A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

Hi, sorry I am not talking about any grain or not being a Blu ray disc. What I am saying is that the recording definition or sharpness is exactly the same as my previous DVD and DVD superbit if not even worse in some frames. Have you actually got this film on normal dvd?? Double check it and see if what I am saying makes sense.This BR movie is the standard version of dracula film in a BR disc, may be only colour corrected improved. I do also not understand people that at all costs want grain in any film. That is usually a sign of a bad master or usually are grained on purpose for special effect. Darker scenes in a dark environment are more susceptible of grain because it was surely shot with a higher ISO film and usually is got nothing to do with special effect but with a bad film master. Have you used a 50iso v 800iso camera film. look at the difference about grain. I was wondering if possibly your American version is a real HD Dracula film but Idoubt about it. What would be the purpose of it??
Regards Nicole

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

nickcole63. You keep saying the resolution is exactly the same as your DVD. That simply isn't true. Does Dracula on BD look as good as Pirates of the Caribbean or Spider-man 3? No. Is it a significant upgrade from the DVD in High Definition? Definitely. If you can't see it the difference -- and clearly you cannot -- perhaps it's best if you sell it off and get something perhaps a little more modern that doesn't use the same type of film stock, filters or other things that have maligned this particular film for you personally.

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

Hi, this is the film that I like, why I should buy something else? I can definitely see HQ definition and sharpness on all the BR and HD DVD that I seen without any need to make any comparisons against a SQ DVD version. As I explained already is got nothing to do with any special effect at all and I am not discussing them in any way, but I am sure that they cannot call special effect a SQ definition transfer in a Blu Ray disc. I am actually starting to think that our European version is an SQ transfer and your is not. Will soon buy an American version and let everybody know.
Anyway, is there anyone that thinks that the American transfer is also of a SQ DVD transfer and not an HD Blu Ray transfer on a Blu Ray disc??
Regards Nicole

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

The american version of Dracula is not a great deal sharper or more detailed in many scenes, and it can be quite stunning in others.

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

Hi, I am sure is going to be the same but I want to try an American copy which in case I can always sell. Anyway even so I made some good testings here and there, I have not watched this version in full yet. Will let you know, hoping that it will not let me down completely for the new look and PCM sound. At the end of the day I can see that there are many satisfied customers. I believe this version come out in UK in december, so who knows, they might have used a different transfer than yours.
Regards Nicole

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

So much of what has been said, especially toward the end of this thread, not to mention hundreds of others...cause me to fear that hi-def software is doomed to fail, or at best remain strictly niche.

I'm guessing that 80% of the public just won't "get it". The great majority of people aren't very articulate, at least with issues that aren't survival oriented. In short, the extra boost in quality simply doesn't matter to most people. When they're hungry, fast food will do.

I think that the studios, and everybody else involved with bringing high-def into the home, have misjudged. The format war hasn't helped matters, but the underlying issue is, that most people simply don't care.

A good illustration is my wife. I get all excited about the audio quality of a classic work on SACD, and she just shrugs. Doesn't get it, doesn't care. She isn't stupid, far from it. But in such matters, she is inarticulate, and I fear that is a common issue among the general public, that will cause the adoption of hi-def for the home, to go bust.

If it succeeds, it will take a very long time to filter through public sensibilities. A slightly different issue, ironically, will be the broadcast or cable transmission of things such as sporting events. That will carry over more successfully. But, in general...movies...and having to pay for them? My confidence level is very low, and it disappoints me to say so.

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

Maybe it would've paid for the industry to wait until larger HD displays became more prevalent before rolling out the new media; that would've given the average consumer more of a chance to see the limits of upscaled SD in comparison to the full 1080p signals that can be observed over-the-air. Consumers are thrown by too many roll-outs at once...and the confusion of swapping out the old sets and seeing--often for the first time--what upscaled dvd looks like (often damned good)... Well, I can see why many aren't biting yet.

And it may be all about the larger displays (we're talking the massive ones). I'm still exclusively SD at this point, and with a solid, 36 inch standard def set that features and "enhanced for 16 by 9" mode, I've often reflected how--at this scale--the benefits of HD would be negligible; I get an incredibly film-like image, can spot grain on occasion in the best transfers. More picture information would offer barely perceptible gains for me.

Again, people are just going to need more time to see the limits of SD, upscaled media on their whompin', big new screens before they get a jones to see resolution that brings 'em closer to what film can offer. Otherwise... Smallers sets, especially with 16 by 9 enhancement? Forget about it.


--Jack

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

On my 38" CRT, there's a stark difference between SD and HDTV material. And grain renders itself larger in SD (due to being caught between pixels) than HDTV (provided it hasn't been filtered out), so it often looks better in HD.

One thing that should be noticeable to everyone is the superiority color rendition in HD. It was the first things my friends noticed when I popped in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film. Then again, now that people get inferior color from plasma screens and the like perhaps they can't appreciate it.

