Warner Archive Discussion Thread (FEEDBACK) - Page 106

The TCM broadcast of ENCHANTED COTTAGE was BETTER - the whites are not blown out like they are on the DVD.

So sad.

Does WB really think that artwork is the biggest concern here?  Don't get me wrong, it's a step in the right direction, but there are much bigger fish to fry.  Artwork might be my fifth highest concern here.   They're going to have to try a bit harder to get me on board.

ahhh...see this is why WB probably just wants to throw their hands up sometime...there will be consumers who are never happy no matter what they do. Most of these titles were never coming out on pressed discs nor remastered so not sure what to say. Just enjoy a positive when it comes along and maybe more will follow. One thing at a time...though do agree with most that the price should drop a bit per disc considering the overall quality

Still like the disc version better Chuck, sorry...it's such a small difference not worth getting excited either way.

My thoughts exactly. The first thing that needs to be implemented is dual layer media. Once 70 minutes is exceeded on a 4.7GB DVD-R the image is compromised by low bit rates. They can dress it up with ribbons and bows, but the poison inside remains.

The new artwork thing seems bizarre.  You are interested in sprucing up the eye appeal of the artwork when there are discs sitting on retailer shelves.  These aren't available on retailers' shelves---that's the whole point. 

I just shake my head at the folks at Warner.  They used to be so good, and now they're dropping down to Mill Creek levels.

That's not it at all.  Here's a list of my concerns in approximate order of importance.

1. Quality and consistency of transfers (...or at the very least a description of the transfer)
2. DVD-R
3. Price
4. Website Navigation
5. Artwork

They're taking care of #5 and that's great, but let's looks at the bigger items.

1.  I realize that not every film is going to get restored or even get a new transfer right away.  It would be great if they would at least make new transfers, but apparently that's asking for too much.  The next step that could be made would be to describe the transfer (age and source material would do) and then price them appropriately.  It's not fair to charge the same price for everything.  Right now it's like a giant grab bag and you never know what you're going to get.  That's simply unacceptable in my book.

2.  DVD-R:  The jury is still out regarding the reliability of this media.  Personally, I rarely watch a movie shortly after purchasing (My backlog is simply too big).  I have titles that have been sitting for 5+ years.  Why would I buy these and then when I finally watch them find out that they don't play or skip?  Why would I even take a chance?

3. Price:  I don't find the price objectionable if the transfers are all new and they're on pressed discs.  Any combination of those elements requires some sort of price adjustment.  That's where I stand, and I don't see that changing.  There are still too many other titles on the market that I would rather spend my money on.

4. Website Issues:  I have only spent a limited amount of time on the website, but what time I have spent has been rather frustrating.

5. Artwork:  Yeah!!!!!

I'm such a complainer!!!

Really? Maybe a full-motion clip will better illustrate my problem with the DVD. It's as if they took the existing master, did some major contrast boosting, and didn't bother to see how detrimental it was to the image for the balance of the movie.

Check out the pulsing in the sky and lighter areas of the frame. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX9t3b9Mcf4

Wow!  I'm not as picky as many on this board, but I would have a real hard time watching that.  That pulsing would be completely distracting.

I watched the recent TCM airing of The Enchanted Cottage, and while the overall pic quality is not great I did not notice any blown out whites or distracting pulsing. The DVD captures above are slightly sharper than the TCM captures, but the white backgrounds are definitely out of whack on the DVD.

I completely agree with this assessment, Eric. Original art is nice and I even collect (pressed) DVDs that have it, but even so, at the end of the day I want to watch the movie in a decent transfer, commensurate with the price, not a pretty box on my shelf.

And to whomever compared this Archive to Mill Creek, let me remind you that Mill Creek is releasing pressed DVDs, not DVD-Rs.  True,the quality of the DVDs may often be lacking (though not always), by comparison they aren't gouging consumers the way WB is with this program and they aren't as downright cheesy in their approach and execution either. 

Sorry, but at this point I would have to rank both Mill Creek and Alpha higher than what WB has become.

I totally agree with everything you say here. Artwork should be the least of their concerns. They should first concentrate on improving the quality of the product inside.
 
I also can't believe that they still don't describe the age and source of the transfer for each film on their website. I totally agree that they should make this completely clear. There are handful of titles on there that do have new telecines. God Is My Co-Pilot is one I recently found that looks like a new telecine. What's the big secret there? Why isn't this clearly stated? 

I am disappointed in the transfer of SHE'S BACK ON BROADWAY.  There are a lot blue splotches in several scenes that appear in the bottom middle of the frame.  It looks as if there has not been any care or thought given.  The color is typical of that era with WarnerColor so it looks a little washed out.  The color and transfer is much better on SHE'S WORKING HER WAY THROUGH COLLEGE and also on THE JAZZ SINGER. 
Edited by ahollis - 2/26/10 at 6:27pm

And they should allow feedback on the quality of the film and the technical quality of the DVD. That way people will be better informed about what to expect from each disc. If a disc reliably gets low ratings, then they could consider cutting the price for that title to reflect the poor feedback.

I agree with Eric's and other's posts which indicated that the new artwork, while nice and deserving of kudos, isn't the main area of concern for this consumer.  The other 4 issues Eric raised are much more important. 

