A few words about...™ Animal House -- in High Definition

Robert Harris · 08-11-2006, 04:18 PM

Occasionally, a film needs a second screening on different equipment to figure out precisely what is occurring, and with Animal House the image looked quite different on my home theater setup than it did in my office on a 30" Sony HiDef XBR, which is set up to be unforgiving.

Universal's HD DVD of National Lampoon's Animal House looks as it should.

The film is a bit grainy, especially in low light situations. There isn't a great deal of shadow detail.

If there was ever a poster child for a film not meant to be an HD demo disc, one would think that this is it.

And yet, when compared to the SD version on the flip side, the differences are obvious and noted with immediacy. The new HiDef image is far more detailed than the SD, with all of the requisite advantages of color densities, black levels and image stability, and one would not assume that the difference would be this great.

This is still a low budget film, reportedly in the three million dollar area, and yet Universal's technical gurus have made it look far better than I've ever seen it. Probably even better than it looked on film in 1978. I don't see this as a bad thing, even though it may not be totally representative of the original "low budget" look. That look was probably due to a number of technical functions of the time. Technicolor had shut down its dye transfer production line, and duping stocks, be they CRI or IP to dupe negative were not yet of a requisite quality to look anywhere near they did even in the late 1980s.

I've now said a number of times in different commentaries that the majority of the HD-DVD releases look much like film, and they should. Animal House was never a visually beautiful film. That simply isn't what it was about. Beginning with the original Universal logo which appears to have been taken from separation masters, the film then moves into its own, and looks like...

Animal House.

Only better.

This time with a more detail, an image that is sharper overall, and a better color definition.

A great addition to Universal's line of High Definition software, and very nicely rendered. The consumer should not be expecting King Kong quality, as it was never there.

As an aside, although all may not have the same packaging, the release comes in a slightly modified case, losing the small flat "stands" at the bottom, and gaining a new locking mechanism at the side.

Highly Recommended, and for those unaware, a comedy treat, unsuitable for the entire family.

RAH

Brent M · 08-11-2006, 04:23 PM

This is exactly the kind of title I have no interest in buying on HD-DVD. I love the film(it's one of my all-time favorite comedies) and I'm sure the HD version does look better than SD, but I just don't think it would be enough of an upgrade in the picture/sound quality dept. to make me repurchase the title on a next-gen format. Just my .02 on the subject.

Sean Bryan · 08-11-2006, 04:38 PM

Great film.

Robert, I had read that when this film was prepared for the latest release on DVD, the director (John Landis?) complained that it was made to look too good. Reportedly, at his request, the transfer was then modified to look less "nice". I would imagine that the same master was used for the HD DVD.

Have you heard anything about that? Just curious about your thoughts on that being done.

Robert Harris · 08-11-2006, 05:00 PM

I have no info on this. I can only tell you that at the time of release Technicolor had shut down its dye transfer operation, which meant that the release prints had to go through either a CRI or an IP / dupe process, neither of which at that time produced superior results.

We really didn't get a high quality IP / IN stock until 5243 in 1986.

RAH

Shawn.F · 08-11-2006, 05:16 PM

I picked it up at BB last night. I thought it looked fine, given how old the film is. Grainy? Sure. Not exactly HD demo material? You bet. Great to have in the HD library? Absolutely. Next stop: Caddyshack! Hopefully soon after: The Blues Brothers.

"I can't believe I threw up in front of Dean Wormer."
"Face it. You threw up ON Dean Wormer!"

**HTF Ads**

Sean Bryan · 08-11-2006, 05:20 PM

I read this at AVS. Here is the post ported over:

Quote:

I couldn't find any active links, but there's a movieweb entry in Google's cache from 7/25/2003 that references direct quotes from DVD Premiere magazine (about the 'Double Secret Probation' transfer):

John Landis didn't approve the new transfer of ANIMAL HOUSE?
Friday, July 25th, 2003

Animal House: According to a scooper over at Dark Horizons & DVD Premiere, director John Landis DID NOT approve the new transfer of Animal House on DVD:

DVD Premiere reports that Director John Landis did NOT approve the new high-definition transfer for the upcoming disc release of his classic comedy. According to Landis, it seems the print of the soon to be released 'Double Secret Probation Edition' just "looked too good-the textiles and the skin on the actors look so unbelievably crisp. Animal House shouldn't look beautiful; it should have a funky look to it". As a result, Landis actually asked the crew behind the release to 'degrade the image' to give it a grainier look that he feels is better suited and yet "it still looks better than it has a right to look". If Spielberg even thinks of doing that to the Indy trilogy, heads will fly.

So my impression is that J. Landis never wanted the film to look nice and clean. While it could have been made to look a little better/"cleaner", he chose to keep it looking they way he felt it should. Understandable.

Tim Glover · 08-11-2006, 09:33 PM

No, you threw up on Dean Wormer

Ed St. Clair · 08-11-2006, 11:31 PM

Sound advice from Mr. Harris, Brent (hope your post isn't considered a TC, cause this was discussed before HD discs arrived), & Sean.
By the way, how is the "sound"???
(great segue way, huh?!?!)
Is the audio worth the up graded alone, to hear.. My Man, Otis!!!

Sam Posten · 08-11-2006, 11:58 PM

This is warming up in the other room right now, full review tomorrow!