I think ignorance leads a lot of people to prefer upscaling alogrithms though. They see a clean image, that is technically 1080 lines, but lacks detail (seeing as how there are only 480 lines of information that have basically been doubled), and they see that as "good." When you put the detail back in with HD and people no longer see plastic-y looking images they're turned off. Unfortunately I think most people would prefer their HD to look like 90's CGI.

HD is hardly going nowhere or has failed. How can someone deem it a failure when the format war is just now ending? Player sales have taken off for Blu-ray since the WB announcement. Screens are getting bigger every year. People toss perfectly good sets just to get bigger ones. HD media will be huge by next Christmas. I barely run my DVD player now thanks to Blu-ray and Fios HDTV.

But why is this discussion going on in the Dracula thread?

Re: A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD

Great point. SD--by stripping out detail--might seem to refine an image, remove the "warts and all" effect of Hi Def that's disconcerting to some. Maybe a flatter, cartoonier look seems more digitally pristine, since the limitations of the source medium are somewhat disguised. It'd be interesting to see how dvd mastered from VHS would play for people with such a preference.


--Jack

Very interesting thread. I'm trying to figure out a difference in color with the new BD release of "Do the Right Thing" vs. the older DVD. But there doesn't seem to be any inside information in that case and thread. It's unfortunate we consumers are left to question and wonder. "Trust the art, not the artist"....But we don't have access to the OAP.....

One thing that I may have missed in this thread, is the following. I quote Mr. Harris:



And everything Mr. Harris said so far makes sense, except if the above were true, then how come the new DVD (which was issued alongside the BD release) has the same colors as the BD? If it was a limitation of the medium, then this DVD should look like the old, no? Some please explain this to me, because it makes zero sense.

OR, is it really the case that both the new DVD and BD are from the OAP, which was never before used correctly for some *other* reason? If so, what was that reason? It can't be a "limitation of the medium". Something fishy is going on. It's not right to the consumer who's spending money on these products to be kept in the dark.

I believe he is referring to the earlier analog laserdisc version of Dracula. It seems to have been the reference point for later DVD incarnation.

Doug

So the idea is that they tried to do a "true to the answer print" transfer for all previous video disc releases, but until the latest DVD and BD, they just couldn't (or didn't for some reason)? I guess it makes sense. The only other thing that I don't get is the color changes. I can understand wanting to make it brighter on older releases, but certainly the NTSC system could produce correct green, blue, and grays. So it could have been lighter with more shadow detail, but still have the same colors as the answer print,no? This last part is what confuses me. And it seems to be the same case on "Do the Right Thing" - the over-the-top warm color I remember seeing in the theater and video disc relases, is now a lot more toned down. But in this case, nobody has said anything, though the difference is there. Stuff like this can drive a fan up the wall - which is the right one?

Blu-ray (IE HDTV) is capable of reproducing a much wider range of colors with much greater accuracy than the old NTSC system. There is a joke among people who prepare films for broadcast. They claim that NTSC stands for Never The Same Color twice.

So yes it is possible that the older video versions of Dracula (and Do The Right Thing) were just not able to represent the colors on the film correctly. As a result the people who prepared those versions had to make compromises on color reproduction. It’s also possible that those that did the old analog transfers for home video, just didn't care all that much, and those sources have been the unfortunate reference ever sense.

Doug

Well, as I said in my first post, I know NTSC/BT.601 can produce those colors we see now, since we have the new NTSC DVD along the BD/BT.709. And it looks similar to the BD and different from past DVDs/Laserdisc/VHS/etc. So I still can't see how it's a "limitation of the medium" to be quite honest. I just can't understand that - not with a new NTSC DVD that matches the HD BD and not the old DVDs/Laserdisc/VHS. So it's hard to buy that argument for that reason. It's not like all of the sudden we have these NTSC TVs that magically have correct color decoders in them so that the limitation is mitigated. I know about the inconsistent NTSC color decoding, but with correct ISF calibration, colors are mostly fine. I certainly have a ton of NTSC discs that have a ton of colors (i.e. the films are more colorful than BSD), and they look correct. So the medium was fine IMO for a good/correct BSD transfer at the time as well.

So then there is the option I mentioned above - the OAP wasn't used for a transfer reference until these DVD/BD releases. And before that, as you say, perhaps nobody cared enough and used whatever. But then would Criterion fall under that category with the FFC approved Laserdisc? Even if "FFC approved" is marketing fluff? I just don't see Criterion not caring enough to get a good/correct IP to base the transfer off of. Unless someone kept it from them for, again, whatever reason. Surely the OAP looked better 10 years ago than now. It's not like it could have been in worse condition. So in my mind two things are possible:

1. The OAP was not used as a reference until now for whatever reason (and "limitation of the medium" not being one of them since it's on that medium today). So what is the reason? And what WAS used, especially for the Criterion release?

