A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD - Page 11

Douglas Monce · 12-17-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

Hiya Cees! Happy Holidays!

There ARE ways to capture an image DIRECTLY off the BD so we see exactly what's on the disc. Dozens of people have stated they don't see the writing at all now. I think 2 or 3 claim they still can. I'd just like to see one direct RAW grab showing what I and dozens of others can no longer see even if we crank the brightness on our displays to Max (which we shouldn't HAVE to do...)
And that's aside from Dracula now bathed in GREEN moonlight, (which has no logical explanation, just seems like a revisionist change)

Just because he is taking a direct screen capture from the BD doesn't mean that software is set up to accurately represent what is on that disc.

Also screen captures in any form are by definition inaccurate because they aren't moving. As I said the writing is very faint, and if it were just a still it may very well blind into the background. but its not a still its a moving image, and the writing is clearly there.

Doug

Jack Johnson · 12-18-2007, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

First, and most important, I have no relationship to the Dracula transfer.

It was not my project. It did not need restoration.

There would have been no reason for me to screen the AP.

Further, even if my opinion was requested, it would have been a waste of effort when people that I personally trust implicitly, namely Mr. Crisp and Mr. Aubry are aware of the film and it's problems shot by shot -- and I am not.

These gentlemen do not lie.

Mr. Aubry reports to Mr. Coppola.

Mr. Crisp finds it important enough to bring in original cinematographers for his transfers to make them correct.

The work done by Mr. Aubry and Mr. Crisp is continuously superlative, meticulous and professional.

Their only desire is to make FFC's Dracula available to the public as it is meant to look -- in this case a video match as close as the limitations of the electronic form will permit, to the original.

I'm beginning to think that some people have way too much free time on their hands.

RAH

So you haven't seen the answer print?

Notwithstanding your holding your colleagues in high esteem, the grounds for which no one would think to impeach...are there no cases where professionals have differed in the art of faithfully transferring film to video? Is vision infallible? And should trust in craft result in deference that trumps our own eyes?

You know, I imagine FFC would trust his cinematographer to get the shot, but he's still going to look at the footage at the end of the day.

Pun intended: The Eyes have this one, and--speaking for myself--I'd be curious to screen the answer print opposite this latest transfer to see whether it squares...even if it's just to confirm it's faithful.

The opportunity to see for one's self: Bigger than trust, larger than ego. Not one I'd pass up.

--Jack

Ryan · 12-18-2007, 01:52 AM

Finally got a chance to watch this movie in Hi-Def last night and I really enjoyed it. This is my third viewing of the film (theater, regular DVD, and now Hi-Def) and I was very impressed with the presentation overall.

I had no problem noticing the journal writing; it was very dark but still noticable. My display is a Sony 70" SXRD XBR2 Rear-Pro and my player is a Sony BDP-S300 hooked up via HDMI directly from player to monitor. I can't do screen grabs but I simply kneeled down in front of my TV and took a digital photo with the movie paused and the lights out. With my display tweaked the photo was too dark overall so I bumped up the brightness setting 15 steps just so you could see that the letters are in fact present on the transfer.

It's more difficult to notice the lettering in a still image but when you're watching the movie, the camera is slowly zooming in towards Jonathan Harker and the journal entry just hangs over the image as an overlay - a very neat visual affect in a movie that's filled to the brim with neat visual affects. Like I said, it was very subtle but definitely noticable. Unlike many of you guys, I can't recall the exact visual nuances of a movie I saw in a theater fifteen years ago (or even last week!) so as far as colors go, I really have no idea. But I must say that I have no trouble believing that this presentation represents how the film is supposed to look. It looks great!

Happy viewing!

Dave Mack · 12-18-2007, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan

Sorry Ryan, no offense but if you think that your screengrab with brightness increased 15 clicks equates to what was previously visible on the DVD, I don't know what to say to you... Can you see the word "any" in your grab? 1/2 the words are now invisible in comparison, and your own photo with the brightness bumped 15 clicks up just proves it. And do you normally watch your discs with the brightness 15 clicks too high? I hope not. Which even MORE proves the point.

