A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD - Page 3

Bleddyn Williams · 10-03-2007, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

I have gotten this film from Netflix and I have to say that I'm not seeing anything like what Dave reported. Particularly the shot where the coach is taking Harker toward the castle. The castle is perfectly visible against the night sky and the detail of the castle is coming through fine. Also the words of Harkers journal are quite dark but they are readable.

Again I never saw this film on any other video format, but honestly I think it looks quite spectacular.

Doug

Douglas, in the other thread, Dave posted a night scene with a carriage in both Superbit and BD. What was striking about it was that the BD seemed to offer no additional resolution.

Putting aside arguments of color, brightness, etc - Were you able to actually see any more detail in the BD?

Cees Alons · 10-03-2007, 09:53 AM

Thanks for answering my question, Robert.
Interesting indeed.

When it's about matters of professional expertise, the one with the knowledge (and the expertise) is the real boss.

Cees

Douglas Monce · 10-03-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleddyn Williams

Douglas, in the other thread, Dave posted a night scene with a carriage in both Superbit and BD. What was striking about it was that the BD seemed to offer no additional resolution.

Putting aside arguments of color, brightness, etc - Were you able to actually see any more detail in the BD?

I think what he posted was not from the Superbit version but from the HD documentary on the BD which seems to come from a different transfer of the film. Dave correct me if I'm wrong here.

No I'm not seeing any additional details in that shot, but I'm compairing it with the same shot in the Documentary. Honestly I think that particular shot in the documentary is too bright. In the actual film it looks dark and gloomy with out loosing the detail of the castle on my setup.

BTW I'm using a 47inch 1080i plasma.

Doug

Douglas Monce · 10-03-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner

The gamut difference between NTSC and HD is not big. Visually the main difference is that you have +- double spatial resolution for the color difference signal in both directions and less compression issues and digital shenanigans typical of DVD (EE and DNR). That gives a far nicer more film like color rendition. But that was not really the point of my posting.

Yes but one important thing you left out. NTSC has its chroma information overladed on the luminance signal in a composite fashion which can cause all kinds of problems with producing accurate colors. HD has these signals separated which in its self is a huge improvement.

Doug

Jack Johnson · 10-03-2007, 11:32 PM

All this raises and interesting philosophical question about how much enthusiasts of a particular film should defer to the "correctness" of a transfer culled from an answer print when that unprecedentedly correct transfer reveals a film so drastically different in look and feel as to betray what attracted those enthusiasts to the film in the beginning.

Of course, when things are reasonably in scale with what we original saw, this isn't an issue; there is satisfaction in knowing we're getting intended, approved look. But should that approved look be grossly, drastically out of scale with what we knew, how many of us would remain slaves to an answer print?

To find out, I would propose an elaborate punking--but not really--of the home theater set by claiming the latest transfer of a beloved film squared, for the first time, with the answer print and that the director had signed off on it as the truest achievable transfer technology would allow from the original source elements. Now, imagine if that director were Ridley Scott and that the film was Bladerunner...and that the new, approved, answer print derived transfer rendered the film suffused from first frame to last with an obnoxious and intense pink sepia. "It's what I wanted, but was never able to render faithfully on home video," Scott would allege--playing along. Again, how many of us would find ourselves embracing the pink and rationalizing it simply on the basis of being told the transfer was supervised, that it corresponded to an answer print none of us had seen? A good many of us, I'd wager. Another example: The brightness is dialed down so that it's virtually impossible to see anything? Don't like it? Well, it's all in the answer print, it's correct. Would we junk those old dvd transfers? Would we watch the new one, suppressing our disappointment, trying to convince ourselves that the only thing that mattered was that answer print?

I want to be clear: I'm certainly NOT contesting the veracity of the story behind the purported accuracy of the blu-ray transfer of Dracula; I'm just interested in how much our acceptance, enjoyment and appreciation of a particular transfer is tied to our being told it's correct...and whether that can actually overpower a genuine preference we feel in our bones for one that is, officially, wrong. I honestly don't know where I'd draw the line myself, incidentally, but it might be shy of a pink Bladerunner.

--Jack

Steve Schaffer · 10-04-2007, 12:26 AM

Anyone doubting that local theater presentations can vary tremendously from the director's intent should listen to William Friedkin's audio commentary on the recent SD release of Bug.

He explains that when The Exorcist was originally released it came out in only 100 or so theaters, that he personally inspected every aspect of the projection and sound presentation in each theater prior to the release and did regular spotchecks of theaters to make sure all was up to snuff. Really interesting stuff.

