that people won't buy the disc unless it looks a certain way. One of our goals here is to disabuse studios of that notion. We've already made considerable progress. I would say I'm sorry if this pains you, but I'm not.

 

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I guess that would explain why I've felt out of place on this board for some time (ever since HD formats started popping up). To be honest, I've never gone beyond my desire to enjoy my favorite movies on my "TV". I've never had the desire to have a genuine "Home Theater". I've got a nice sized TV and a very good Surround Sound system - but as far as "recreating the theatrical experience", I'm quite comfortable leaving that to the actual movie theaters.

I guess I never realized how many people here were dedicated to going so far - makes perfect sense now as to why DVD is thought of as a thing of the past on these boards.

 

[Michael Reuben]

If DVD were considered "a thing of the past" here, we wouldn't have so many people writing DVD reviews. And if you look at the HTF mission statement, the goals are the same with DVD.

But naturally, if you look at threads in the hi-def section, that's what people will be talking about.

 

[frankie108]

Perhaps your right. Opinions expressing satisfaction with HD discs have no place in this forum.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Correct.

Regardless of the medium, the goal at HTF and of its members has always been for the medium to communicate, as accurately as possible, the look and sound of the original film. Naturally Blu-ray can do a much better job of acheiving that in absolute terms, but the goal of fidelity-to-the-source is no different for HTF for either format.

 

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I know, but everyone hangs out over here now.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I am right.

And no one is disagreeing with you expressing satisfaction with a Blu-ray Disc. Rather, you're actively suggesting that a sub-par disc should be all that the studio should attempt to achieve and that such mastering practices are good-enough.

No one here has suggested you can't be satisfied. We're not criticizing you when we criticize the studio for releasing sub-par product.

If I were happy with a disc on my own system but learned that on better systems it revealed shortcomings, I'd be happy that others were putting pressure on the studios to improve things so that everyone could have the best presentation possible. For you to argue that things shouldn't be any better defies logic and in no way reflects the stated goals of a place like HTF.

Why are you here?

 

[Michael Reuben]

In this thread, he no longer is.

All please note: Further replies in this thread to frankie108 will not be seen by him.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

So many posts; so sorry if this has been irrefutably stated B4:
Is the source used for this BD title the exact same as the source for the last SD DVD?
Thanks.
(I'm asking because some have posted its as good as it may get for today; while it seems the OP had it this HD transfer had been futzed with)

 

[Robert Harris]

If you mean the previous SD release, I don't believe so. The word getting back to me at this point is that this is an entirely new scan of the film element.

This is an important film, and WB is treating it as such. The fact that there is an apparent problem, does not disallow that fact.

RAH

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Was WB responsible for this transfer, or the Zaentz Company?

 

[Wayne_j]

I heard that it was Zaentz, but I don't know for sure.

 

[Chris S]

This is probably one of those obvious question for those in the know....

Is there a distinction to be made here between the transfer and what may or may not have been applied during production? I guess I'm asking can the new transfer be saved/used again without the use of image "enhancements" (used loosely) that were applied for this release or does an entire new scan of the film need to be done?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

With luck the transfer isn't inherently compromised and it could be repurposed sans the additional processing, but I don't know for sure. Hopefully RAH will turn up some info on that very question sometime soon.

I know that some times filtering and/or processing is applied when the transfer is made (the EE in the original HD transfer for Lawrence of Arabia, for instance) and other times the problems are added in at a later stage of mastering. Of course, either way WB may choose not to revisit this for re-release any time soon. Sigh... and we haven't even touched the issue of the theatrical cut not being provided (not the forum for taking WB to task on that account).

dave

 

[Ed St. Clair]

WoW
Was hoping you'd respond Robert, just didn't think so fast, thanks for taking the time.
So we get a brand new screwed up transfer, YIPPEE!!!
And, all those that have posted here its as good as it can be today (demand, economy, technology, etc.) are wrong; as many transfers (today) surpass this one.
---------
This riks me too no end cause:
B4 HDM was released I showed a concern about EE.
People said: don't worry its a new format (meaning not SD DVD).
Now we have EE.
B4 HDM was released I showed a concern about DNR (we called it "high frequency filtering" back in the day).
People said: don't worry its a new format (meaning not SD DVD).
Now we have DNR.
B4 HDM was released I showed a concern about possible lack of lossless audio.
People said: don't worry its a new format (meaning not SD DVD).
Now we have HD titles w/o HD soundtracks.

I'm not saying "all" BD's are badd; just why are we stuck w/the same problems of old DVD w/the new HD format? Greed? Stupidity? Both?
The door to poor transfers should have been slammed shut a long time ago!

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

True enough. I don't know if the issue is one of people not noticing the problems, or simply that the general public wouldn't be aware of them and simply buy based on the title.

As someone who has yet to buy hardware, I do find it disturbing that a number of the titles that I would have gravitated towards are getting poor reviews in their BD releases - which isn't encouraging the purchase of a player when there is so little that I'd be interested in to begin with, and what there is may not be worth investing in.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Jeff,

while I share your misgivings about the lack of fidelity on some key releases, let's not allow the sentiments of frustration in this thread to misguide us into thinking that the majority of Blu-ray Disc aren't wonderfully produced. Most have stellar video and almost all have lossless audio.

Sure, we all wish Amadeus was better. But at this point there are hundreds of 1080p films that range across every Genre to choose from, and that list includes some amazing films that never got this well treated on DVD at this point in that format's live cycle.

Baraka in 1080p is reason enough to buy a Blu-ray Disc player. As is Blade Runner. As are many other stellar releases that properly represent their films and provide more fidelity to the consumer than ever dreamed possible just a few short years ago (when folks at another forum were saying we'd never have 1080p televisions).

Every 10 DVDs you buy could have paid for a $200 BD player. If a movie is worth owning, it's worth owning in 1080p.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Although I would never advocate lowering the bar for the quality of BD releases, I also think it would be a mistake to completely avoid the BD format or certain less-than-stellar releases unless you wish to make a strong statement to the studios on principle (and will follow through accordingly so they actually get the message).

That's why I opted to buy Amadeus for the $15 sale price from Amazon after some deliberation. Yes, it's apparently a rather flawed release, but what exactly would your other option(s) be, if you really love this film (and would actually find the quality substantially better than the old DVD and "acceptable enough" for the price tag given your particular situation)? Of course, that's assuming if the quality will be "acceptable enough" given one's various criteria. One does need to pick and choose one's battles well me thinks when it comes to such matters...

_Man_