Try the next shot...

I am truly curious how many words are visible with the brightness even bumped 15 clicks higher than normal.

Not trying to be a wiseass but look what you're saying. The transfer is ok because if you watch it with the brightness 15 clicks above normal, you can see some of what was once clearly visible on every other version. IS that what you're saying? That the transfer is fine because it will look normal if you watch it with the brightness cranked 15 clicks above normal? To me, sounds like a botched transfer. There are supposed to be standards.

Brandon Conway · 12-18-2007, 04:22 AM

So, we have Robert Harris vouching for those who made the transfer from the answer print, essentially saying that they are highly professional and honest. Yet this is still not enough. Somehow I feel sworn affidavits would fall short of satisfaction.

As was said months ago now, it's okay to not like the look of the film. Not liking it doesn't change the continual reinforcement of fact that the new transfer more closely represents the answer print.

I know it's frustrating to those who are used to the older, less correct per the answer print look, but why can't we agree on this being a matter of preference and not some vast conspiracy to cover up a special industry lie?

Dave Mack · 12-18-2007, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

So, we have Robert Harris vouching for those who made the transfer from the answer print, essentially saying that they are highly professional and honest. Yet this is still not enough. Somehow I feel sworn affidavits would fall short of satisfaction.

As was said months ago now, it's okay to not like the look of the film. Not liking it doesn't change the continual reinforcement of fact that the new transfer more closely represents the answer print.

I know it's frustrating to those who are used to the older, less correct per the answer print look, but why can't we agree on this being a matter of preference and not some vast conspiracy to cover up a special industry lie?

Because we have eyes, have seen the new transfer, remember the older ones including the theatrical release and can actually think for ourselves?
Just because someone tells me a transfer looks "great" doesn't mean that I and dozens of others including most reviewers have to think it is. (But If that IS now the case then HTF has lost alot of it's old self. What's the point of posting opinions here anymore? It's either get with the groupthink or begone!)

And you know what? Why has the issue of ALL the previous transfers including the $100 COPPOLA APPROVED LD being WRONG and INACCURATE never come up before this new revision-y version? Shoot. How many times did they GET this wrong yet charge us all good $ for it? The VHS, The WS VHS, The COPPOLA APPROVED LD, the DVD, the SB DVD, hell even the theatrical prints were simply all wrong yet never a word about this? mmhmm...
I'd just LOVE to hear the explanation for why Dracula is now bathed in GREEN moonlight. Wait. GREEN moonlight when it was always blue. Blue to green isn't a subtle color timing shift.
Well, the WRONG version looked better to I'd say around 2/3 of the people who have commented on this on various forums.

I would just love to hear, "We reduxed Dracula, Hope you like it." (Not uncommon for Coppola or Zoetrope. Apocalypse Now. Been reframed for video, Reduxed. The Outsiders has been reduxed. Hell, even paidgeek from Sony alluded that this was going to be a new "director's cut" until that was squashed.) Just say, we tweaked it. This is how we prefer it now. Fine.
Not, This is how it always was supposed to look and all the other versions were just wrong. We just couldn't get the theatrical prints right. That just sounds like BS to many. And many liked the older version with the crazy colors and the uncrushed blascks.
maybe, just maybe they will realize that there IS a market for an HD version of the "wrong" look! We'd pay for it. To see the wondrous sets again. The colorful, oscar winning costumes again in color throughout the whole film again, the superimposed special effects better again.

Business idea, Kim.

I can dream, can't I...?

Ryan · 12-18-2007, 04:43 AM

I didn't watch the movie with the brightness setting bumped up. I only bumped it up for the photo because the image captured by my camera with the display at reference level was much darker than what my set was actually displaying (the fault of the camera). The reason I cranked up the brightness and snapped the photo was to prove that the journal writing is in fact there in the transfer. With my set tweaked using the DVE disc and watching the movie, I can clearly notice the journal overlay. In other words, I can clearly notice the visual affect with my display tweaked but my camera is unable to visually convey it.

