Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › A Few Words About By Robert Harris › A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray - Page 6

post #151 of 186
11/14/09 at 1:34pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

Robert,

Pleased that you were able to view.  

The bottom line for me in all of these discussions, is that they should be unnecessary.  It would have been no more expensive and taken no more effort to create a perfect Blu-ray, and I would have been thrilled to give it a highest rating.  The pity is that time and effort are taken in a thread which should not have needed to exist.

I have no disagreement there.  Certain people in the industry are doing a great disservice by approving certain work when it comes to these blu-ray presentations.





Crawdaddy
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

It's a Wonderful Life [Blu-ray]
$20.88 at
See it »
post #152 of 186
11/14/09 at 2:27pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

While viewing the Blu-ray I was not under the spell of any drugs, inclusive of modern non-prescription medications, nor the 19th century favorite, Laudanum, nor any opiates of any kind.

How can you be sure Mr. Gower put the right stuff in the pills?  He's been pretty upset lately.
Reply
post #153 of 186
11/15/09 at 2:45am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Worth View Post





I'm not sure that I'd agree with that assessment. I bought the original "Star Trek" films on blu before bothering to read all the negative reviews. In some ways they look arguably "better" than the DVDs - that is, they are cleaner and clearly more detailed - but I find the DVDs actually look more film-like despite the lower resolution.

The same is true of Paramount's face off HD-DVD. It's sharper than the DVD, but the gross misuse of digital processing makes it appear far less film-like.

Thanks for the reply, and I take your point.

As I understand it from Robert's comments, he feels this disc looks the same as the DVD, only with better contrast and more detail.  Film is more detailed and has better contrast and more detail than SD video, so it is more film-like in those respects.

Now, if the DVD looked less digital than this Blu-ray Disc we would be balancing the pros and cons of each.  However, the BD has only pros over the DVD and no cons, and as Robert has pointed out, his problem is how far short this BD falls of what it could have been.

Perhaps what we are seeing is there are some qualities of film which are more important to some than others.

Has anyone seen the UK Blu-ray Disc of Time Bandits yet?  It has a very 'film-like' appearence.

Reply
post #154 of 186
11/15/09 at 4:32am
Thread Starter 
I question if you're playing a game here, especially in the reworking of my comments.  If you properly report what I've written, you'll find the point that because of its far higher resolution, the BD looks less film-like than the SD.  In no way equal to the image of lower resolution, which is able to hide the flaws.

One can accept an SD disc for what it is, as it makes no pretense toward reproducing the the look of actual film.  While the BD has the capability to do so, it fails.

And the addition of a clearly damaged frame from another transfer hardly moves things along, unless there is a missing emoticon.  This appears to be a perfect example of selecting an incorrect film element for transfer, unless one is seeking emulsion scratches.

The entire point of the IaWL BD is that whomever was responsible for the final product began with a superior piece of film, and failed miserably.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire View Post

Thanks for the reply, and I take your point.

As I understand it from Robert's comments, he feels this disc looks the same as the DVD, only with better contrast and more detail.  Film is more detailed and has better contrast and more detail than SD video, so it is more film-like in those respects.

Now, if the DVD looked less digital than this Blu-ray Disc we would be balancing the pros and cons of each.  However, the BD has only pros over the DVD and no cons, and as Robert has pointed out, his problem is how far short this BD falls of what it could have been.

Perhaps what we are seeing is there are some qualities of film which are more important to some than others.

Has anyone seen the UK Blu-ray Disc of Time Bandits yet?  It has a very 'film-like' appearence.



Reply
post #155 of 186
11/15/09 at 4:54am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

I question if you're playing a game here, especially in the reworking of my comments.  If you properly report what I've written, you'll find the point that because of its far higher resolution, the BD looks less film-like than the SD.  In no way equal to the image of lower resolution, which is able to hide the flaws.


Hi Robert.  I'm not playing a game here, and would not want to misrepresent your comments - that was how I read what you've said.  I cannot find the part that says the extra resolution makes it worse than the DVD, I can only find the parts which discuss improved contrast and detail.

Just to clarify, once and for all, are you saying that the BD looks worse and less film-like than the DVD?

