Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › Warner Archive Discussion Thread (FEEDBACK)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Warner Archive Discussion Thread (FEEDBACK) - Page 20

post #571 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcoBiscotti
What surprises me about the folks "standing up" for Warners with these releases, is that I recall an older thread which I started about the old Columbia Classics DVDs and how they were all overpriced and in need of new anamorphic transfers. If I remember correctly, I think it was Parker or one of the mods that posted in this thread stating that he was not willing to spend the US $25 or whatever that Columbia was asking for many of these discs (think releases like Gilda, etc) and that what he was simply doing, was recording them off TCM and burning them himself. Now at the very least, these discs were progressively encoded (goes without saying!) and came with minimal extras and proper cover art... so how then does one suddenly turn around and justify spending the same price if not more for dvd-r discs that are completely barebones, non-anamorphic and interlaced to boot? This was an HTF moderator posting this and yet suddenly people are content with Warners releasing the most subpar quality dvd's that any studio has ever put out at such an inflated cost? I feel like I must be insane for seeming to be in the minority of folks who are not supporting these... or perhaps the other way around! Isn't the mission statement of HTF to stand up for quality preservation and presentation of films on DVD?? This goes against everything we discuss in these forums and I'm shocked that we can draw out a 15 page debate over the color timing of a film like The Searchers and how it needs to be recalled yet we are now accepting non anamorphic INTERLACED dvd-rs... just because its the only way to get them?! If those willing to spend the money on these films would speak up and complain to the powers that be about the lack of quality control of this series, we'd see them released right because Warner Home Video would have no choice but to reconsider their strategies if they intended to see any revenue from these films! Instead people just seem to be buying up handful of discs and saying "well it's better than nothing"... it's OUR responsibility to fix that as the power is with our spending! This just seems like such a ridiculous attitude to take and I don't understand why the HTF hasn't at the very least, been more vocal about the fact that the studio are releasing interlaced dvd-r's and hopefully done something to change this if what this forum stands for is in fact the quality presentation of films??
Marco,
We get it that you don't like this program, but don't preach to me or the HTF about how we should react to this program. If you don't want to buy these titles, we're fine with that, but I don't need somebody else telling me or the rest of us how to spend our hard-earned money. Furthermore, I already stated I'm boycotting these discs over this pricing issue as I won't pay over $20 for a dvd. However, I'm not going to make post after post trying to browbeat others into agreeing with my position. How and what other people spend their money is their own business. As far as the quality of the interlaced DVD-R, I reserve comment until I see some of these discs first hand on my HT setup. I don't like talking about the PQ of a dvd from a position of ignorance. By the way, Gilda is academy ratio not widescreen.

If you have a problem with the HTF then talk to us offline.




Crawdaddy
post #572 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

I am split down the middle in regards to this program and I understand both sides of the argument.

I placed my order for 4 films as I want to show support for this excellent idea. However I would have ordered quite a bit more if the prices were lower (and if the prices were lower, the quality issues would also not be as big as a problem for me). As of right now, I am disappointed with the conversion process, but willing to order some films that are simply "must haves" for me. There are almost 40 titles that I would like to own from this initial list, but I would only order around 4 or 5 more titles in the coming months if no changes are made in the program. Warner will only get more of my dollars if they either reduce the price to fit the quality or increase the quality to fit the price (and by quality, I simply mean the conversion process, I don't expect restored versions of these films).
post #573 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

This doesn't sound like a bad program but the prices could be better. I also saw in one of the posts that the dvds have chapter stops. I purchased Merrill's marauders from critics choice video before it was released from amazon for I believe $17.00. It was a pressed disk which also had chapter stops and no scene index which allows one to go to a particular scene in the movie. I hope all the studios adopt this program of making films available. It will put the BOOTLEGGERS out of business. Finally IMHO we are lucky to be getting these classics.
post #574 of 3541
Thread Starter 

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B_K

Even if you are not into HD/BluRay, you would see a huge image boost of SD DVDs on an HD set. Just upgrading to progressive 480P blew me away the first time. Again, if you do not want to upgrade, that is fine. But if you do, you may find that some of your DVDs that "looked fine" on your current setup will look very sub-par. We should encourage Warner to release DVDs, (even if it is this Archive collection) in a manner that will look good on present, if not future displays.

Thank you for making your points across in such a nice, non-aggressive way. Great attitude

I certainly do understand the point that all DVDs should be made to look the best on present displays. That's undeniable. All viewing experiences should be the best possible. But with the wide range of displays available, I would imagine it must be more difficult than ever to make absolutely everyone happy.

