Universal HD DVD: Declining PQ? - Page 5

ppltd · 06-27-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Perron

In the end this thread is about Universal not taking the time to remaster thier catalog before releasing them in HD.

As it seems all of the other studios, with maybe the exception of Disney and Warner, are also doing. If this is your stance then we must include Lionsgate, Fox, MGM and Paramount and Sony who do not have much better track records with their older catelog releases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Perron

Answer me one question Thomas: Is your position that this movie can never look significantly better then this and still look true to the original movie?

My contention is that is looks pretty much the way it did in the theaters, to the best of my recollections. I also stated above that this movie, while having a cult following, certainly is not a high enough profile film that Universal could justify the expenditure of a new master. So I will take this release, which is an improvement over the SD version, and enjoy it. You chose not to, your problem.

I want the films in HD released, and am realistic enough to realize that most will not get new masters, and that most titles do not deserve them.

troy evans · 06-27-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Arnette

1080 does really look like anything does it? As you and others said, different films have different looks. Now I'm no expert, and I freely admit that, but what I don't understand about this particular arguement in favor of this particular transfer (i.e. The Frighteners) is the following: Film has more resolution than 1080p HD, correct? If so, why are some people finding the high-frequency details lacking? Are you saying that there is a shooting style and/or equipment that could omit this information, or is it more likely that the technology used to create the transfer from the source (film) is dated and omitted it at that point? This is a serious question as I am genuinely confused and would like to learn more.

I know more recent films are shot using HD,but, in the case with older films I'm not so sure.In My opinion it all comes down to source material and how well they restore it or preserve it. I've seen some truely impressive sd dvd releases.They don't look as good as hi-def ,still,they look very good.As bad as the reviews are for the HDDVDs people still say it's an improvement over the sd dvds.How much of an improvement seems to be the stumbling block in these discussions.

Ed St. Clair · 06-27-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppltd

Sorry, Ed. The comment I made was not meant to be directed at you. I guess I wrote it pretty poorly.

Oh no, oh no!
I didn't think it was, butt than I rarely think these days!
I was just saying; I wasn't against what you posted, just trying to open your eyes to what was making you sick about other posters (not me), not to give you a black eye!
Cheers!

Shawn Perron · 06-27-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

As it seems all of the other studios, with maybe the exception of Disney and Warner, are also doing. If this is your stance then we must include Lionsgate, Fox, MGM and Paramount and Sony who do not have much better track records with their older catelog releases.

Of course. Why would I only want 1 studio to deliver the goods? I want top video quality on every title. I have most of the movies I want on DVD and really want to only upgrade once each for those I truly like. If this war ever ends, I really couldn't pull the trigger on this movie since I already own it on DVD and this really isn't the best it could look. It's enough that I'm going to double dip to own a HD version, but obviously setting myself up for a triple dip is just not going to happen.

Right now I'm happy to have Netflix. I get to enjoy spectacular transfers and it costs me nothing if they look crappy. Back when I used to buy, I'd just watch a bad looking DVD and pop it back on my shelf. I'm not sure if I can go back to doing that. This format war may be teaching people to rent rather then buy.

---

Quote:

I also stated above that this movie, while having a cult following, certainly is not a high enough profile film that Universal could justify the expenditure of a new master. So I will take this release, which is an improvement over the SD version, and enjoy it.

Does every catalog movie get a free pass on video quality, or just this one?

Judging from the bad word of mouth these recent Universal releases have been getting (not just here), I can only imagine the situation will correct itself in the long run. Fortunately releases for all studios combined are sparse enough that movies with subpar video quality will get singled out. It's not like DVD where you can sneak stinkers through and no one will notice due to the volume of releases.

Ed St. Clair · 06-27-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy evans

I know more recent films are shot using HD,but, in the case with older films I'm not so sure.In My opinion it all comes down to source material and how well they restore it or preserve it. I've seen some truely impressive sd dvd releases.They don't look as good as hi-def ,still,they look very good.As bad as the reviews are for the HDDVDs people still say it's an improvement over the sd dvds.How much of an improvement seems to be the stumbling block in these discussions.

True.
However, not just shape of the source materials or age. You can have a modern pic like "H&F", which was shot on 16mm or you can have a pic like "GH" that was trashed on purpose for artistic intent. So we really have to know what the master looks like in order to be a true judge of these transfers & we don't know that.

I think everyone wants this title to look better, I just don't know if anyone here for certain can tell us it can.
Peace Out!

ppltd · 06-27-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Perron

Does every catalog movie get a free pass on video quality, or just this one?

Not even sure what you meant by this comment. Just who gave it a free pass? Certainly not me. I just disagree with you on your assessment of the release.

As far as I am concerned, each release must be judged on it's on merits. But I will stand by what I said in the post above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PPLTD

My contention is that is looks pretty much the way it did in the theaters, to the best of my recollections. I also stated above that this movie, while having a cult following, certainly is not a high enough profile film that Universal could justify the expenditure of a new master....
I want the films in HD released, and am realistic enough to realize that most will not get new masters, and that most titles do not deserve them.

ppltd · 06-27-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair

Oh no, oh no!
I didn't think it was, butt than I rarely think these days!
I was just saying; I wasn't against what you posted, just trying to open your eyes to what was making you sick about other posters (not me), not to give you a black eye!
Cheers!

Gotcha.

Shawn Perron · 06-27-2007, 02:44 PM

Quote:

I also stated above that this movie, while having a cult following, certainly is not a high enough profile film that Universal could justify the expenditure of a new master....

Certainly looks like a free pass to me. This movie could look much better with a remaster... but we've gone over this ground already. I say it's far from what it could be. You say it's "good enough". Doesn't seem like we will be meeting on the middle ground.

Paul Arnette · 06-27-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

My contention is that is looks pretty much the way it did in the theaters, to the best of my recollections. I also stated above that this movie, while having a cult following, certainly is not a high enough profile film that Universal could justify the expenditure of a new master....
I want the films in HD released, and am realistic enough to realize that most will not get new masters, and that most titles do not deserve them.

As a cinephile, I believe every titles deserves ones, although I am realistic enough to accept that every title may not get one. I assume this is what you meant, but I won't put my words in your mouth.

ppltd · 06-27-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Perron

Certainly looks like a free pass to me.

Only in yours eyes. Certainly not what I said or meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Perron

This movie could look much better with a remaster... but we've gone over this ground already. I say it's far from what it could be. You say it's "good enough". Doesn't seem like we will be meeting on the middle ground.

Actually, you said it was mediocre, I said looks pretty much the way it did in the theaters. Seeing as I doubt Universal will expend the money to remaster this release any time soon, I am quite happy to be able to view this film in High Def.