Or, put another way, if you owned neither, what would you do - buy the BD, the DVD, or neither (leaving aside the price difference)?

Many thanks.

Steve W
Reply
post #156 of 186
11/15/09 at 5:48am
Thread Starter 

While I try to refrain from offering buying advice except in the case of "must owns," if I owned neither, and was set up for Blu-ray, I'd wait until the release is done properly.  There are some very talented technical people at the studio, and I'd place a wager on this problem stemming from an executive bean-counter extraordinaire sending a message of "Don't spend money on a new master.  This one is fine."

Then the disc enters the marketplace and when the problem is finally acknowledged, not a single finger points in the direction of bean-counter.  Everyone is glaring at the individual who approved what the techs must have known was a flawed older transfer.  In this case all transfers are handled by outside vendors.

RAH
 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire View Post




Hi Robert.  I'm not playing a game here, and would not want to misrepresent your comments - that was how I read what you've said.  I cannot find the part that says the extra resolution makes it worse than the DVD, I can only find the parts which discuss improved contrast and detail.

Just to clarify, once and for all, are you saying that the BD looks worse and less film-like than the DVD?

Or, put another way, if you owned neither, what would you do - buy the BD, the DVD, or neither (leaving aside the price difference)?

Many thanks.

Steve W


Reply
post #157 of 186
11/15/09 at 6:37am
Thank you for the review.
I will be voting with my wallet and not purchasing this film on Blu-Ray until it gets
the transfer it deserves.  Sad.
Reply
post #158 of 186
11/15/09 at 12:29pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

(...)  Everyone is glaring at the individual who approved what the techs must have known was a flawed older transfer.  In this case all transfers are handled by outside vendors.

RAH

 
As far as I can make it out, the transfer master itself should be/is good/very good.  Having the transfer made outside was not the problem.  It is the post (de-noising tool that was used for cleanup) that has caused the flaws.  That decision was not well advised; and the QC and acceptance was not, either.
Reply
post #159 of 186
11/16/09 at 6:48am
Thread Starter 
I've had a chance to re-check the last standard definition release, which appears to be from the same master -- grain reduced, sharpened, and with "force fields."  Because of the far lower resolution it is, to my eye, a more pleasing and honest representation of the film.

Interestingly, the SD packaging uses the verbiage "brand-new color version as well as the beautifully restored black & white version."

And from the look of the image, I buy it, and I'm fine with it.

The new Blu-ray has dropped the word "restored" and changed it to read "pristine," which better suits the release, as it hardly matters if something is "restored," if layers of digital garbage are encoded along with the image to hide the restoration.  It is however, clean.

RAH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser View Post

As far as I can make it out, the transfer master itself should be/is good/very good.  Having the transfer made outside was not the problem.  It is the post (de-noising tool that was used for cleanup) that has caused the flaws.  That decision was not well advised; and the QC and acceptance was not, either.


Reply
post #160 of 186
11/16/09 at 8:00am
FWIW (and for the reasons I am about to post it's probably not worth much) I just watched my new BD of IaWL from start-to-finish last night and thought it was beautiful. 

But here's the caveat.  I use a pair of untrained eyes to make that determination AND am watching on a very small display (26" 16:9 HD CRT).

So, I fit an audience that should not have any problems with this disc (as the reviewers here--RAH & Michael Reuben have clearly noted).  Even if I can upgrade sometime to a 32" LCD, I'm sure it will still look terrific. 

As has been noted over and over again, the film looks completely clean and in perfect shape.  It is a joy to watch and I still get choked up at the reading of Sam Wainwright's telegram from London. 