PS - And yes, I admit I am the only one in my family and among my friends who is not into HD and large screens. Some of them have up to a 140" display with a front projector. It literally scares me to death!
post #575 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinéKarine
But with the wide range of displays available, I would imagine it must be more difficult than ever to make absolutely everyone happy.
Encoding the DVDs progressively is the best way to make the most people happy, whether they are using tube, plasma, lcd, or a projector.

There is no excuse for encoding a DVD interlaced today; it is just a sign that the encoding of the DVDs is being done by people that don't know what they are doing (i.e. not Warner Home Video).
post #576 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Encoding the DVDs progressively is the best way to make the most people happy, whether they are using tube, plasma, lcd, or a projector.

There is no excuse for encoding a DVD interlaced today; it is just a sign that the encoding of the DVDs is being done by people that don't know what they are doing (i.e. not Warner Home Video).

I agree, most people would be happy. I would be, since interlaced DVD's don't look good on my TV. I collect silent films, so I am used to age related defects, but defects due to poor encoding is different. The cost of removing defects from the original film elements cost money, and makes most movies out of reach, but proper encoding costs nothing.

I would like to order most of the silent film titles from this collection, but not if they are interlaced. The cost is maybe high, but I remember purchasing silent films on VHS and paying $20+ was common. I wouldn't pay $1 for anything on VHS nowadays, but on DVD, I am OK with this.

I think the problem here is that studios have shown us just how good these films can look, by doing so, people have become spoiled. Now everyone demands that all films to look this good. Sometimes age related defects can give a film charm, these defects are part of the film. Audiences since the beginning have excepted this. I even know someone who prefers seeing these defects . Imagine grindhouse movies being crystal clear, with no print damage. Would we enjoy them better?.

Anyway, It's only been one week. I hope Warner's will take the time to look over this forum. Hopefully, they can get past all the negative comments and make changes that will make us happy. At least some of us.
post #577 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by silentman74
I agree, most people would be happy. I would be, since interlaced DVD's don't look good on my TV. I collect silent films, so I am used to age related defects, but defects due to poor encoding is different. The cost of removing defects from the original film elements cost money, and makes most movies out of reach, but proper encoding costs nothing.

I would like to order most of the silent film titles from this collection, but not if they are interlaced. The cost is maybe high, but I remember purchasing silent films on VHS and paying $20+ was common. I wouldn't pay $1 for anything on VHS nowadays, but on DVD, I am OK with this.

I think the problem here is that studios have shown us just how good these films can look, by doing so, people have become spoiled. Now everyone demands that all films to look this good. Sometimes age related defects can give a film charm, these defects are part of the film. Audiences since the beginning have excepted this. I even know someone who prefers seeing these defects . Imagine grindhouse movies being crystal clear, with no print damage. Would we enjoy them better?.

Anyway, It's only been one week. I hope Warner's will take the time to look over this forum. Hopefully, they can get past all the negative comments and make changes that will make us happy. At least some of us.

agreed--I don't have a big TV (I watch everything on a 21 inch computer screen), but I have friends that do, and when I try to convince them that Three Comrades is a great movie, I don't want them focusing on how out of focus the thing looks on their mega screens...

the bottom line is this (and I realize that most people on here aren't nearly as far left of center on copyrights as I am)--I am not interested in rewarding Warner for stumbling into the ownership of these films (which I think ought to be freely available to all), I'm interested in helping to pay for the real restoration work that they've put into many of the titles in their catalog... this venture would divert my limited funds away from where they can do the most good (encouraging the mass-production and release of properly encoded DVDs)... anything else, I will record off TV... that's why I am boycotting this project.
post #578 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

I think everyone can agree that these should be authored as progressive rather than interlaced. Warner surely has read of this by now and has been made aware of it, as it is most likely the case that a 3rd party authoring house is doing the encodes. One would presume that going forward this would change.

