Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: A Clockwork Orange (1 Viewer)

[Kevin EK]

Blu-ray Disc/DVD REVIEW

 

[Danny_N]

The transfer on the BD is excellent. Saying that it is hardly better than the standard DVD is simply nonsense. I've seen Clockwork several times on 35mm and I assure that this is close to how the film is supposed to look.

 

[Kevin EK]

Danny, I respectfully disagree. Remember that I did not say it was a bad transfer - but the fact that other high definition period releases like The Dirty Dozen and Enter the Dragon show greater definition cannot be denied. And I was as surprised as anyone about it.

 

[ErichH]

Kevin - thanks for the review. I never compare a film this old to anything but it's own previous release. I'm very pleased with the new Kubrick BDs.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

That does not mean much. The transfer can not show more detail than the film master used. Relevant is if the film was shot soft or not.

 

[Kevin EK]

You're absolutely right about what the transfer can show. And I believe some diffusion was used during the shooting of A Clockwork Orange. But it is still startling to me that the film master is that soft on the details. On a standard definition transfer, this wouldn't show up as much. But when you get to 1080p, it is quite noticeable. And it is hard to believe that the other films have better quality masters than Kubrick's work.

 

[Michael Osadciw]

probably the resolution limitations of the film stock used. can't squeeze much more out of anything that isn't there to start with.

 

[David Wilkins]

My, oh my...will the tripe never cease?

It simply isn't very much fun, tuning in to HD forums. I started with forums (this one), back in the SD days. That was fun, entertaining and informative.

The format war won't kill high-def software, but much of the tripe over "PQ" and "AQ", certainly will. If this much torrid disagreement exists among home theater types, how in the hell will the general public ever embrace it? One need only look back over the past few weeks...the "Elizabeth" issue that yammered on and on, for a month. The "Bram Stoker's Dracula" issues, that clammered on for even longer. And all the yammering seems very seldom based on real knowledge.

Between this, and all the 16 year old gamers (sometimes referred to as "resolution whores") who've come our way via the PS3 and Xbox...well, what can I say? It's all very verbose, very tiring, and not much fun. I almost want to groan whenever an "older" title is released, which, more and more, can mean a title that's a mere six or seven years old. If all of this is due, as is so often indicated, to a person with an improperly calibrated system...what hope in hell does high-def software, and its presentation, have of succeeding?

For my money, one of only four or five people worth listening to, is Robert Harris. I'm enjoying the hell out of high-def, but I can't say that ANY of the related forums are fun anymore.

Okay...now everybody can start kicking my ass.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Also relevant is shooting format. Clockwork Orange was shot flat, while Dirty Dozen and Enter the Dragon were shot scope. More of the frame is used for scope presentations and they are therefore inherently sharper, which reinforces the point made by Michel: a transfer cannot show more detail than is present in the element.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the modern multiplex. Release prints for flat films, unless properly done, are soft to the point of wondering if the focus puller was doing his job. Conversely, scope prints are sharp as a tack unless some sort of diffusion is applied in the shooting process.

In case you were wondering, this comes from personal experience as a projectionist @ a multiplex. 14 screens, and flat prints invariably looked like garbage, with exceptions being those that were shot properly (Van Helsing, The Village) and those that originated from digital elements (Sin City).

 

[JonZ]

I agree we should be a bit more forgiving,especially of older films.

I was VERY happy with Superman for example, while people at AVS were saying the disc was shit. My agreement with Daves comments were more along the lines of the bickering going on.


Sorry if that was unclear.

 

[Kevin EK]

I'm not really sure how to respond, so I'll simply apologize if I have offended anyone with my writing here, in any of my reviews. I have tried, and will continue to try, to be fair and accurate in my work. I am certainly not an expert on video equipment or on digital remastering. Nor am I an experienced projectionist or color timer. But I do have approximately 13 years production experience - mostly in television - working with on shows that use 35mm cameras and with others that use high definition equipment. And I do have a proper 1080p set and a 5.1 sound system that makes it possible for me to do these reviews.

I certainly don't think of myself anywhere near the expertise of someone like Robert Harris. I will say that when I reviewed the Dreamgirls Blu-ray disc, I was very happy to see that he agreed that the picture quality was outstanding. It's a very nice feeling to have your work validated by someone who really is an expert in their field. (I continue to use that disc as a demo for people who have never seen high definition video before).

The television I am viewing these discs on is a 40" Sony XBR2, which displays full 1080p imagery. I was careful to calibrate the image per the manual before trying to view any DVDs on it. And I pay close attention to the imagery and sound - at least as much as a non-expert can.