I was left wondering about the audio...if a lossless track might've made some difference.  While I have no complaints at all about what I listened to last night, I will wonder if the presentation might have been even a little bit better with an uncompressed track. 
Reply
post #161 of 186
11/16/09 at 8:56pm
i was looking forward to the film too =(. now i'm definitely not wasting $ on it. maybe i should stick to criterion ONLY lol ;).

here are screencaps from elsewhere on the web:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/c7a83254686732/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/bc23c954686740/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/70d0f554686754/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/e0c6a254686763/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/097b9454686783/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/83da1754686791/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/2ba64954686801/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/38188f54686812/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/d081d154686824/

Reply
post #162 of 186
11/16/09 at 10:09pm
Thread Starter 
Unfortunately, the captures are rather misleading, as they look quite nice, but for the exception of missing facial detail.  The major problem does not show up in still frames, only in motion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediFonger View Post

i was looking forward to the film too =(. now i'm definitely not wasting $ on it. maybe i should stick to criterion ONLY lol ;).

here are screencaps from elsewhere on the web:
http://www.imagebam.com/image/c7a83254686732/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/bc23c954686740/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/70d0f554686754/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/e0c6a254686763/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/097b9454686783/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/83da1754686791/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/2ba64954686801/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/38188f54686812/
http://www.imagebam.com/image/d081d154686824/
 


Reply
post #163 of 186
11/16/09 at 10:53pm
Well, maybe its my PC display but those caps look like total crap to me. When I enlarge those things it just looks like there is posterization in every image. There is one where he is standing beside a gal who is holding a bottle and a can. In that one, on my display, his face looks like it is peeling from a bad sunburn. I don't think those things can be used as any indication for the quality of this disc.

Edit: I wanted to see if it was my graphics card and display that was causing the "posterized" look that I was seeing. I checked some caps of other B&W films, especially Casablanca which I know is a pretty good transfer. I saw the same effect there as the caps of IaWL so, apparently, it is my display causing the problem. It doesn't seem to be giving a very smooth gradient of greys. The effect didn't seem quite as pronounced in the Casablanca caps, but it was definitely there, so I have to retract my earlier statement about these caps. It is my laptop display that is making them look bad. It's funny that I don't see the same effect in colour caps.
Edited by Edwin-S - 11/16/09 at 11:44pm
Reply
post #164 of 186
11/18/09 at 2:35pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwin-S View Post

 It is my laptop display that is making them look bad. It's funny that I don't see the same effect in colour caps.

Laptop display generally = crappy LCD.   Can't (critically) judge much of anything on crappy LCD quality.

I still only use a CRT for my main PC -- ain't gonna touch LCD for photo editing, etc. unless I'm gonna spend the $$$ for a top one (and even then...).  The diff is quite noticeable even for visiting HTF, especially when this new format was still using the earlier brighter color scheme.

_Man_
Reply
post #165 of 186
11/19/09 at 8:37pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire View Post

Has anyone seen the UK Blu-ray Disc of Time Bandits yet?  It has a very 'film-like' appearence.


Looking at this capture, yes, it is filmlike, but they couldn't find a cleaner element? This one is scratched and dirty.
Reply
post #166 of 186
11/20/09 at 7:25am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire View Post

Has anyone seen the UK Blu-ray Disc of Time Bandits yet?  It has a very 'film-like' appearence.

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I would much prefer dirt, debris, scratches, and other film artifacts to a perfectly clean but overly-processed, digital-looking transfer.  

Reply
post #167 of 186
11/20/09 at 8:07am


Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink View Post



I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I would much prefer dirt, debris, scratches, and other film artifacts to a perfectly clean but overly-processed, digital-looking transfer.  
 

I agree, although I suspect that's a minority viewpoint. For me, films on blu-ray should ideally look like a high-quality release print on opening night in a really good theatre.
Reply
post #168 of 186
11/20/09 at 8:12am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwin-S View Post

There is one where he is standing beside a gal who is holding a bottle and a can.

"A gal"?  That would be Oscar-winner Donna Reed, thank you very much.
Reply
post #169 of 186
11/20/09 at 9:18pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Zimmer View Post

"A gal"?  That would be Oscar-winner Donna Reed, thank you very much.

 

It's funny. I watch quite a few movies but I really don't follow actors or actresses that much. There are a lot of movies I like but I couldn't name some of the actors that are in them. The actor has to do one hell of a job portraying a character in order for me to actually pay attention to them as someone other than the character they play. That is why I didn't know who she was or what awards she has won. Who she was didn't interest me enough to bother looking her up. Sorry about that.
 
Reply
post #170 of 186
12/20/09 at 11:32pm

Question: During the last eight or so minutes of the film, there is a vertical line running along the right edge of the frame. I never noticed this before. Is this a scratch on the film or is it a digital artifact? The end credits and Liberty logo do not have the line.