I just don't see the need to be so despondent about it yet. If our complaints go unheard for a good while after they've been made (as in months of additional releases), then maybe there's a need for drawing lines in the sand. But let's give Warner some time to make adjustments. It's only been a week, after all. I'm sure Mr. Epstein can pass along the interlacing issue to the right people, and we already know Warner is well aware of the concerns over pricing.
post #579 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

I remain optimistic about this program. Hopefully, I'll still feel that way after I've received my initial order of 5 discs. I don't expect them until Tuesday at the earliest.
post #580 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

No one on THIS forum has a customer service number for Warner Bros? Somehow I find this hard to believe

Here's the thing - and I am not in a position to comment yay or nay on quality but have been reading with interest the posts from those who are in a position to comment (my order has said "shipped" since early Tuesday - why it would take this long to get to me is anyone's guess - and certainly Warners isn't responding to e-mail queries sent via their site). And some are annoyed at what they're reading and some say don't be negative let's just be happy we're getting these at all - here's the bottom line: Can you imagine if this were a Sony program or a Columbia program or a Universal program and we were being told about sub-par transfers, interlaced transfers, etc? I think the people who are saying let's just be happy we're getting these at all would be singing a different tune - because I've seen that happen time and again. No studio should get a free pass to do sub-par work. Again, I am basing this only on what I've read here - I'll chime in if and when my eighteen discs arrive.
post #581 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
I think everyone can agree that these should be authored as progressive rather than interlaced. Warner surely has read of this by now and has been made aware of it, as it is most likely the case that a 3rd party authoring house is doing the encodes. One would presume that going forward this would change.

I just don't see the need to be so despondent about it yet. If our complaints go unheard for a good while after they've been made (as in months of additional releases), then maybe there's a need for drawing lines in the sand. But let's give Warner some time to make adjustments. It's only been a week, after all. I'm sure Mr. Epstein can pass along the interlacing issue to the right people, and we already know Warner is well aware of the concerns over pricing.

I agree.

I've yet to receive the discs I ordered, so I will reserve judgment until I've seen them. However, As Don May stated earlier - and as someone who also works in the industry, I also do not understand why WHV can't press a few thousand of these discs at a time - it would be FAR from cost prohibitive for them to do this, so the whole dvd-r thing has me stumped as well. I feel that at their present price point, these discs should be no different than a pressed retail disc with pages for scene selection, setup & trailers. Usually if you pay for an inferior product you pay inferior prices, but to me, it looks like WHV is trying to have their cake and eat it with this program. After we diehards have snapped up some of the titles we badly want, I wonder how viable this program will be to the average joe at $20 a pop? This is a GREAT route WHV has taken - and they should be congratulated for taking this step, but there are SERIOUS issues with implementation that will have to be addressed to make this program a success.

P.S. - If the reports I'm reading here about interlaced discs are true.....WOW!
post #582 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Just wondering if anyone has heard what some of the future releases over the next couple-three months will be?
post #583 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

I noticed 2 "new" things on a visit to the archive site this a.m. One is the acronym MOD and estimated MOD next to the titles. If anyone can clue me on what MOD stands for I'd appreciate it. The other thing to the left is "On demand - rent" which indicates that Warners intends to rent as well as sell these titles at some point in the future.
post #584 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas T
I noticed 2 "new" things on a visit to the archive site this a.m. One is the acronym MOD and estimated MOD next to the titles. If anyone can clue me on what MOD stands for I'd appreciate it. The other thing to the left is "On demand - rent" which indicates that Warners intends to rent as well as sell these titles at some point in the future.

MOD = Made on Demand?
post #585 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

too late, too snarky
post #586 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Pannell
MOD = Made on Demand?

Manufacture On Demand!
post #587 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan1
Manufacture On Demand!

Well, since they're burned and not pressed they're not really manufactured, are they?
post #588 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

I received my DVDs Thursday from a Monday order. I am happy. I do not feel cheated and I have no complaints on the transfers. A couple are upgrades to laserdiscs and they are upgrades. The transfers were 100 times better and the colors were brighter. No complaints, yet.
post #589 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

I have to say that while I wasn't overly thrilled with the picture quality on either OXFORD BLUES or DOC SAVAGE, I had the chance to watch DUSTY AND SWEETS MCGEE and CAPTAIN SINDBAD this weekend and was quite happy with the results (I have a good system that de-interlaces well).

The colors of CAPTAIN SINDBAD popped off the screen so well, I was amazed. Beautiful use of color and the encode was decent (probably because the film was less than 90 minutes, so a single layer disc would be fine). Fun flick, too... I'd never seen it before. The included trailer was also a hoot to watch. I am extremely happy with this purchase.

DUSTY AND SWEETS MCGEE was an AMAZING film. I put it in and was so drawn into it, I couldn't take my eyes off it. There were some encoding issues that popped up, specifically in the reds (reds and MPEG2 are tough as it is), but the vertical lines in the reds (like the ones that occur in DREAM LOVER's encode) popped up only a few times in the neon signs in the night shots. This film might be one of the best movies I've seen so far this year. It's hard to describe, really... it's just a weird, sort of stream of consciousness, drug-addled dream with loads of classic rock music. Still, it's a fairly nice transfer and I'd recommend it since it's never really been on video before. A compelling odd little film.