So I feel I am contributing something worthwhile for the readers here, and I will continue to do so.

But I admit it's a little hard to read the opinion that my writing is "tripe". I don't think I've quite earned that. We can certainly disagree on the merits of different transfers without that kind of thing.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Thanks for the review, Kevin.

I'm working on my review for the SD boxset and have also seen the Blu-Ray versions of the films on my 720p LCD projector. A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut do not provide the revelatory upgrade in image detail that one may expect based on other standard definition to high definition comparisons they may have seen. The visible improvements have more to do with the absence of light digital video noise and a subtle improvement in color depth than any increase in detail. This is a function of how they were shot and, I suspect, some light de-graining in the video domain.

The improvements in detail in "2001:ASO" and "The Shining" are more noticeable than the other films, but still more subtle than I expected. I suspect that the latter two would be even more striking at 1080p.

Regards,

 

[Jari K]

While I haven´t seen my Blu-ray copy of "A Clockwork Orange" yet (can´t really comment on that), I agree with Jon (and others).

Some HD-releases from the "older films" doesn´t look as good as "Transformers" (the holy grail! ), but they still look great (well, at least "good enough") in their own right. There are some sites that give lower mark for the transfer, just because they don´t "like the look" of the film, even when it´s a bit murky, grainy or something to begin with..

 

[PatWahlquist]

You're considering Transformers a "holy grail" of video quality? Not trying to pick a fight, I just wanted to clarify that.

I would say the new HD discs of 2001 and Viva Las Vegas meet or exceed the quality of Transformers, and these pictures are 30+ years old. I may be biasing that just a bit since I think it's harder to get an older picture to look as good as a modern one simply due to the age and equipment it was originally shot on.

I'm hoping to get the HD-DVD of ACO to review this week.

 

[RolandL]

The Dirty Dozen was filmed flat 35mm, masked at 1.85:1. The 70mm print was also 1.85:1 - http://www.movieusenet.com/archive/index-t-24746.html

 

[Jari K]

That was just irony, hence the .. But that comment has been said in the forums...

I fully agree with you. There are several (other) releases with great quality in both camps. New and old.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I stand corrected, but my comments on flat vs. scope still apply.

 

[Danny_N]

To please the general public we're probably going to get a lot of super sharp, grainless, modern action movies. PQ 5 stars guaranteed from the average reviewer.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Why are we comparing apples and Clockwork Oranges? I think it looked splendid, and Kubrick's extensive use of a very wide lens - with its signature deep focus, distortions and softness - was very well represented in HD. Best I've ever seen ACO.

My HD-DVD copy froze around 54-55 minutes in, when Alex is in the prison library. Anyone else have this happen?

 

[David Wilkins]

Kevin,

It is I who owe you an apology. My intention wasn't as severe as calling your writng "tripe".

I have a bad habit of collecting frustration over a long period of time, regarding any particular issue, then flaring up during one example that catches me at a bad moment. This particular issue has been growing for many months, and has more to do with cumulative effect than with your one example. You just happened to be a "lucky" recipient.

Frustration has been growing after hearing so many of what "I" consider inaccurate or misguided statements regarding the video quality of many high-def titles. Again, the emphasis on "my" opinion, and there's nothing sacred about it.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder, after reading so many hundreds of opinions, what on earth a particular person is looking for, or indeed if they even know what to expect from a given title. I think that far too many reviewers are rendering an absolute grade, in other words, publishing an opinion based on their judging, for example, 'Transformers' vs 'A Clockwork Orange', and it just isn't fair. I'm not saying that you're guilty of such, but it's the kind of thing that led to my outburst. Your's was just another straw.

With the instant and widespread power of the internet, I do feel that too many inaccutate opinions are more than capable of damaging acceptance of the format. It's one more hurdle we don't need. If large numbers of high-def-curious people are hearing that "it's no better than SD", and they hear it over and over again...well...those things sink in. Hell, I've found myself responding to such chatter about a given title, without quickly realizing it. How many posters on this forum have stated that they cancelled their order for a given title, just because of such input? And these are home-theater people.

There is a cumulative and corrosive effect of too many inaccurate opinions. The more "official" the opinion, the greater the effect. Perhaps online reviewers of merit, should begin the review of an "older" title, with a brief explanation of various production factors and artistic decisions made when the film was first released. And reviews should be made solely on the basis of the original material, not on how much "pop" it will have when compared to "a Tansformers".

Come to think of it, I've really started to hate the word "pop".

I think we're in for a much longer learning curve than was needed to drive home OAR, but it's just as integral a part of the product.