A Few Words About A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

Now that's mature.

So is Mr. Harris lying to us all? Did he not say that this was an accurate representation of the answer print?

I seem to recall such....

"They've screened the original approved answer print and have meticulously matched the HD master to that print."

Yep, my memory is correct.

So, with that FACT, one must conclude that if they remember a different presentation in the theater, that either A) such a person's memory is faulty, or B) the print they saw in the theater was incorrect per the answer print.

There's no other possibility as far as I can tell.

EDIT: Okay, I thought of one other remote possibility - the answer print has gone to pot.

 

[Dave H]

Another great example of color differences between SD DVD and Blu-ray/HD DVD is Superman: The Movie. They are radically different looking in this regard (with the HD version looking far more natural IMO).

 

[Dave Mack]

True. It's just that most of the BD DOES look just like the dvd in regards to the colors. The whole over the top looking prologue looks exactly the same.
It really is just certain scenes that now look completely different.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Yeah they are very different. The SD version looks way too warm to me. Way too yellow. I actually borrowed a friend's SD version this evening and that whole sequence with the brides is timed so far to the warm side that other colors that stand out in the BD version are almost missing in the SD version. The greens in the sheets for instance are almost completely gone.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Dave I don't think the image is desaturated at all. I think the actress is wearing makeup to make her skin look white. Also there is a wider range of flesh tones in the BD version. If you go and watch the turn of the century sequences in the Godfather Part 2, they are very brassy and yellow. Now I KNOW it didn't look like that on the set when they photographed it.

The point is your saying its desaturated assuming that the original image was that warm. I'm saying that the original image wasn't that warm and the yellow look is a result of the color timing of the video release. If you look at the behind the scenes stuff on that sequence in the documentaries, they don't look that warm. I'm talking about the behind the scenes camera shots not the shots from the film in the documentary.

Doug

 

[Dave Mack]

I do agree that it looks very "yellowy" But since they were standing right on front of a roaring fire, I thought that was the point. It just seems that many scenes like the prologue, Dracula and Mina's first "date" the colors look VERY close to the dvd. But in some places it really looks like they dialed down the color and it looks very artificial. If you note around any flame or candle in some scenes now, the Lucycrypt scene, the hunters tear up carfax abbey, the scene at the end when Mina kisses dracula and all the candles in the chapel light up, there are little tiny red halos around each flame, almost like matte lines. They do not register on the dvd. It looks like a computer was dialing down certain colors and almost like colorization in reverse, it left little artifacts. At least to me they look like Little tell-tale signs. Also, more and more people who got the disc are chiming in and MANY keep saying that the HD broadcast they saw (and many taped) off cable last year had far more detail (I fully agree as I watched it on comcast). So, colors aside, black levels aside, why on EARTH wouldn't the BD have as much detail? Why would they want it to look SOFTER? I mean, many, many scenes have SD level detail.
I am not the only person noticing this...

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=30820

 

[Dave Mack]

Congrats, Ron! Being neutral is great! Which player did you get..?


d


and basically after all this, the botton line is after seeing the expression on my fiancee's face after she asked me about night after night of whipping out the tripod and taking screenshots in the middle of the nite while she and mini-Mack were trying to sleep in the other side of the room, (weird apt. layout. Duplex and the BIG room is upstairs so that's where the HT wound up!) I have concluded that I am a giant nerd!

As always, a pleasure to come here and discuss all these issues. I and many others learn alot.
Since I've been 3000 miles from my hometown these last 2 years, (we are moving back to NYC next month!) HTF has been a kind of second family where I have met, learned from and even argued with some wonderful people. Thanks for letting me rant and for being a great bunch of guys!

off to try and sleep....

 

[Cees Alons]

Dave,

I think it was successfully argued by Robert Harris that we shouldn't try to base our judgement of the picture on the previous DVD. If it is compared to the Answer Print now - and found sufficiently equal - then it's exactly as it "should be". If the DVD (or whatever other presentation) is different: so be it, but it is wrong apparently.

We shouldn't simply continue the previous discussions (and post the same shots all over again, especially not: merely photographs of a screen) as if no new facts have come to the table at all, IMO.

After all, we do know now that the new transfer was meticulously crafted to have the correct picture.


Cees

 

[Robert Harris]

To Dave Mack...

1. The earlier SD and laserdisc releases were wrong. They were poorly mastered in HD, which is why we have a new master. Why was the Criterion laserdisc emblazoned with an "Approved" logo? Think studio politics.

2. The shots used in the documentary do not match. They are not supposed to match. They are there to do two things - allow a visual discussion of the fx, and to better match the rest of the documentary.