Even Coppola on his Dracula commentary bemoans the mediocrity of today's typical multiplex presentations.

I only have a 60" Sony A-2000 rptv, calibrated only with DVE-HD and AVIA.
I use an HDA2 and a PS3 for HD DVD, BD, and SD DVD. I have a mid-fi Pioneer VSX-82TSX receiver and next-to-bottom line Energy speakers and a HSU STF-2 sub--far from high end home theater equipment. I do still go to the local multiplexes from time to time and can honestly say that even with SD dvd I get better pq and aq at home than I've seen in a theater since Titanic came out back in '97. Not only are most prints in our theaters damaged within days of release, but the picture is never properly focussed and most of the time the subwoofers are turned off or too low so as to minimize sound bleed into adjacent auditoriums. Every time I go to a major new film in the theater I find myself thinking how much better it's going to look and sound at home. I doubt if local theaters in the vast majority of the country do any better than the ones in my town. I'm old enough to remember large single-screen theaters with truly excellent presentation in this town, but no more.

Douglas Monce · 10-04-2007, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Johnson

All this raises and interesting philosophical question about how much enthusiasts of a particular film should defer to the "correctness" of a transfer culled from an answer print when that unprecedentedly correct transfer reveals a film so drastically different in look and feel as to betray what attracted those enthusiasts to the film in the beginning.

Of course, when things are reasonably in scale with what we original saw, this isn't an issue; there is satisfaction in knowing we're getting intended, approved look. But should that approved look be grossly, drastically out of scale with what we knew, how many of us would remain slaves to an answer print?

To find out, I would propose an elaborate punking--but not really--of the home theater set by claiming the latest transfer of a beloved film squared, for the first time, with the answer print and that the director had signed off on it as the truest achievable transfer technology would allow from the original source elements. Now, imagine if that director were Ridley Scott and that the film was Bladerunner...and that the new, approved, answer print derived transfer rendered the film suffused from first frame to last with an obnoxious and intense pink sepia. "It's what I wanted, but was never able to render faithfully on home video," Scott would allege--playing along. Again, how many of us would find ourselves embracing the pink and rationalizing it simply on the basis of being told the transfer was supervised, that it corresponded to an answer print none of us had seen? A good many of us, I'd wager. Another example: The brightness is dialed down so that it's virtually impossible to see anything? Don't like it? Well, it's all in the answer print, it's correct. Would we junk those old dvd transfers? Would we watch the new one, suppressing our disappointment, trying to convince ourselves that the only thing that mattered was that answer print?

I want to be clear: I'm certainly NOT contesting the veracity of the story behind the purported accuracy of the blu-ray transfer of Dracula; I'm just interested in how much our acceptance, enjoyment and appreciation of a particular transfer is tied to our being told it's correct...and whether that can actually overpower a genuine preference we feel in our bones for one that is, officially, wrong. I honestly don't know where I'd draw the line myself, incidentally, but it might be shy of a pink Bladerunner.

--Jack

I see your point and it is an interesting one. But to be fair I don't think this version of Dracula is really all that different that what people are used to seeing. There are a few shots that are very different such as the shot with the green back light. But that shot is on the screen for 1 second, maybe less.

Doug

Dave Mack · 10-04-2007, 02:30 AM

Doug, I'm pretty sure it's not just that one shot in the scene and it's more than one sceond. many shots in that scene look radically different. In the dvd, there is a blue light behind Dracula coming through the window. In the BD it is grey, almost like a B+W image. And there is green in many shots now there.

Douglas Monce · 10-04-2007, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

Doug, I'm pretty sure it's not just that one shot in the scene and it's more than one sceond. many shots in that scene look radically different. In the dvd, there is a blue light behind Dracula coming through the window. In the BD it is grey, almost like a B+W image. And there is green in many shots now there.

Oh yeah I was saying that before. You can see green light coming from somewhere in quite a few of the shots in the scene with the brides. I would disagree that the shot of Dracula coming though the window is almost B&W. I'm seeing a fair amount of blue in that shot. Kind of a slate blue, but blue none the less.

Doug

Dave Mack · 10-04-2007, 02:54 AM

indeed, it's a bit odd in even if the dvd was off, the blue light (which WAS too bright in the DVD) was at least consistent through the whole scene. here it goes from sickly green, to grey, almost B+W, then to VERY subtle blue at the end.