Reply
post #171 of 186
12/21/09 at 2:06am


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard View Post

Question: During the last eight or so minutes of the film, there is a vertical line running along the right edge of the frame. I never noticed this before. Is this a scratch on the film or is it a digital artifact? The end credits and Liberty logo do not have the line.



I never noticed it. 




Crawdaddy
Reply
post #172 of 186
12/21/09 at 2:33am
Yeah, it runs across the right side of the frame from the point where Bert the Cop is shooting at George and stays on screen until the end (it does go away for a few shots.) Anyway, the colorized version is also like this, so it must be a scratch on the film.
Reply
post #173 of 186
12/21/09 at 8:25am
Eric, I watched the BD of this last evening, and I also noticed the scratch. I don't remember seeing it on the previous DVD release. 
Edited by Larry Sutliff - 12/21/09 at 2:10pm
Reply
post #174 of 186
12/21/09 at 2:48pm
I checked the previous release, taken from the same restoration and the scratch is there. I'm thinking that maybe very little cropping was done on the right edge of the frame. Scratches are prevalent in that area...maybe?
Reply
post #175 of 186
12/21/09 at 4:01pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard View Post

Question: During the last eight or so minutes of the film, there is a vertical line running along the right edge of the frame. I never noticed this before. Is this a scratch on the film or is it a digital artifact? The end credits and Liberty logo do not have the line.



It is noted in my review, where I said it struck me as more digital than analog, but I couldn't be sure.
Reply
post #176 of 186
12/21/09 at 7:06pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Christou View Post



I've had a look at some of the online reviews of the blu-ray and was surprised to discover many are calling it a "stunning transfer", "better than any BW transfer I've ever seen",

If that is the case, then they clearly have not seen Casablanca, or even The Day The Earth Stood Still for examples of how truly "stunning" (and film like)  a B&W film can look on blu-ray.

Doug

Reply
post #177 of 186
12/21/09 at 7:46pm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorkshire View Post




Thanks for the reply, and I take your point.

As I understand it from Robert's comments, he feels this disc looks the same as the DVD, only with better contrast and more detail.  Film is more detailed and has better contrast and more detail than SD video, so it is more film-like in those respects.


60I HD video also has better contrast and more detail than DVD. This however doesn't make it look film like.

Doug

Reply
post #178 of 186
12/21/09 at 11:05pm
After watching the entire disc, the most disturbing parts of the transfer are the dnr and the scratch I mentioned, because it is distracting at the most crucial (and best) part of the film. I wonder if Paramount would ever go through the trouble of creating a new master? Because if they don't, then the dnr is here to stay.
Reply
post #179 of 186
12/3/10 at 1:38pm

I brought this up last year, but didn't really receive a definitive response. Can someone tell me what the weird line is on the right of the screen about 9 mins. before the end of the film when George is on the bridge wishing for his life back? Is it film damage, or something digital? My sister saw this in the theatre last night and said there was no such line on the print. Help!

Reply
post #180 of 186
12/3/10 at 10:12pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard View Post

I brought this up last year, but didn't really receive a definitive response. Can someone tell me what the weird line is on the right of the screen about 9 mins. before the end of the film when George is on the bridge wishing for his life back? Is it film damage, or something digital? My sister saw this in the theatre last night and said there was no such line on the print. Help!


This was first flagged in my HTF review, but at that point you didn't have any PQ concerns:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard View Post

I thought the film looked great. I'm pleased that Paramount released this in time for my celebrations this year. I'll be having friends over to watch it!


About a month later, you noticed the problem and came here to ask about it, where I repeated what's said in my review -- namely, that it doesn't look like print damage.

 

Now, short of getting word from the people who worked on the Blu-ray (and I doubt they'll be speaking up, for reasons that should be obvious), I don't see how we're likely to get anything "definitive".

 

I have Republic's DVD from 2001, which is listed as being "Digitally re-mastered . . . from the original film negative". The vertical line does not appear.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

It's a Wonderful Life [Blu-ray]
$20.88 at
See it »
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › A Few Words About By Robert Harris › A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray