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

[Douglas Monce]

Dave,

I have a Hitachi P50S601 50" Plasma HDTV.

One thing about the screen shots taken with a digital camera that can be problematic, is the white balance setting. I understand that you have the camera set to full manual mode, but if the white balance setting doesn't exactly match the color temp of the TV or projector, the colors won't be conveyed accurately. The only way to find out the exact color temp being displayed by the TV is to use a Colorimeter to measure it.

Doug

 

[Don May Jr]

I checked out the DB version of Bram Stoker's DRACULA last night for a brief bit (I couldn't watch it in its entirety because I had a 9.5 hour drive today... needed sleep.) and my personal opinion is that what I saw of the DB release is a bit of a mixed bag. The opening few minutes ARE dark and murky to the point where I almost... almost turned it off. For the record, I watched the BD on my PS3, with HDMI connection on a 60" Sony LCD that was ISF calibrated by the genius, Eliab, at AVICAL. I think a lot of the dense blacks we are seeing in this transer are worse than normal because many scenes in the movie are edited with optical dissolves. The colors are weird looking to me... they do seem unrealistic and "enhanced"... kind of reminded me of an old B&W photo from the 30s or 40s that had been dye tinted. The flesh tones seemed way off and artificial to me. But maybe that was the original intent.

The film does not look how I remember it and, while this may indeed be the intended approved look, I have to say that, well... I don't like "most" of what I saw of it. But, I didn't make the movie so my opinion really doesn't count on how it looks unless I was hired to supervise. I personally prefer the "look" of original Superbit transfer over the BD release for many scenes. Much of the movie is a little too dark for my taste... the first scene with Renfield (sp?) is so dark and so blue that you can barely even see him (but in the 2nd shot of him, when he moves back down in the cell, the darkness "works" in that it looks like he disappears into the inky blackness). Same for when Keanu gets out of the carriage on the road to the castle (when the hand reaches for his shoulder)... I just had trouble seeing anything.

But all is NOT lost here. As a matter of fact, when Keanu finally gets into Dracula's castle, there are some scenes of amazing quality, color and detail that completely rise above the older versions. One sequence that seemed to almost jump off my screen was right when he first meets Dracula and Oldman is holding that lantern emitting the white light. That sequence was so "right", so haunting and so beautifully done that the shots of him holding the light seemed almost 3D in their quality.

So, for me, just because of my previous experience in watching this film on home video, I'm used to seeing it quite differently. And, I think the deal here is that, usually, when a "new" version of a film comes out on home video, the video "buff" or consumer just assume (hope?) that what you are going to see is "better" than what you have seen before. For many, this may be the ULTIMATE version of the movie, presented in exactly the way it was intended. For me, well, I'm not 100% satisfied with the BD transfer, but I'm certainly entitled to my own opinion (whether in the minority or not). Some things look worse to me and some scenes look better. The scenes that DO look better are AMAZINGLY better, though, so in that respect I urge anyone interested to at least watch it if you can. If you like the film enough to buy it (like me), then please do so. But, if you are concerned about many of the BDs criticisms at least still seek it out via rental before dropping the cash for the purchase. It's a great movie.

Personally, I AM disappointed in it. I'm not upset that I bought it before seeing it, but I won't be throwing it into my player again to show off the BD format to friends, that's for sure.

 

[Jack Johnson]

No, that wasn't just an overblown analogy for the purposes of discussion in my original post. Because Scott, anticipating outcry over the debut of the intended look of his film on home video, was actually considering a special, double briefcase edition of Bladerunner. The set was to include the existing, fan-popular "urban drab" color timing in one transfer--the "Replicant Chic Edition" and--in that second Limited Edition attache', with an included magenta origami unicorn and spray on, Pris-style eye makeup for your girlfriend--the "Embrace The Pink" cut of the film, the first transfer painstakingly matched to the answer print.

Maybe Puck was also talking about you?

 

[Robert Harris]

To Mr. Johnson...

