HTF BluRay Review: The Thing (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

The problem is that things have been erased due to their automatic scratch removal and dustbusting tools, nothing has been done manually, also the removal of film grain has removed fine detail, HD is all about the fine detail, it's unacceptable, i have the HD-DVD edition and its not perfect either, indeed far from perfect but i'll take that over the overly clean and poor blu ray.


Some caps showing the issue below, i'd rate my HD-DVD edition no more than 3/5 and it's better than the blu ray, this film needs to get a new 4K scan from the negative and some love and attention, hopefully it'll happen one day.


It's got nothing to do with how it was shot, they had a controlled environment in L.A. and the cinematography is outstanding on The Thing, it's all about using an older master and not paying for a brand new film scan.


On smaller TV screens the problem isn't as evident, it's when you go projection you see it's poorer.


http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=4146&disc2=4145&cap1=38571&cap2=38557&art=full&image=0&hd_multiID=1708&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

Wow. Just wow. The BR eliminates things such as snowflakes, ping pong balls, rotor blades, pencil erasers, and axe handles, yet some people think that's not undesirable and amounts to a positive change?? And they think changing the look of film is fine? Amazing.

 

[Kevin EK]

I don't know that the BR eliminated the ping pong ball out of the screencap being used as an example. You can see it roughly in the left center of the screen. And I wouldn't trust screencaps anyway for a moving picture.


That said, Universal could do a new 4K scan of the movie as they have done with projects like Spartacus and it would immediately give them a basis for better PQ on the title.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I don't know that the BR eliminated the ping pong ball out of the screencap being used as an example. You can see it roughly in the left center of the screen. And I wouldn't trust screencaps anyway for a moving picture.

It's a blink and you miss it situation since it's a few frames from what is 24 frames per second but nevertheless the blu ray is a downgrade, not an upgrade, from the HD-DVD edition, the film deserves a brand new film scan and some love and attention.

 

[RobertR]

I don't know that the BR eliminated the ping pong ball out of the screencap being used as an example. You can see it roughly in the left center of the screen. And I wouldn't trust screencaps anyway for a moving picture.


That said, Universal could do a new 4K scan of the movie as they have done with projects like Spartacus and it would immediately give them a basis for better PQ on the title.

How could picture elements that are shown to be erased in still frames magically reappear in motion?

 

[Kevin EK]

First, I don't rely on screencaps in any case. No way to know what happened on the way to making the screencap in the first place, and what might have been erased there.


Second, movies are seen in motion. As Malcom just acknowledged, the items are visible - this is potentially a matter of some frames and not all of them.


But more importantly, as I noted before, a new 4K scan would give a stronger basis for better PQ.


We should of course be mindful that not every title in the catalogue is going to get a 4K scan, nor will every title that does wind up with the kind of in-depth attention that a release like Lawrence of Arabia receives.

 

[RobertR]

Are you suggesting that the screen cap erased picture elements that are really there? How is that possible? Such a suggestion makes no sense. As for the "some frames" comment, why is losing elements of the picture even briefly considered "not undesirable"?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Are you suggesting that the screen cap erased picture elements that are really there? How is that possible? Such a suggestion makes no sense. As for the "some frames" comment, why is losing elements of the picture even briefly considered "not undesirable"?

Just to make things clear, I think losing frames because of auto cleanup programs is very undesirable, it may be visible if you have a keen eye, our brains may perceive an issue even if we do not clearly see the problem, it won't be whole scenes, it'll be a few frames to maybe 12 frames per second at most, it's still unwelcome.

You can't erase things when taking a screen cap, impossible to do and furthermore cap-a-holics can be trusted to get it right. The same thing can be seen on The Nightmare Before Christmas blu ray release, the 3D blu ray release didn't have the same issues.

 

[RobertR]

Just to be clear, I was responding to Kevin, not Malcolm.

 

[Kevin EK]

I should also be as clear as I can. I don't believe anyone is saying that it's at all desirable to see a movie where the material is missing pieces of the basic image. That would be akin to watching a movie with intermittent sound. But that's an obvious thing that everyone already agrees about.


I also don't think that Malcolm is seriously proposing that the scans of these movies are somehow missing half of the information (since 12 frames out of 24 per second would constitute half), unless he has actual proof of such a problem. If that proof actually exists, I'd think that the home video people at Universal would really like to get it - I really don't think any of them were intentionally trying to release extremely degraded editions of their movies. That said, there have been multiple times where the earlier Blu-ray releases of various Universal titles would do well if they had a fresh 4K scan and more judicious attention paid to them. But again, this is an obvious thing that everyone agrees about. Where it gets a little stickier is the simple reality that most of these movies will either not get a 4K scan, or won't get the kind of personal care that a release like Lawrence of Arabia received. In an ideal world, every movie would get a first class restoration. Sadly, it's more likely that we'll only see such projects for the really big fish.


But I do need to again point out that screencaps are not a reliable way to make any definitive judgment on what a movie will look like when projected. Movies are meant to be seen in motion, not still images. And any process of doing a screen capture and then putting it up on a website will depend on what software and hardware the person is using to do so. There are always issues of compression, as well as issues of how the image itself was presented - was it taken from a 100" projection screen or a 65" HDTV or just someone's laptop computer? What were the settings on the TV/projector/computer that could have affected the capture in the first place? As opposed to simply putting the disc in your own player and looking at the movie - in motion - and then making a determination if there's a problem or not.


Again, none of this is to defend a substandard transfer - it is meant to clarify what we're discussing. We're all in agreement that we'd like to see the best transfer possible for any movie that is presented on Blu-ray (or in 4K for those people who choose to invest anew in all their equipment). I would personally love to see every movie get the loving attention that was shown to Lawrence, to the Godfather movies, and most recently to My Fair Lady. But I'm also aware that for most movies, the best we can reasonably expect is a good scan and relatively unrestored presentation. I'm good with that, if we're not seeing errors like I spotted with The Sting, for example. If I see problems like that, I'll call them out in my reviews.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I should also be as clear as I can. I don't believe anyone is saying that it's at all desirable to see a movie where the material is missing pieces of the basic image. That would be akin to watching a movie with intermittent sound. But that's an obvious thing that everyone already agrees about.

I also don't think that Malcolm is seriously proposing that the scans of these movies are somehow missing half of the information (since 12 frames out of 24 per second would constitute half), unless he has actual proof of such a problem. If that proof actually exists, I'd think that the home video people at Universal would really like to get it - I really don't think any of them were intentionally trying to release extremely degraded editions of their movies. That said, there have been multiple times where the earlier Blu-ray releases of various Universal titles would do well if they had a fresh 4K scan and more judicious attention paid to them. But again, this is an obvious thing that everyone agrees about. Where it gets a little stickier is the simple reality that most of these movies will either not get a 4K scan, or won't get the kind of personal care that a release like Lawrence of Arabia received. In an ideal world, every movie would get a first class restoration. Sadly, it's more likely that we'll only see such projects for the really big fish.

But I do need to again point out that screencaps are not a reliable way to make any definitive judgment on what a movie will look like when projected. Movies are meant to be seen in motion, not still images. And any process of doing a screen capture and then putting it up on a website will depend on what software and hardware the person is using to do so. There are always issues of compression, as well as issues of how the image itself was presented - was it taken from a 100" projection screen or a 65" HDTV or just someone's laptop computer? What were the settings on the TV/projector/computer that could have affected the capture in the first place? As opposed to simply putting the disc in your own player and looking at the movie - in motion - and then making a determination if there's a problem or not.

Again, none of this is to defend a substandard transfer - it is meant to clarify what we're discussing. We're all in agreement that we'd like to see the best transfer possible for any movie that is presented on Blu-ray (or in 4K for those people who choose to invest anew in all their equipment). I would personally love to see every movie get the loving attention that was shown to Lawrence, to the Godfather movies, and most recently to My Fair Lady. But I'm also aware that for most movies, the best we can reasonably expect is a good scan and relatively unrestored presentation. I'm good with that, if we're not seeing errors like I spotted with The Sting, for example. If I see problems like that, I'll call them out in my reviews.

