A Sneak Peek at Zulu and Khartoum (1 Viewer)

[OliverK]

Apart from the punchier colour, that U.K. edition is soooo messed up. It looks like a circa '95 CGI 'toon!

Yes it can look a bit cartoonish and not like a "real" movie at times - kind of like a more elaborate version of A Scanner Darkly. When I first read that there wasn't much of a difference between the TT and the Paramount disc I was surprised about that and after comparing both discs I can say that watching the two discs the difference is quite substantial and to me that is a good thing as I disliked the UK version that much.

 

[haineshisway]

Yes it can look a bit cartoonish and not like a "real" movie at times - kind of like a more elaborate version of A Scanner Darkly. When I first read that there wasn't much of a difference between the TT and the Paramount disc I was surprised about that and after comparing both discs I can say that watching the two discs the difference is quite substantial and to me that is a good thing as I disliked the UK version that much.

Well, let's be accurate about what was said, rather than be general about it with a blanket statement like "When I first read that there wasn't much of a difference" Here's what was said in the first post in this thread - in fact, it is very specific about what we BOTH felt were the differences and non-differences:

We spot-checked both transfers, watching long sequences of each. Here's what we both found: Detail is just about the same, but I'm also certain that those who want to see more than there is will see it. But to Nick's and my eyes, it's almost indistinguishable. Grain is still light on the Twilight Time transfer - maybe a hair more, but my opinion is that the element used is not as pristine as the UK - in fact, there are occasional white specks on the Twilight Time transfer, whereas the UK version is flawless in that regard. The major difference is the color - the UK is very saturated with really blue blues and especially really red reds, whereas the Twilight Time is less vivid in that regard, with reds that lean toward orange and slightly pale blues. I believe that the UK is more accurate in that regard, but some who don't like blue will probably prefer the Twilight Time.

 

[OliverK]

Well, let's be accurate about what was said, rather than be general about it with a blanket statement like "When I first read that there wasn't much of a difference" Here's what was said in the first post in this thread - in fact, it is very specific about what we BOTH felt were the differences and non-differences:

We spot-checked both transfers, watching long sequences of each. Here's what we both found: Detail is just about the same, but I'm also certain that those who want to see more than there is will see it. But to Nick's and my eyes, it's almost indistinguishable. Grain is still light on the Twilight Time transfer - maybe a hair more, but my opinion is that the element used is not as pristine as the UK - in fact, there are occasional white specks on the Twilight Time transfer, whereas the UK version is flawless in that regard. The major difference is the color - the UK is very saturated with really blue blues and especially really red reds, whereas the Twilight Time is less vivid in that regard, with reds that lean toward orange and slightly pale blues. I believe that the UK is more accurate in that regard, but some who don't like blue will probably prefer the Twilight Time.

Thanks, I think it was this part that I remembered regarding the question of grain and textures:

Here's what we both found: Detail is just about the same, but I'm also certain that those who want to see more than there is will see it. But to Nick's and my eyes, it's almost indistinguishable. Grain is still light on the Twilight Time transfer - maybe a hair more.

Luckily for me I find both discs easily distinguishable in this regard as the textureless look that bothered me is gone now. Otherwise it wouldn't have been a worthwhile upgrade for me especially given the fact that the TT transfer is not exactly state of the art but at least there wasn't excessive tempering and cleanup performed on it which is the way it should be, kudos to TT for that!

 

[Steen DK]

Caps-a-holic now has a comparison of the two Zulu versions:http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_comparison.php?disc1=3785&disc2=3784&hd_multiID=1570#auswahl

Thanks. That's a massive difference and really shows what an abomination the UK disc is. The actor's faces are just...

 

[ROclockCK]

...one word.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I appreciate the TT disc but unfortunately the sharpening sticks out like a sore thumb to me, roll on May and i hope Paramount do better, i doubt it but i live in hope as right now there is not a great release of this film available on blu ray.

 

[ROclockCK]

I'm still nagged by the 2.35:1 aspect ratio and similar resolution of both these Blu-ray releases. Doesn't that suggest that everything we've seen to date from both Paramount and MGM has been from reduction optical elements? For a significant step up from the current masters, wouldn't Paramount - or someone - need to go back to the original 8-perf Technirama large format negative and rescan*?

* Assuming that original negative still exists and has been preserved well enough to yield a better harvest.

 

[OliverK]

I appreciate the TT disc but unfortunately the sharpening sticks out like a sore thumb to me, roll on May and i hope Paramount do better, i doubt it but i live in hope as right now there is not a great release of this film available on blu ray.

I turned all the sharpening off and possibly the upscaling to 4k also made it a bit more analog looking so I found it just good enough to watch. The funny thing is that I still did not find the time to watch the complete movie and now another version is announced. I think I will just wait for that one to be released to see if there is any improvement before watching the TT disc

 

[FoxyMulder]

I turned all the sharpening off and possibly the upscaling to 4k also made it a bit more analog looking so I found it just good enough to watch. The funny thing is that I still did not find the time to watch the complete movie and now another version is announced. I think I will just wait for that one to be released to see if there is any improvement before watching the TT disc

Yeah i never have sharpening turned on, perhaps your 4K projector helps.

 

[OliverK]

Yeah i never have sharpening turned on, perhaps your 4K projector helps.