I believe you may be misinterpreting my comments.

As an Eastman Color SP print, which most likely would have been the emulsion for the Bladerunner OAP, the print in question should now be quite warm and magenta.

My comment, which may be a bit obtuse, was in relation to believing or disbelieving what one sees on an OAP.

And yes, Puck is an old friend, who knows me quite well.

RAH

 

[Lee-c]

Jack Johnson: Not to go off-topic here, but just to be clear on this. Are you saying that Ridley considered using this odd looking "pinkish" color timing in one of the DVD sets soon to be released with the newly restored/remastered Blade Runner cuts, but his better judgment decided against the idea, and thus all the cuts being released in December on DVD will look more or less as Blade Runner has always looked to us with the normal non-pink colors?

This is a very interesting discussion, and while there are times when a certain stylized look can work well in a film (look at Sleepy Hollow), I'm sitting here trying to imagine what Blade Runner would look like with a ultra warm pink coloring throughout the movie. And I just can't understand why on Earth Ridley could possibly want the movie to have a bizarre super unnatural unrealistic fake look to everything. I mean, if you're trying to create a believable deep sci-fi movie like Blade Runner, why make the whole movie look artificial? That wouldn't exactly lend credibility to the world of Blade Runner, which is important if you're going to have suspension of disbelief while watching it.

It seems in these new Dracula DVD sets that the director made some odd choices originally for the coloring on some scenes. The one with the female vampire goes from her looking like a vampire with believable colors to some sort of weird burnt orange-ish color in the new version, like someone took pulverized pumpkin pie covered her face, skin and everything else in it. Very strange looking, and quite unappealing. Oh well, we still have the regular Dracula DVD's to watch for the many that I suspect won't like these colors.

P.S. Note related to above post by Robert Harris that I just read. It seems Mr. Harris may have been joking about the condition of the original print in question, rather than being serious. Of course, Jack Johnson still said what he said about Ridley's thinking on this subject and my post was based on Jack's comments.

 

[Dave Mack]

This is indeed a fun, great and educational discussion and I'm glad it's staying that way.

 

[Jack Johnson]

Robert:


At this point, I may not be sure what either one of us was getting at. But for clarification, I guess I thought you'd made a dig at my intendedly outlandish example of how we'd all react to a hypothetical "accurate" transfer of Bladerunner that rendered it a garish pink a few posts back...as part of a running discussion about a sense of surprise and dismay some seemed to have in learning that, for the first time, Dracula conformed to specifications when it didn't look at all as they remembered. In short: would we accept it?

But I guess you're now suggesting an answer print matched transfer of Bladerunner might actually skew toward the reddish? Perhaps that's why we're confused, as I thought I was concocting a pretty far fetched scenario.

At any rate, I'm clearer on things now...and yes, I grossly misinterpreted your comments. My bad, and apologies.

Incidentally, have you ever been in a position where you found you preferred an inaccurate transfer to a correct one? Not to the extent where you'd consider it official and representative of intent and the answer print, but one you nevertheless found pleasing enough to hang onto and give a spin in your player once in a while?


--Jack

 

[Jack Johnson]

Lee, see my above reply to Robert Harris; this all got head-spinningly confusing. But we might have it sorted out (I think).



--Jack

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Off topic, but this reminds me of when the remastered Lawrence of Arabia DVD came out and everyone was praising it for it's incredible picture quality, and it turned out that it wasn't supposed to look that way.

The film as intended was supposed to look dirty. This was about the time I first started to know who Robert Harris was, as he was the lone person who was dismayed at the new transfer of LoA.

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: Mr. Johnson's comment on Bladerunner, I was suggesting that an OAP of same may be quite off color by this time, and not representative. I have no direct information regarding said print. We didn't have decently fade resistant release stock until mid-1982. It depends which stock was used for final printing, as the earlier stock (SP) was still in production into 1983.

