American Graffiti Blu-ray DNR issues? (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Mark-P
Kevin, while I am certainly dubious about the slanderous title of this thread from a poster who has not even yet viewed the Blu-ray, I do agree that 10 feet is much too far away from a 40-inch screen. That's a distance of about 3.5 screen-widths, where the recommendation is that you sit 1.6 screen-widths away for a proper theatrical experience. I also sit 10 feet away, but my 2.35:1 contant-image-height screen is 105 inches wide. I look forward to owning AG on Blu-ray as I'm sure it will look very good projected large. I'm just waiting for the price to drop to $15 or less.

Slanderous. Hah. You've already made up your mind it's going to look great. Based on absolutely nothing.

 

[TravisR]

I have no problem saying that this disc could be "terrible" and "garbage" and Kevin EK's review of the disc could be wrong. However, he's the one person posting in this thread has seen the disc. I'm going to trust him over someone who has based their entire opinion on screencaps. Especially when that person seems to like arguing and enjoys having a generally unpleasant attitude towards anyone who dares disagree with his opinion.

 

[Robert Crawford]

For the second time, I'm asking posters to calm down. There is simply no need to be argumentative to such a point that any worthwhile discussion becomes unattainable in this thread.







Crawdaddy

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK
I watched the Blu of American Grafitti last night, going back and forth with Lucas' new video commentary.
I'll have a review up by this weekend.
I'm always amazed by how moving this film is - there are moments of deep emotion that go pretty far beyond anything Lucas did anywhere else in his career.

This is not a bad transfer. I'm seeing plenty of grain here, and a wide range of color. I noticed some edge enhancement but nothing that took me out of the movie.
In his commentary, Lucas mentions the use of Techniscope and acknowledges that this was a low budget way of getting the widescreen look he wanted, similar to the way that Sergio Leone shot his spaghetti westerns. Lucas also mentions that he was having major focus issues and that he had Haskell Wexler trying to get the light levels up to allow a better depth of field.

I tracked down a copy of the disc. While I haven't had time watch the entire film I watched enough of it to agree with Kevin. There is plenty of grain, and as Kevin mentioned some edge enhancement. While I'm not happy about the EE, I have seen a lot worse. While not a perfect outing from Universal due to the EE, it is not a bad transfer. This is another BTTF where screen shots were over analyzed.

For the record I was watching on a Samsung SPA-800B 1080P projector calibrated by Kevin Collins (ISF/THX) with an assist from Joe Kane on a 120"+ screen.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

I am aware of three people who have seen the film Kevin, myself and a review posted on another site. All of us seem to agree that while not perfect it is NOT garbage, so I am going to rename the thread to something a little less inflammatory.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well done, Adam - thanks.

And Kevin -- your observations here were very informative, thanks.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich
I tracked down a copy of the disc. While I haven't had time watch the entire film I watched enough of it to agree with Kevin. There is plenty of grain, and as Kevin mentioned some edge enhancement. While I'm not happy about the EE, I have seen a lot worse. While not a perfect outing from Universal due to the EE, it is not a bad transfer. This is another BTTF where screen shots were over analyzed.

For the record I was watching on a Samsung SPA-800B 1080P projector calibrated by Kevin Collins (ISF/THX) with an assist from Joe Kane on a 120"+ screen.

I'd like to know what in your opinion qualifies as a bad transfer. Worse than DVD?

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich
I tracked down a copy of the disc. While I haven't had time watch the entire film I watched enough of it to agree with Kevin. There is plenty of grain, and as Kevin mentioned some edge enhancement. While I'm not happy about the EE, I have seen a lot worse. While not a perfect outing from Universal due to the EE, it is not a bad transfer. This is another BTTF where screen shots were over analyzed.

For the record I was watching on a Samsung SPA-800B 1080P projector calibrated by Kevin Collins (ISF/THX) with an assist from Joe Kane on a 120"+ screen.

Why would there be edge enhancement present? Is EE used to such an extent for a 1080p Blu-ray release by ANY competent professionals?

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Jarod M
Why would there be edge enhancement present? Is EE used to such an extent for a 1080p Blu-ray release by ANY competent professionals?

Or DNR tools that make grain look like a stained-glass window?

 

[Professor Echo]

Adam, I'm curious if you would have thought changing the thread title necessary if Scott had added the qualifier "IMO." I hope not.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo
Adam, I'm curious if you would have thought changing the thread title necessary if Scott had added the qualifier "IMO." I hope not.

No, I wouldn't have.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Jarod M
Why would there be edge enhancement present? Is EE used to such an extent for a 1080p Blu-ray release by ANY competent professionals?

There shouldn't be, and I'm sure that video portion of Kevin's review will take that into account.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
I'd like to know what in your opinion qualifies as a bad transfer. Worse than DVD?

Spartacus and Patton for DNR, Tremors for EE.

You feel this is a bad transfer, in fact you called it garbage Scott. That's your opinion, and you are 100% entitled to it, I'm not trying to change your mind. I and two reviewers who have actually seen it happen to disagree with you, in fact I know of no one who has actually seen it who shares your opinion. We have actually watched it and reached our own conclusions based on that. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

 

[Tino]

I will Adam. Thanks.

 

[mgdvd0]

no membership required in joining bluray.com

 

[AnthonyP]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
American Gaffiti should have been a new scanity 4K transfer. What would the cost have been for the scan and subsequent digital color work after shopping around? $10,000? $40,000? $400,000? At least then they would have archival preservation data they could use in perpetuity. Hell for all I know Universal owns one.

This is the part that I continue not to understand. I've read the figure of $20,000-$50,000, from trusted informed sources, being the total cost to create a new transfer (I didn't ask whether that would be 2k or 4k.. after the initial cost of the equipment, is it more expensive per transfer 2k v 4k?) to encoding for Blu-ray as long as the film doesn't need restoration or additional work.

A number of releases are suffering largely due to using outdated masters. Why is that additional cost, that the studios need to undertake eventually in order archive them properly and have access to in order to re-sell via the various outlets in the future anyway, not being done at this time?

 

[Brandon Conway]

Because the accounting departments usually need to see an immediate return on investment.

 

[robbbb1138]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
Because the accounting departments usually need to see an immediate return on investment.

At that dollar figure though, it would only take about 1-2 weeks to recover the new scan costs on a title that has a decent-sized following.

 

[compson]

Because the accounting departments usually need to see an immediate return on investment.

Accounting departments don't determine what products are brought out. The people who do at Universal are going to offer The Incredible Shrinking Man on Blu-ray. I can't believe they'll make much money on that.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Accounting departments don't determine what products are brought out. The people who do at Universal are going to offer The Incredible Shrinking Man on Blu-ray. I can't believe they'll make much money on that.

The studios are run by committee now and decisions are made by a group with input from marketing to accounting with detailed financial analysis to support their decisions. The studio might be using an old HD transfer from 5-6 years ago for this BR release when that title was released on DVD in a boxset back in 2006. By the way, that's an unconfirmed rumor about a BR release.