I really think it does but maybe it was only me wanting a watchable version of Zulu so badly that I was a bit more tolerant of EE than usual

 

[Robert Crawford]

This shouldn't be taken as a criticism towards others. Thankfully, my tolerance level isn't nearly as high as some people around here. Otherwise, I would be consumed by PQ-issues instead of just enjoying the movies themselves. My pea brain can only handle a certain number of distractions when watching my movies.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Otherwise, I would be consumed by PQ-issues instead of just enjoying the movies themselves.

I feel you miss the point, if image quality doesn't matter then why don't we just all go back to watching VHS, why didn't we just stick with DVD, another point is that for myself and no doubt others, we have seen these films multiple times and enjoyed them in the past, we can enjoy them again on blu ray but that doesn't mean they are immune to criticism and it doesn't mean people can't point out severe issues such as the lack of film texture on one release and too much sharpening on the other release.

Many things can take a person out of the film, the bigger the screen the more you notice edge enhancement and lack of film texture but even on 50 inch sets it can be an issue, i sometimes get taken out of a film by CGI which looks so unreal because they give us camera shots using the CGI which change the laws of physics and my brain tells me something isn't right, edge enhancement really annoys me, just as much as pan and scan on VHS annoyed me back in the eighties/nineties.

It would be great to just enjoy the film, i can do that with Ben Hur, Lawrence Of Arabia and a number of epic classics because they did a great job with them, they may not be perfect but they are good enough, unfortunately Zulu isn't good enough just yet, maybe one day they will get there. There is a certain quality level that i personally expect with blu ray these days.

I would think people on specialist forums are the ones who complain, i often read Amazon reviews and the 5 star review where the person notices nothing wrong with anything he buys ( unless he is complaining about film grain), they see boosted contrast and overly saturated colours and think it's great, that's what happened with the first release of Zulu, many 5 star reviews on Amazon.

We are all the more educated about films these days, our expectations are higher based on what we know is possible if a decent film scan, light handed cleanup and great encode is made, so yes a poorer release can pull you out of a film, if i didn't care about the quality i would just stream the film or stick to the DVD, my tolerance level is lower because if it wasn't i would not have bothered buying into the blu ray format or indeed any format, i'd now be streaming every film i watch since PQ wouldn't matter.

 

[OliverK]

I think Robert was making the point that ignorance is bliss if I may say so and I agree. That can also mean not bothering with things that do not spring to ones attention just because somebody else does not like them. In a way I guess that this is what most of us do, only our thresholds for what is still watchable are different.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I think Robert was making the point that ignorance is bliss if I may say so and I agree.

If it's your hobby then i have always been of the opinion that one should educate yourself on it, home cinema is one of my hobbies.

 

[Robert Crawford]

If it's your hobby then i have always been of the opinion that one should educate yourself on it, home cinema is one of my hobbies.

What you do with your hobby is your business and I didn't miss your point as I'm content with what I do with my hobby and have no problem with how you handle this great hobby. As I previously stated, my comments should not be taken as a criticism. I just rather be me when it comes to the hobby of home theater.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I think Robert was making the point that ignorance is bliss if I may say so and I agree. That can also mean not bothering with things that do not spring to ones attention just because somebody else does not like them. In a way I guess that this is what most of us do, only our thresholds for what is still watchable are different.

Thank you Oliver that's exactly what I saying with my previous comment. To each his own and I sincerely mean it.

 

[OliverK]

If it's your hobby then i have always been of the opinion that one should educate yourself on it, home cinema is one of my hobbies.

Same here, home theater has also been my hobby for a long time. It can collide though with the hobby of watching movies - Blu-ray offers so much potential yet it is often not properly realized for catalog titles so that for me there are far too many movies that I do not enjoy watching. But you know what they say: What has been seen cannot be unseen - That's how I feel sometimes.

 

[davidmatychuk]

What I want is to always be watching the best possible home video version of whatever movie I'm watching. If I'm watching "Comfort And Joy" on VHS, or "The Alamo" on laserdisc, I'm watching what is legitimately the best current home video version, and there is also clearly plenty of room for hoped-for improvement in the future. That improvement might never come, but I've got plenty to enjoy in the meantime, and I don't mind living in hope.

 

[FoxyMulder]

What I want is to always be watching the best possible home video version of whatever movie I'm watching. If I'm watching "Comfort And Joy" on VHS, or "The Alamo" on laserdisc, I'm watching what is legitimately the best current home video version, and there is also clearly plenty of room for hoped-for improvement in the future. That improvement might never come, but I've got plenty to enjoy in the meantime, and I don't mind living in hope.

I guess the problem comes when you find out the DVD is better than the blu ray, case in point would be The Sword In The Stone.

 

[OliverK]

What I want is to always be watching the best possible home video version of whatever movie I'm watching. If I'm watching "Comfort And Joy" on VHS, or "The Alamo" on laserdisc, I'm watching what is legitimately the best current home video version, and there is also clearly plenty of room for hoped-for improvement in the future. That improvement might never come, but I've got plenty to enjoy in the meantime, and I don't mind living in hope.

As a movie-based approach this is perfect I think.

I am more technical and for example would never want to watch The Alamo in anything less than HD resolution.
At the moment that means that either I catch a 35 or 70mm screening of it somewhere or I have to wait a while until I will be able to see it.