The point that I was attempting to make was that even an OAP must be vetted to confirm that it has not changed over the years. In the case of Dracula, this would not have been a problem.

To Mr. Cooper...

LoA was not supposed to look "dirty." Colors were supposed to be correct. Very simple.

This was finally tended to in the SuperBit edition. All other editions have inaccuate color.

RAH

 

[Michel_Hafner]

DVD is usually component too with no composite signal artifacts. Same as HD.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

For now certainly not. Never say never, though. And 4K is somewhat overkill anyway for viewing purposes at home. Give me today's 2K DI data visually losslessly compressed (not far out of reach with BR bit rates and optimised AVC or VC1 encodes) and with cinema color primaries and we are pretty much there for 35mm material.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

That surely is not 1996, is it?? 2006 perhaps? A HD transfer from 1996 is completely outdated by today's standards.

 

[Shane Martin]

It looked great here. I still wonder if the issues being reported are because of the technology being used to view them(LCD). I'm pretty sure Dave's PJ is LCD.

I know on my Plasma, it looks fantastic. I wouldn't call it perfection but I'm thoroughly pleased with what I saw.

 

[Dave Mack]

Nope. I've said before that my PJ is a Mits hc3000u DLP which is considered to have pretty good blacks. I'm also using a grey screen which makes the blacks better.

http://www.projectorreviews.com/mits...agequality.php

"Ok, to summarize, with a basic calibration, the Mitsubishi produces extremely good flesh tones, dynamic looking images (if a little less saturated than the HD72, although Brilliant Color adjustments do affect that. Black levels and shadow details are exceptional for a projector in it's price, with only the slightly more expensive HD7100 doing a bit better..."

Bottom line: Mitsubishi's HC3000 offers the best picture quality we have seen of the many DLP projectors (using the Darkchip2 processor), as well as home theater LCD projectors, that we have reviewed..."


Now I do plan on getting the Optoma hd80 soon.

 

[Bryan^H]

You see, thats the whole argument in a nutshell. Film, it seems is a very tricky medium. You can watch it in a theater, but it's a sham. You can admire the picture and color tone, but don't get comfortable, because it just isn't correct, and will be fixed at a later date. It just seems so....weird. It's like living in the Bizarro world.

Joking aside, Robert Harris has been very informative on the whole process of film, and I have learned quite a bit from him, and this thread.

 

[Jack Johnson]

And when people see an incorrect version in a theater or on video and find they do appreciate an aspect of the presentation only to discover that particular aspect is first on the list to correct when someone finally gets around to supervising a proper transfer...it makes one hesitate to praise or embrace the look of film in any incarnation, period.

Frustrating, because if filmmakers can rarely communicate "intent" to the audience, the audience feels like shrugging... You know, is this the one you want us to see? Or should we wait for that corrected transfer on HD? Looks best on plasma? How 'bout liquid crystal? It goes on and on.

In the end, you either let yourself appreciate the film you experience, incorrect or not...because otherwise you'd never see any version of it, anywhere.

The only way I'll believe there's any integrity to this transfer process now is if Dracula gets "locked off" and is never touched again for HD. If this is a correct transfer, there's no reason to go back to it until the next leap in technology. Otherwise, they would seem to be tweaking a bad transfer. I would not be surprised if that's exactly what happens in another five years.



--Jack

 

[Jim Peavy]

I really have no opinion on this one way or the other (though this is a very interesting discussion), and will probably not be getting any HD player for the foreseeable future.

That having been said (and in my completely subjective opinion), it's hard to believe in the oft-posted above scenes that the BD version is the correct one, color-wise. The BD shot looks like an actress in gaudy makeup. The SD shot looks like a scene from a film.

I'm just sayin'...

My thanks to all involved for a fascinating (and civil...!) discussion, though!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yet, the above image is exactly what I expect a vampire to look like complexion-wise.

 

[Jim Peavy]

You expect a vampire to be wearing lipstick and disco-blue eye shadow?