In my opinion, and with all due respect, I still would place WHV ahead of the Alphas of the world.  I may not be happy with the execution of the Archive program but it clearly has been a success for them and I give credit where it is due.  However I do think WHV has slipped behind Sony with regards to classic releases due to Sony's great retail releases.
Edited by Steve...O - 2/27/10 at 12:00pm

Where are examples of the new art work?

I bought my first DVD burner in 99, so I have some disks that are now 11 years old and still work fine. In fact they have lasted longer than some of the first pressed DVDs I bought. As long as they are using quality media, the fact that they are on a DVD-R should not be an issue.

Doug

Well, if you're like me and maybe not watch one of their movies within the 30 day return window and it doesn't play...you're SOL!

Has Maureen O'Hara ever looked more sexy?

Quote:

I have posted a few reviews on their website, but they only accept the positive ones. I had a negative one for DREAM LOVER, that horribly pixilated mess and I included screen shots. That review was never posted, but my reviews for THE BABY MAKER and ALL THE MARBLES... were. Figures.

Has Alpha ever put out any anamorphic DVDs? Or Mill Creek on vintage titles?

 
Agreed--comparing the WA to Mill Creek and Alpha is irresponsible. The best transfers from either of those bottom feeders are ripped off from other sources. I, too, have problems with its execution, but there have been improvements in the past year, and I expect to see more as it celebrates its first anniversary, an event I welcome. 

I think the reason they never posted the review for DREAM LOVER was due to the inclusion of screen shots.  I have heard from several sources that Warners does not look favorable on screen captures due to the nature of possible playback problems with certain players.  Also we all know there can be flaws in the actual manufacturing of a DVD-r.  While Warners has been good if someone has a problem, if the DVD pixilated for your, it might not for others due to play back equipment or the actual manufacturing of the individual disc.  While I don't agree with them, I do recognize their thoughts.

I stand by my contention of ranking this Archive program behind both Alpha and Mill Creek, but it's all a matter of perspective.  I wouldn't look to Alpha or Mill Creek for any widescreen titles and I agree that the Archive program releasing anamorphic copies is a good thing, though with the caveat of transfer quality.  Still though, they represent the only titles I am interested in getting, but not at that price point for a DVD-R. But Alpha and Mill Creek offer rare Academy ratio titles that won't come out any other way, which makes it a fit comparison to at least some of the WB Archive. For example,  I'll take my Alpha copy of MILLIE over the Archive's copy of THE BIG HOUSE any day. 

As a critic, teacher and historian, I can't just limit myself to certain titles from those companies one might snobbishly deem to be above the alleged "bottom feeders."  Nor would I want to.  Would that Criterion could see fit to release EVERYTHING, but they don't,so many offerings by Alpha and Mill Creek are of great appeal, certainly as much as those in the WB Archive.  Yet Alpha and Mill Creek produce their DVDs in a better format and at a fraction of the price the Archive is charging, particularly on secondary markets, which compares to the Archive sales.  If those lowly, budgetary restrained companies can do it, why can't WB? 

I've brought this up before in this thread: WB has the same advantages at hand as do those other companies, plus in many cases, more desirable titles and better resources. Yet their  approach and execution has been in at least some respects inferior to what Alpha and Mill Creek do.  Why?

And, incidentally, the website for ordering Alpha DVDs directly from the manufacturer works extremely well and has one of the best, most user friendly search engines and options of any DVD sales site on the net.

Why doesn't WB?

I have purchased a number of VCI DVD's and while they are nothing remarkable, most are certainly watchable. But Alpha? Any that I have seen look like faded out of focus copies of VHS tapes.

I agree with you on Alpha.  The titles that Alpha releases are all PD titles and come from very used 16mm prints.  I own a some of their titles, specifically the older Mystery and Separate Cinema titles that you can not get anywhere else, but the transfers are horrible and I would not pay more than the $4.00 I did for them.  On the other hand, the Warner transfers, even at their worst are 100 times better than anything I have seen from Alpha.  It is strictly apples and oranges in comparison.

Well, it's not like Alpha has any actual elements to work from.  What's the Warner Archive excuse for poor picture?

I think the general point was that Alpha is putting out the best product they can with the resources available to them...and pricing it accordingly.  From that perspective, they are doing a better job.

You are still talking apples to oranges.  There is no comparison between the two companies.   Yes, Alpha is doing the best that they can with what they have, but it in no way equals the poorest product from Warners.  I would not and do not purchase Alpha's DVDs at their list price and wait for sales, just as I do with the Warner Archive product.  Some of the Alpha product that I have purchased have been unwatchable, i.e. THE LUCKY GHOST, but I have never seen an unwatchable Warner Archive.  Yes, they are not all pristine and perfect and there are scratches and speckles on the transfer,  i.e. THE BIG HOUSE, but nothing as bad as the best Alpha.

As you truthfully indicate Alpha does not have elements to work with, will on some of the older films Warner does not have any original elements to work with either.  The negative have turned sour or lost along with any original prints, and they only a tenth generation copy to work from.  The Allied Artists and RKO library is in horrible shape and are being worked on all the time. 

it is interesting that IF LOOKS CAN KILL will hit the Warner Archive Collection.  Not that there aren't a lot of people that want to own it, but that it was released in 1991.  This makes it the newest release from them.  It seems they have taken a page from MGM and Universal's MOD program.  Now if they will just take their price point page and I would be happy.