A Sneak Peek at Zulu and Khartoum (1 Viewer)

[OliverK]

I deliberately used the word texture instead of detail because that is what the DNR removes. Caine's face, jacket, and hat all have texture in the picture from the TT, something that is sorely lacking on the UK disc. No amount of sweat could make a human face look like that.

The difference in texture is there for all to see. If somebody doesn't notice it then no amount of screencaps will change that.Hopefully my TT order will arrive soon, looking forward to compare the UK and the TT version on my screen. Too bad the MGM version is so dated but if it wasn't we probably wouldn't have two versions in the first place.

 

[JohnMor]

While I never put too much stock in screen caps for these kinds of issues, I do see more "felt" texture in the TT cap. The jacket shoulder is the area in which I see the biggest difference. But is it possible that is because of the "boosting" in the other transfer, especially since we are dealing with red? Could the red be ever so slightly blooming as to lessen the appearance of the felt texture?

 

[Worth]

The TT version with boosted contrast and saturation:

 

[FoxyMulder]

The TT version with boosted contrast and saturation:

zulu.jpg

A little strong for my taste, details are lost due to the contrast boost, but the good thing is that if people do want to do this while watching the film then you can add your own artificial boost ( with personal taste ) using your television and projector controls if you like and note how the film texture still makes everything look better than the UK edition.

 

[dannyboy104]

I have ordered the new Blu Ray, and I am looking forward to hearing the improved stereo soundtrack. The photo attached, I would suggest, displays the correct red, which is very inconsistent on the UK Blu Ray. For example take a look at the 21.55 and then compare to 32.14.

Thanks
David

 

[Persianimmortal]

A little strong for my taste, details are lost due to the contrast boost, but the good thing is that if people do want to do this while watching the film then you can add your own artificial boost ( with personal taste ) using your television and projector controls if you like and note how the film texture still makes everything look better than the UK edition.

Except that simply increasing the color saturation on the TT version to get closer to a correct level of saturation, as demonstrated in the screenshot posted by Worth, also results in Michael Caine's face looking very sunburnt rather than the correct pale hue.

Again, it seems quite apparent that neither version is "correct". The colors on the UK version are closer to what they should be, and bright, sunny, daytime in South Africa actually looks like bright, sunny, daytime; this is counterbalanced by the fact that the TT version doesn't have any noticeable DNR, and has better audio. You can't adjust your TV to make either version look spot on. There is no superior version in absolute terms, it's a case of which particular aspects of each presentation of the movie best suit individual tastes. At least the screenshots should help inform that decision.

 

[JohnMor]

I don't think anyone has said that either transfer is "correct." Just that each has its own pluses and minuses.

 

[Douglas_H]

Hmm, not an easy decision.
$30+ for a faded, dingy print with "better" sound or $17 shipped for a brighter image with some DNR without spray tan faces.
I take the $17 one.
Granted I'm basing this on jpeg screencaps but I'll trade a smidge of detail for a more vibrant image overall.
Neither one looks to win a natural beauty contest.
I'm guessing each release is a mixed-bag from scene to scene.
Again just looking at the caps, Zulu in no way comes close to the original release of Patton, a true wax-fest like I've never seen.
FWIW, I like Zulu but as a film it isn't in the same level as Patton.
But each person has to judge for themselves and pick or not pick their poison.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I viewed the TT disc today. Frankly, I was too involved in the movie itself to even notice any disc defects. It looked fine to me and sometime this weekend, I'll pull out the UK disc for some comparison viewing. However, Michael Caine with those fake eye lashes did catch my attention again.

 

[ROclockCK]

Whichever master one prefers from a visual standpoint*, there's still the matter of audio authenticity...and anyone who downplays the dramatic significance of sound and scoring for this particular motion picture is not only doing themselves a great disservice, but also the film. IMO John Barry's hybrid classical/tribal sound tapestry for Zulu is the stuff of poetry.

* and yes, when I first saw the Paramount U.K Blu-ray about two years ago, I was also struck by the punchiness of its colour, any misgivings over the vigorousness of its clean-up and contrast boost workflow notwithstanding. But if these caps are even remotely accurate, then I now lean toward the MGM/TT master for both image and sound, simply because it appears to offer more wiggle-room for compensation at the display level...unlike the Paramount U.K. transfer where its worst sins are 'baked in'.

 

[rsmithjr]

* and yes, when I first saw the Paramount U.K Blu-ray about two years ago, I was also struck by the punchiness of its colour, any misgivings over the vigorousness of its clean-up and contrast boost workflow notwithstanding. But if these caps are even remotely accurate, then I now lean toward the MGM/TT master for both image and sound, simply because it appears to offer more wiggle-room for compensation at the display level...unlike the Paramount U.K. transfer where its worst sins are 'baked in'.