When I mention 12 frames, I'm not suggesting the entire film, of course not, I am saying it's possible with auto scratch removal to remove half a second of one object, very possible.

Regarding screen caps, they are taken from a computer, direct from the digital file, there is no compression, it starts life as a PNG lossless file, if you convert to 100% JPG you will still be able to view at any screen size without noticing compression artifacts, unless they are in the source.

Screen caps are reliable for detecting issues like this, less reliable for colour issues because I think most people do not view on calibrated computer monitors, I do.

The Thing has more than earned a new 4K scan, it's sold well on every home format over the years and made Universal money, it deserves a new transfer.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The Thing definitely needs a new transfer, and could look amazing in 4K.

 

[Kevin EK]

I'm not sure than anyone can vouch for all screencaps, even for all screencaps at any one given website - unless they're actually the ones creating the screencaps. I normally don't trust something that I don't have in hand - the actual copy of the Blu-ray as opposed to someone else's screengrab. There are just too many variables and not everyone is as careful or thorough as Malcolm in compiling this kind of information. I also wouldn't rely on a computer monitor, however well calibrated. I'd rather go with either a large screen plasma or a very large projection, simply because this is the mode in which the movie is meant to be seen. (I realize that people can find issues in isolated screencaps, but it's common practice on shows I've worked over the past several years to not worry about that too deeply. The usual comment when we get bogged down in a continuity issue that isn't really informing the story is 'We'll let the people on the internet catch it.')


I agree that it would be great to see The Thing get a 4K transfer. I'd be happy to see it, particularly as it would reveal more of Rob Bottin's grotesque wonder. But I don't know that Universal is planning on doing 4K transfers of that many catalogue titles. We'll have to see what really happens with the 4K players and HDTVs and if there truly is enough of a demand for them to do so. As Paramount has shown us, just because a title has sold well on disc doesn't mean the studio will make a new transfer. Like the Star Trek movies, Universal could simply re-release the existing transfer again and thus not need to spend anything further to generate more income.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I'm not sure than anyone can vouch for all screencaps, even for all screencaps at any one given website - unless they're actually the ones creating the screencaps. I normally don't trust something that I don't have in hand - the actual copy of the Blu-ray as opposed to someone else's screengrab. There are just too many variables and not everyone is as careful or thorough as Malcolm in compiling this kind of information. I also wouldn't rely on a computer monitor, however well calibrated. I'd rather go with either a large screen plasma or a very large projection, simply because this is the mode in which the movie is meant to be seen. (I realize that people can find issues in isolated screencaps, but it's common practice on shows I've worked over the past several years to not worry about that too deeply. The usual comment when we get bogged down in a continuity issue that isn't really informing the story is 'We'll let the people on the internet catch it.')

I agree that it would be great to see The Thing get a 4K transfer. I'd be happy to see it, particularly as it would reveal more of Rob Bottin's grotesque wonder. But I don't know that Universal is planning on doing 4K transfers of that many catalogue titles. We'll have to see what really happens with the 4K players and HDTVs and if there truly is enough of a demand for them to do so. As Paramount has shown us, just because a title has sold well on disc doesn't mean the studio will make a new transfer. Like the Star Trek movies, Universal could simply re-release the existing transfer again and thus not need to spend anything further to generate more income.

I agree with you regarding a good plasma or via projection, I have often looked at caps on these screens. I usually edit the quotes but I'm using an iPad my sister gave me for my birthday and still getting used to it.

 

[TravisR]

On Facebook, Scream Factory said that they are re-releasing The Thing. It'll be a 2 discer and it's tentatively set for September.

 

[Dr Griffin]

Since Scream is doing this, what are the chances this will have a new scan and remaster?

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I certainly hope so. I love this movie, but the only way I'd upgrade from the HD DVD is if a new scan was done.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Since Scream is doing this, what are the chances this will have a new scan and remaster?

Army of Darkness got a new scan.