Just my .02
post #590 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Manufactured on demand! Duh! Of course. Thank you!
post #591 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

A couple of suggestions, if I may.

The MOD program from WB has had a long gestation period, and like any new concept will need time to allow the bugs to be worked out.

While that occurs, I believe it's important to take a step back and understand WHY there is a mod program. There are hundreds and hundreds of productions in the vast WB and M-G-M libraries going back to the silent days that are constantly on want lists. But unfortunately desirability by cinephiles does not necessarily relate in a positive way to breaking even financially if a release were to move in a normal production cycle.

Researching and locating the prime film elements, shipping to labs, the creation of fine grains or dupes; re-comping three-strip elements, new color timing, clean-up, etc. all add up to huge expenses.

Which is why these films have not been available in the past, and probably would never be available but for a single exception.

That somewhere along the line, video masters were created -- probably for television or Turner -- which can serve as the basis for the mod program. These discs are being manufactured in the hundreds, not thousands or tens of thousands.

WB is doing everything possible to deliver the best quality beginning with extant masters, to satisfy the desires of people who love film, and not lose money in the process. The intent is to do something nice for the public. Many of these masters are early Ds, some later -- so the question of interlace vs. progressive, unless I'm misinformed, is based upon how the films were mastered.

The creation of the mod program is an almost unique situation. I use the word "almost," as it did occur once before. As I recall it was about 50 years ago, and it involved the license of 16mm prints from the Warner library to collectors on a "manufacture to order" basis. Want a three-strip Technicolor print of The Adventures of Robin Hood? $500 might have achieved the goal.

Today, because of its popularity, you can purchase a Blu-ray of Robin Hood for far less, but only because the title can be produced in the thousands, allowing the studio to amortize the cost of production.

In this situation the first disc produced can cost the studio $500 or $25,000. If the perceptions and desires of the public force an issue to head toward the higher number or worse, more films will never become available.

I need to gather more information and seek some technical counsel, but in the interim I would suggest that bit calmer discussion might be in order.

WB is not the enemy. They're merely attempting, believe it or not, to do something nice for those who love the cinema.

RAH
post #592 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefty
the bottom line is this (and I realize that most people on here aren't nearly as far left of center on copyrights as I am)--I am not interested in rewarding Warner for stumbling into the ownership of these films (which I think ought to be freely available to all), I'm interested in helping to pay for the real restoration work that they've put into many of the titles in their catalog... this venture would divert my limited funds away from where they can do the most good (encouraging the mass-production and release of properly encoded DVDs)... anything else, I will record off TV... that's why I am boycotting this project.

For the record, the studios do not "stumble into ownership." They take the risk, finance the production of films, and then by virtue of our copyright laws, have a unique and proprietary interest in their creations for a certain period of time, currently 95 years.

Film preservation is expensive, restoration even more so. It is that ownership by virtue of copyright that enables the holders of those rights to invest the sometimes huge amounts necessary to preserve and replicate their works in a quality fashion.

As an example, I would surmise that the Forbidden Hollywood 3 release probably cost the studio somewhere between $400,000 - $750,000. I doubt that anyone is going to invest those dollars in 70 year old product without exclusivity.
post #593 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas T
The other thing to the left is "On demand - rent" which indicates that Warners intends to rent as well as sell these titles at some point in the future.
That will be great!
post #594 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Many of these masters are early Ds, some later -- so the question of interlace vs. progressive, unless I'm misinformed, is based upon how the films were mastered.
Thanks for this insight, Mr. Harris.
post #595 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Well said, Mr. Harris!
post #596 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don May Jr

DUSTY AND SWEETS MCGEE was an AMAZING film. I put it in and was so drawn into it, I couldn't take my eyes off it. There were some encoding issues that popped up, specifically in the reds (reds and MPEG2 are tough as it is), but the vertical lines in the reds (like the ones that occur in DREAM LOVER's encode) popped up only a few times in the neon signs in the night shots. This film might be one of the best movies I've seen so far this year. It's hard to describe, really... it's just a weird, sort of stream of consciousness, drug-addled dream with loads of classic rock music. Still, it's a fairly nice transfer and I'd recommend it since it's never really been on video before. A compelling odd little film.