2. What some are saying - that this version is "revisionistic".

Personally I'd like to think it's #1. But I can't buy/understand "limitation of the medium" for all I've said above. So then it's sad to think that nobody cared, "FFC approved" means more than nothing, people aren't getting ripped off, etc. You know what I mean? This is IF #1 is indeed the correct answer.

Incidentally, the same thing is happening with "Do the Right Thing". The 2001 Criterion DVD had that hot temp/color that most people remember seeing, myself included. The new BD, doesn't. So is this possibly another case of Criterion getting another bad IP and not being faithful to the AOP? It's just real hard to believe that. It's easier to believe that someone at Universal didn't care or made a mistake. And it's to costly to say anything about it. Different story, but same type of thing r.e. the Criterion releases.

Bogdan

Again we are talking about not just the limitations of analog NTSC, (and again we are talking about the difference between an analog version of a movie and a digital version) but also the equipment used convert the film to a video format. The first director approved version of Dracula was an analog scan on an analog delivery system, IE laserdisc. This seems to have been the reference for color ever sense.

The quality and accuracy of film scanners has improved drastically just in the last 10 years or so. Even an HD scan from early 2000 is sometimes now considered sub standard today, and films are being rescanned on new equipment.

I think it is also enough to take someone with the background of Robert Harris at his word when he says this level of color accuracy just wasn't possible before.

Doug

I suppose I perhaps misunderstood "limitation of the medium" to mean the DVD medium itself. But I get it now. It's actually the mastering process itself that was limited and is now much improved. Improved to the point that we can finally get an accurate representation of what was on the OAP on DVD or BD. At least as close as we can being that film is not a digital medium anyhow. But close enough.

So thanks for the replies. It makes sense now, and I certainly have a lot of respect for and appreciate Mr. Harris' input. Sometimes, I can get lost in the language.

BSD aside, it seems that this can be the case for many new film transfers. And in many cases (i.e. "Do the Right Thing"), the new BD releases may indeed be the closest representation of the film. But of course it can at times be a "shock" to people who are used to the film looking a certain way for SO many years. It's naturally hard to accept something new. With inside information (like in this case on this BSD release), it's easier to accept. But in many cases we as consumers simply don't have any such inside information. And in that case, should we ALWAYS trust that the new BD is the correct look? How do we know what is correct and what isn't? It can be a tricky thing.

Nevertheless, this thread has provided a lot of useful information, and to be honest it's one of the best so far.

Yes DVD being digital, and having the ability to use component or even now digital connections to the display device is surely a better representation of the original source than analog laserdisc or VHS before it. However it is still in the NTSC (at least in countries that use that format) domain and there for subject to the flaws inherent in that system. I suspect that while Dracula may look to be fairly close to the blu-ray version, it likely had to be constrained in some ways to make it work on DVD. At the very least there was likely a bit of grain reduction for the DVD version.

If you look just at DVD releases alone, you'll find that a movie that came out on DVD at the start of the format may have a later release and the film looks stunningly better. There can be many reasons for this. Better scanning equipment, techs learning to work with in the system and getting better results, having access to better film elements for the later scans, etc.

An early video version of a film is never a good reference point for accurate color representation. But people get so used to seeing the film on a flawed video format, and they think that is the way it is supposed to look. The word is clear on Dracula, that it now accurately represents the original answer print approved by FFC on the films original theatrical release.

I haven't commented on Do The Right Thing because I haven't seen that film.

Doug

Understood, and it's unfortunate that even the 2001 Superbit version of the DVD of BSD had the wrong colors and was based on an old look. Was the technology there in 2001 as it was in 2007? Perhaps, but it wasn't used for whatever reason. Anyway, it doesn't matter now.

Now I understand that new releases improve, but how to we know when a new release is correct and when there may be an error or revision? We don't. We simply can't most times. We must trust what little we are told - if we are told anything at all. We are lucky to know so much about BSD from the likes of RAH, but for most titles, we as consumers don't have a clue. We either trust our visual memories or the studios. And can we say that either is reliable? No. That's my point. And this is the base with "Do the Right Thing". Since there is a clear difference, and nobody has said anything (studio or director, etc.), then we are left to wonder and guess.

For that matter how do you know if the release print you see in the local multi-plex matches the answer print approved by the director? The answer is you don’t, and if you don’t live in a big city like New York or LA, it probably doesn’t exactly match.

 

The best release prints are saved for the major markets. Smaller markets get prints that are sometimes not up to snuff. So what many people see in the theater would probably make the director cringe.

 

The only way to tell if it is an accurate representation, is to compare it with the answer print, and only a hand full of people get to see that. You just have to trust that the people who are producing these home video products are doing their best, and getting it right. I’d say that more often than not they do get it right.

 

Doug