This is a critical point. I often make adjustments to the color and contrast to get it where I want it. Some adjustments to the sound are possible of course, but not much to do with a mono soundtrack that was originally stereo.

In the case of Zulu, I actually didn't make any adjustments (although I did for Khartoum). The color and contrast of Zulu were fine. I don't think some of the caps going around are doing justice to the title.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This is a critical point. I often make adjustments to the color and contrast to get it where I want it. Some adjustments to the sound are possible of course, but not much to do with a mono soundtrack that was originally stereo.

In the case of Zulu, I actually didn't make any adjustments (although I did for Khartoum). The color and contrast of Zulu were fine. I don't think some of the caps going around are doing justice to the title.

Man, I'm too much into the film to be making any type of adjustments especially video-wise. When the opening sequences first appeared on my display yesterday, I instantly had a flashback to when I viewed this fine film for the first time as a kid back in 1964, at my neighborhood movie theater. The mass wedding sequence was like me watching a live National Geographic Magazine. First time viewing a woman's breast.

 

[RolandL]

Well, I was thinking of buying the TT version for the better sound but, this review says they are almost the same:


"The sound on both is 2.0. It is matrixed 4:2:4 meaning it has 4.0 channels of sound, a front L,C,R and a mono Surround. Both the UK and TT are the same mix. Both are equalized differently. The TT is brighter with less bass. The UK has a high end cut off which make it sound less bright and because of that the TT gives the impression of being more directional. However, because it has a brighter sounding tone there are flaws in the sound when decoded - phase errors which causes some dialog to be output in the surrounds in the form of re-verb, or echo. This is most noticeable in the opening narration done by Richard Burton. This is why, most likely, the UK release opted for a high frequency filter to lesson this, where it's not as obvious.They both have the same panning and steering effects - eg: the wagon on fire that pans across the screen to the right following the walk in of the ZULUS from the right, both during the beginning of the film. There is another reference point of it being the same mix when the Preacher is drunk and is heard yelling off screen on the left side. Also, just under the 2hr. mark the film seem to turn mono for a while. I can say this, if you have the UK edition watch it with the PCM track not the bitstream one, because it's totally uncompressed it will sound slightly better with more directness/directionality. The ZULU chants, especially prior to battle and last one, have nice reverb into the surrounds. It's a shame that the 4 track stems weren't used on either."

 

[Reed Grele]

Roland, I believe that the U.K. ZULU audio is supposedly fake stereo made from a monaural source. The TT's audio is supposed to be true stereo.

 

[Douglas_H]

Man, I'm too much into the film to be making any type of adjustments especially video-wise. When the opening sequences first appeared on my display yesterday, I instantly had a flashback to when I viewed this fine film for the first time as a kid back in 1964, at my neighborhood movie theater. The mass wedding sequence was like me watching a live National Geographic Magazine. First time viewing a woman's breast.

Agreed. I've never considered futzing with any video settings. I paid good money for an expert calibration. As far as the sound, I value a great soundtrack as much as anyone but I'm wagering that with Zulu it's not going to make much difference since there was no real work done on it. Even films like LOA where the soundtrack was worked on extensively the highs of the music are noticeably thin.

 

[RolandL]

Reed, yes that is what everyone is saying except for the review above.

 

[haineshisway]

Reed, yes that is what everyone is saying except for the review above.

The review above is written by someone who obviously knows nothing about sound - the Twilight Time is STEREO, the UK is anything but and sounds bad. Whatever one thinks of the two images, the sound clearly goes to Twilight Time.

 

[Douglas_H]

Thanks a lot Bruce

 

[davidmatychuk]

I'd like to put in an unequivocal "Yes!" for good sound. After all, the other great advantage Blu-Ray has over any previous home video format is that uncompressed audio is an option. Is there such a thing as a Twilight Time Blu-Ray without an isolated score track? I've considered this from the start to be code for "my kind of boutique video company". Sound, sound, sound!

 

[ROclockCK]

I'd like to put in an unequivocal "Yes!" for good sound. After all, the other great advantage Blu-Ray has over any previous home video format is that uncompressed audio is an option. Is there such a thing as a Twilight Time Blu-Ray without an isolated score track? I've considered this from the start to be code for "my kind of boutique video company". Sound, sound, sound!

Unfortunately, yes David. The only IST-less TT titles I'm aware of are Cover Girl and Drums Along the Mohawk, neither of which had surviving scores available.