| Nice... Thanks for the wisecrack. |
|
Originally Posted by Jim_K
Not a problem.....thanks for the
|
|
Originally Posted by Jim_K
Dunno, I just can't get all worked up over jpeg screengrabs, digital camera still shots of paused displays
or the usual chorus of noise from a bunch of AVS screengrab worshipers who haven't even sampled the disc themselves. Sorry if this comes across as snarky but basing ones final judgment on a still-shot posted by someone else on an internet messageboard seems a bit idiotic to me. |
|
Originally Posted by Dave H
Screenshots maybe not perfect, but so far many of them have correctly identified the more notorius DNR releases.
If it walks like a duck...talks like a duck... |
| I can't argue anymore |
"Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted." -Krysta Now
|
Originally Posted by Jim_K
Jesus Harry Christ O'Mighty! I can't argue anymore with someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "accurate".
|
You haven't said a single thing to disprove the usefulness of screen grabs. |
| Sure screengrabs can point out flaws like the "cropped" EE example on page 3. |
|
Originally Posted by Will_B
I was surprised the digital broadcast version was open matte (but still widescreen). I wonder if the special effects scenes were also made that way.
|
Death to PG-13! And now death to DVNR too!!
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
What's missing is detail that was in the film source, detail that people KNOW to be there from watching the film (including myself), and that Blu Ray is KNOWN to be capable of showing. Not only is it capable of showing it, PROPER transfers DO show it. No matter how much you try to say "I can't tell anything from screen grabs", examples have been shown where the difference is quite noticeable to many people (if not to you). The goal, which is easily reachable and HAS been reached, is for the transfer to look like FILM.
|
|
Originally Posted by Kris Z.
There are some of us who do care, do have the setup, and do have the knowledge and eye to see the difference between a good and a manipulated transfer. No doubt there's some bandwagon-jumping going on, but frankly I don't see how it's a bad thing, the more exposure this gets the better.
|
| When's the last time you saw the film in the cinema? What was the set up? |
| As far as Blu being bille as offering perfection, and expecting a true experiance you get from a print, I kinda doubt you'll ever see that without a 35mm projector, regardless of what the media is capable of. It's always going to be a digital copy of a analog film. Could be close, but perfectly exact? |
| why don't we wait until at least one of the handful of reputable reviewers turn in a report on this title. Even better, would after it's available for the rest of us to look at, on our home system, via rental or purchase. |
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
The fact that Blu-Ray cannot exactly match the look of 35 mm film is irrelevant to the issue of excessive DNR (and EE). The issue is that their excessive use by morons who think that such digital manipulation is "good" takes the look much farther from the look of film than Blu-ray is capable of and HAS achieved.
|
|
Originally Posted by Cassy_w
Where is the controversy? New Line uses DVNR. They have for a long time. We knew this was a possibility and now we know it has happened.
The surprise here is that they used a very old transfer (must be ten years by now) and spliced in the new stuff. |
"Scientists are saying the future is going to be far more futuristic than they originally predicted." -Krysta Now
|
Originally Posted by Dave H
Definitely.
I'm not sure why some of us keep apologizing or rationalizing for studio mistakes. Maybe to feel better about the purchase? Either way, I think it's important to stay objective. |
| This all sounds like "The Searchers" all over again, when the UC version came out, and everyone grabbed their pitch forks and torches because the colour timing was off, until a industry professional ( I think Robert Harris) interviewed the fellow responsible and it was discovered that the colours were correct for the first time in home video history |
| sorry if I don't put a lot of weight in to detail missing from a viewing remembered 6 years ago. |
| Seems like there's supposed to be a bramoter of fandom, where if a transfer is "good enough", then your not really a film fan. |
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
Do you put weight in what Robert Harris says, when he says it doesn't look like film? Or do you think he doesn't know what films should look like?
|
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
RobertR, you say you saw a 70mm blowup of Dark City about 6 years ago at the Samuel Goldwyn theatre? Given that 70mm blowups haven't been produced for some time, and that there's no indication anywhere on the various 70mm sites that a blowup of Dark City was ever produced, I find that difficult to believe. Dark City was also a Super35 production and as such would have looked like shite in 70mm, with the graininess of the Super35 origins amplified to absurd degrees.
|
| RobertR, you say you saw a 70mm blowup of Dark City about 6 years ago at the Samuel Goldwyn theatre? |
|
Originally Posted by Dave Mack
Check around Riff Raff, errr... Richard O'brien's hat for instance.
|
-David Shetterly
www.RockyHorror.com Webmaster
(Rocky Horror Picture Show Official Fan Club)
.
|
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina
Well it's less than a week away now, and I hope this thread continues to cool down a bit. This is one of my favorite movies of all time (and to think I only saw it by accident because the movie I wanted to see was sold out), and I didn't think anything could lessen my excitement for a new edition in HD...until this thread started devolving
.Could there be something wrong with the disc? Absolutely. This wouldn't be the first or highest profile film to be overly DNR'd, grain removed, and/or EE'd. And New Line's been as guilty as any other studio. But I think there is another side. Post-processing of some kind is usually required when something that is analog (film) in nature is transferred and compressed into a digital format. The key is to use it sparingly, and to do as little damage as possible. That example Dave Mack posted of the "Force Field Cop" is certainly eye opening and alarming. But at the same token, some other screen grabs posted earlier do not show EE where you'd think there should be, if the whole transfer were marred in the same fashion as the cop. So while screengrabs are helpful, I think it's wise for us to wait until the transfer is released and judge it as a whole before decrying the entire transfer as a catastrophe. |
\"My opinion is that (a) anyone who actually works in a video store and does not understand letterboxing has given up on life, and (b) any customer who prefers to have the sides of a movie hacked off should not be licensed to operate a video player.\"-- Roger Ebert
|
Originally Posted by Carlo Medina
So while screengrabs are helpful, I think it's wise for us to wait until the transfer is released and judge it as a whole before decrying the entire transfer as a catastrophe.
|
Just another amateur learning to paint w/ "the light of the world".