Just my .02

Thanks for the review, Don! I'm very pleased to hear this as I'm a big admirer of the film and will be happy to retire my grey market copy. Here's a link an article I wrote about it several months back. Love to hear your thoughts:
Dusty and Sweets McGee
post #597 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReggieW
I also do not understand why WHV can't press a few thousand of these discs at a time
Most likely, there is not enough demand to sell "a few thousand" of these titles or they would be going the traditional manufacturing/retail route.

I also applaud Warner for this new opportunity to obtain unreleased titles. I haven't found anything I want yet, but rest assured I'll be more than happy to place an order when I do find something I want. The cost seems more than reasonable for a custom made product that would otherwise remain locked away in the WB vaults, unavailable in any form for any cost.
post #598 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That somewhere along the line, video masters were created -- probably for television or Turner -- which can serve as the basis for the mod program. These discs are being manufactured in the hundreds, not thousands or tens of thousands.

WB is doing everything possible to deliver the best quality beginning with extant masters, to satisfy the desires of people who love film, and not lose money in the process. The intent is to do something nice for the public. Many of these masters are early Ds, some later -- so the question of interlace vs. progressive, unless I'm misinformed, is based upon how the films were mastered.

RAH

Exactly what I suspected. I found it VERY hard to believe these were newer, HD transfers as some had insisted.

I'm taking the plunge and getting Abe Lincoln in Illinois and Heart Beat, a terrible film that I just love.
post #599 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I need to gather more information and seek some technical counsel, but in the interim I would suggest that bit calmer discussion might be in order.
WB is not the enemy. They're merely attempting, believe it or not, to do something nice for those who love the cinema.
RAH
If possible can you find out who converts the video tape masters to DVD images? Is it Warner Home Video, or is it the same company - Allied Vaughn - that manufactures and distributes the discs?

I can't comprehend WHV letting a DVD with noticeable compression artifacts out their doors, so I suspect they are sending Allied Vaughn the tapes who then do the capturing and compression. I guess that would be cheaper, but reading reviews here and on other forums, it is resulting in a lot of DVDs with sub-standard encoding.

Also, I have no idea how a 153 minute film like Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse can fit onto a single layer DVD without some compression artifacts. Anything over 2 hours is too much IMO. Warner's recent DVDs are dual layer if the film is over about 110 minutes, even if the only extra feature is a trailer. This suggests to me that WHV try to keep the average bitrate close to 6 Mbps, which I think is about the same as early Superbit DVDs, later ones were 7+ Mbps. Cramming 153 minutes on a single layer DVD-R means the bitrate averages around 4.3 Mbps. Sure, Apple sells (720p, MPEG4-AVC compressed) movie downloads with around about that average bitrate, but for DVD format, that sort of compression is what I expect from shonky public domain companies.

I accept that these video masters will not be of the same quality as regular WHV DVDs, but encoding so poor that it results in compression errors in a 72 minute film is just ridiculous. Limitations in the source are forgivable, because in return the consumer gets availability of rare films. However, for the image quality to be further degraded due to careless compression is unacceptable.

Also, if the source is interlaced, WHV's compressionists would have sophisticated deinterlacing filters to make a progressively encoded DVD from the interlaced source. With some AVIsynth know-how, this can be done at home, but it is much better if the source is deinterlaced before compression.
post #600 of 3541

Re: Warner Archive Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_S
Economically, it makes sense for the Studio to go from film to 1080p SR and 480p Digibeta at the same time rather than just going to digibeta. You can always come down from an SR master. That way they supposedly don't have to transfer it again if they ever want to go hi def. otoh, they've now found out that a film transferred at 4 or 6k looks a heck of a lot better downconverted to 1080p than a film transferred at 1080p (aka 2k), so maybe they will have to retransfer titles anyways in the future.
Most of these releases aren't new film scans. They are DVDs made from 10+ year old Standard Definition (D1 or D2?) transfers. I don't think the Warner Archive project is designed to archive everything at 4K or even 1080p, I think it is designed to make money out of the transfers that Warner made before the DVD era started. I am hopeful that some of the money they make WILL go into preserving and restoring some of these films.

A few would be new transfers, Bohwani Junction was probably made around 2006 for that year's DVD Decision competition. More of the colour CinemaScope films probably are, but it is hard to tell with the tiny videos on the website - anything could look good at that resolution.

I wish Warner provided on every film's webpage more information about the source - digital or analog video, standard or high definition. If they provided that information then it would be easier for customers to make informed decisions about what they are being asked to buy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › Warner Archive Discussion Thread (FEEDBACK)