This is the best visual evidence I can provide that the writing is visible and I can see it when I watch the movie (with settings at reference level). I seriously doubt the original intention was for the viewer to be able to read all the words on the screen while listening to Harker's narration. I believe it's just supposed to be a subtle visual affect similar to many other visual affects employed throughout the film.

Also, I don't mean to imply that (even with the brightness cranked) I see anywhere near the level of detail in the lettering that was present on the SB DVD (is that the point?), just that I see much more detail (at reference settings) than is visible in the screen grabs being bandied about.

Dave Mack · 12-18-2007, 04:48 AM

And in the following shot, were the words also clearly visible?

And even so, many words that were visible previously are simply crushed into black now. The effect was previously unsubtle and quite melodramatic and even brought chcukles from the audience in the theater, (and yes, I recall this on several occasions). Now they are mostly subliminal with many people watching the new disc stating, "If I didn't know they were there, I wouldn't have even seen them."

Considering how over the top the film is, (well, was...) something being subtle is not par for the course.

Brandon Conway · 12-18-2007, 04:59 AM

Because we have eyes, have seen the new transfer, remember the older ones including the theatrical release and can actually think for ourselves?

You can see and like the older transfer better, but it doesn't make the new transfer better match the answer print any less.

Just because someone tells me a transfer looks "great" doesn't mean I have to think it is.

And that's fine. I have no problem with this notion of not liking the new transfer. My problem is in the continual supposition of it being incorrect per the answer print, because it has been succinctly related as otherwise.

And you know what? Why has the issue of ALL the previous transfers including the $100 COPPOLA APPROVED LD being WRONG and INACCURATE never come up before this new revisions-y version?

Because, as Mr. Harris said in the very first post of this thread:

"Earlier versions of FFC's Dracula were properly tuned for earlier video systems, that among other problems turned black into video noise. For that reason they were never what they should have been, as electronic goals needed to be met. To put it simply, the ability of the reproducing medium was not yet in tune with the art to be reproduced. They always came as closely as they could. And understanding the limitations of the medium, were approved. There was no way around this.

That is the reason why earlier video releases don't matter."

You can't get a more black and white statement than that.

Shoot. How many times did they GET this wrong yet charge us all good $ for it? The VHS, The WS VHS, The COPPOLA APPROVED LD, the DVD, the SB DVD, hell even the theatrical prints were simply all wrong yet never a word about this? mmhmm...

All previous video releases were, to my understanding, based on the transfer process as described by Robert Harris in the statement I just quoted.

As for the theatrical presentation, if one ignores the problem with memory recall, and agrees that the answer print is the only true source of reference, that means that original copies for theatrical release were incorrect, yes. Perhaps somebody freaked out at what Coppola had done with the film when seeing the answer print and botched the theatrical copies of it back then.

In fact, Mr. Harris previously addressed this as well:

"An occasioinal release print can come somewhere in the area of an AP, but this seldom occurs, as they are printed in different ways, on different equipment and to far more loose standars;

Most release prints do not fully realize the filmmaker's intent. Some may, but it's the luck of the draw. Generally better prints will be shipped to larger cities and top venues, while those that are 3 points cyan or magenta will end up in Nell's Storm Door Company and Moving Picture House in Horse's Breath, Montana;

Probably to cover film-based problems and anomolies which could not be dealt with in the analogue world, such as chemical stains and dirt;

It cannot look like the OAP, but no one wants to match the OAP in these regards;"

In any case, the answer print is the key. It has been verified as being more accurately represented in this new transfer. These are the facts about the original look of the film at our disposal.

Well, the WRONG version looked better to I'd say around 2/3 of the people who have commented on this on various forums.

And like I said, that's fine. It still doesn't change the facts. I mean, I despise the color timing of Heaven's Gate, as the sepia tone simply makes everything UGLY in my view, but if that is what Cimino wants and it's on the approved answer print, so be it.