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT TO DAVE MACK, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DAVE MACK, AND SHOULD ONLY BE READ BY DAVE MACK AT HIS PERIL:

As far as what something looked like when it played at one's local cinema in 1992...

One more time...

Local cinemas don't matter. They generally provide a visually corrupt image in terms of color, density, focus and content. On top of that, they generally run poor quality prints. Local cinemas are the worst places to attempt to judge film.

As to the Answer Print, it would be on LPP stock, and should not have changed, especially as vaulted.

Lastly, and for the very last time. Cease and desist from making comparisons to earlier versions which are a meaningless "reference" and a waste of one's time.

RAH

 

[Dave Mack]

edited for clarity.

 

[Robert Harris]

To Dave Mack...

My comments to you ended with point number 2. Points below were meant for others, and I'll be happy to segregate the remarks.

Not to Dave Mack...

I noted the quote "perfect restoration" over at Blu-Ray.com attributed to me, and to my comments here.

Let me say it loud and clear.

Bram Stoker's Dracula is NOT a "perfect restoration."

Bram Stoker's Dracula is NOT a restoration. It is a new video transfer.

RAH

 

[Dave Mack]

Thank you, sir.
I thought that was all aimed at me and I was a bit taken aback.



cheers

 

[Michel_Hafner]

The gamut difference between NTSC and HD is not big. Visually the main difference is that you have +- double spatial resolution for the color difference signal in both directions and less compression issues and digital shenanigans typical of DVD (EE and DNR). That gives a far nicer more film like color rendition. But that was not really the point of my posting.

 

[Cees Alons]

Which also raises an interesting question (at least interesting to me ).

So if 'm allowed a tiny sidestep here: On what medium are the end-results of current day film restorations recorded? Still on film, or totally digitally? Or could any of those be chosen depending on other considerations?


Cees

 

[Michel_Hafner]

That's good news since these files can be played at home some time once the 'consumer' standard is updated. There are no technical barriers to give us 10 or 12 bit data with visually lossless compression some time in the future. And cinema color gamut projectors can be made for the home as well. Some current models are actually under attack for being closer to cinema color primaries than HD colors.

 

[Garrett Lundy]

No. I just think its somewhat amusing that theatrical film prints "are not correct" when this entire hobby is based upon reproducing the theatrical experience in the home.

I'm not downplaying Mr. Harris or the work of Sony/FFC. I'm just saying that was a droll choice of words.

 

[Robert Harris]

In response to Mr. Hafner's comments...

and much of this has already been covered:

Yes;

N/A;

An occasioinal release print can come somewhere in the area of an AP, but this seldom occurs, as they are printed in different ways, on different equipment and to far more loose standars;

Most release prints do not fully realize the filmmaker's intent. Some may, but it's the luck of the draw. Generally better prints will be shipped to larger cities and top venues, while those that are 3 points cyan or magenta will end up in Nell's Storm Door Company and Moving Picture House in Horse's Breath, Montana;

Probably to cover film-based problems and anomolies which could not be dealt with in the analogue world, such as chemical stains and dirt;

It cannot look like the OAP, but no one wants to match the OAP in these regards;

The BD is not soft. Possibly you should view one;

Blacks look fine to me, but I'm screening via a 2k LCD projector. The proper question here is what was the intent of the filmmaker for black levels on Eastman Print Stock 5286;

I really doubt that 4k files will be played at home for two reasons:

1. There is no possible need.

2. The files sizes will be huge unless heavily compressed.

 

[Robert Harris]

To Cees, who can ask anything since he's the boss...

While I can't speak for anyone else, I currently create three elements for a restored film:

A 35mm restoration negative, recorded at 4k.

A set of 35mm separation masters, recorded at 4k.

Multiple copies of 4k data files.

 

[Robert Harris]

To Garrett Lundy...

The "Theatrical Experience" encompasses a larger than normal home screen, a high quality viewing device and quality audio.

The fact is that the audio and image quality on many home systems can come quite close to that of a 35mm theatre, albeit on a much smaller level.

Generally, color and densities can also be more correct than might be seen at one's local picture "palace" for any number of reasons that have been gone into previously.

And once again, release prints seldom match the grading or quality of an OAP.

RAH

 

[Bleddyn Williams]

Douglas, in the other thread, Dave posted a night scene with a carriage in both Superbit and BD. What was striking about it was that the BD seemed to offer no additional resolution.

Putting aside arguments of color, brightness, etc - Were you able to actually see any more detail in the BD?