Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, Mar 23, 2013.
Move on. Agreed.
I am sure in real life we are all really nice guy's but sometimes our passions get the better of us.............me at fault more than most and I apologise unreservedly if my posts came over the wrong way, that was not my intention.
James White and David Mackenzie talk about the transfer and encoding process over at Arrow:
I probably trust caps-a-holic's caps more than any others:
Yep, in my experience they're always accurate.
Damn I forgot what movie was being discussed. I look forward to Sisters.
Watched the Arrow version last night, stunning:
Well after viewing the Arrow release I will be selling off my TT disc. The colors are stunning. I noticed no sharpening, the blacks were a wee bit heavier but that just boosted the contrast which was more pleasing. The TT transfer seemed too much on the pinkish magenta side, with those night scenes in the car looking gray and flat. The footage didn't mess together well. The Arrow disc corrects those issues. I have to disagree with some comments about the problematic night car footage with Kirk in the back seat. The darkened Arrow release evened out the footage and grain issues. I just screened THE EXORCIST this evening, and the sections in Karris' Mothers flat in the Bronx had some of the same issues and WB handled those in the same manor. there may be a slight less fine detail in the Arrow release mainly due to the minor sharpening present on the TT release. I'd say the Arrow disc is a definitive release.
It's fine to like the Arrow car scene, but it is completely inaccurate to the way that scene has always looked. Darkening an image that was never meant to look like that, just to hide the pushed film grain is a solution to a problem that wasn't a problem because that's the way the film was shot. Anyone who thinks Mr. Douglas is supposed to be barely discernible never saw this film theatrically.
As I've said, I like the Arrow color better, but aside from the color and the cleanup of the optical printed in dirt, which also has always been there, I'm just not seeing this stunning and definitive difference that some are. But that's what makes horse racing. I don't find minor sharpening on the Twilight Time disc, and I do find less detail in the Arrow, but that's all minor stuff. Where the Arrow clearly excels is the color.
Looks like there has been quite a bit of sharpening:
Very curious; reminds me of the differences between Friedkin's revisionist take on The French Connection and the later 'Signature Series' disc, not with regards to colour but in perceived detail.
Yeah, the grain looks more like digital noise in the TT edition.
I think that relative viewing distance and screen size play a role in the opinions that reviewers have about movies BUT in the end it does not matter for others as it is best anyway to just look at what the person in question has to say about a variety of movies and if you agree with him/her what does it matter if they have a 24" PC monitor or a 20 ft screen?I find myself in disagreement with members who have a front projection system and others may only have a TV and their opinions about picture quality may reflect mine much better and that is what matters if we are trying not to buy everything ourselves and instead take the opinions of others into account.So I suggest to leave equipment out of threads like these - it does not really matter, it is the viewer that matters
Sorry I am afraid it matters a great deal.
If it does matter to you then you are obviously more interested in equipment than the actual discs and I suggest to seek out the sections of this forum where users post about their setup.
That certainly is not the case, I am only interested in a reviewers set up being accurate so as to provide the best possible review of a particular disc, without any anomaly's being introduced by the equipment they are using.
Here's the problem - certain people think equipment "a" is great because they have it. Certain think equipment "b" is great because they have it, or they read about it. I find that few of "a" and "b" know what the films they're watching actually looked like in theaters, certainly in the case of classics. For many of these "a" and "b"s their knowledge of film comes from home video, what they've read on these forums (after which they immediately start using phrases that they've read as if they were their own), and one person's calibration is another's blechhh, why are you set up like that. I see images on display devices, whether projection or whatever, that - wait for it - look just like what I'm seeing, in terms of color and contrast. I've seen the best home projection systems, some of which have been calibrated so oddly that I don't know what I'm looking at but it certainly isn't what the film in question should look like. And I've seen great ones. And I've seen great LED Tvs and the new OLEDs look pretty great to my eyes. In other words, I'm in agreement with OliverK in terms of these discussions. It's an easy attack to begin questioning how people are viewing and a very slippery slope, as the wags say.
I know a couple of reviewers and I know their set-ups and I know that some love their reviews, even though those set-ups would probably not receive high marks. Oh, well.
That shouldn't be the case, there is a standard for calibration, that should mean each display that can meet this standard will display the content correctly, ISF and THX calibrators use this standard, those with meters and software and the skill can also meet this standard.
But what does it help if the person who owns the equipment does not have an eye for example for spotting edge enhancement, blown out contrast or excessive noise reduction or if he is sitting too far away from his display? I am very sure that some of the people wo liked the original Patton disc watched it on an ISF calibrated state of the art display so that does not have any meaning for putting a review/opinion into context for me.While I usually am much more in agreement with people who sit close to a projected image I remember for example somebody on another forum who was watching on a rather small 50" TV that was NOT calibrated and he had an extraordinary eye for spotting edge enhancement and too much tempering with grain structure (to my taste anyway) yet others would say that a disc looked fine to them stating that they watched it on a 100" screen that was ISF calibrated. So the viewer is much more important than the display in times where almost everybody can afford a reasonably sized 1080p TV that enables us to see most issues that can arise with the picture quality of Blu-ray discs.
Very true and I have read reviews from people with very expensive systems that were calibrated by the best industry professionals that I really disagree with, no matter how great their system is.