American Graffiti Blu-ray DNR issues? (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

I'm shocked, shocked to read that from you, Brandon Conway.

I'm quite proud of the reputation I have here of being, you know, actually sane. I happen to WATCH THE MOVIES rather than get off on screen grabs.

You mean the same 8 1/2 that got a 4/5 for video from blu-ray.com (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/8-Blu-ray/7731/#Review), a positive review from DVD Verdict (http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/8andahalfbd.php), an "Excellent" from DVD Savant (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3096otto.html), a 4/5 for video from Slant (http://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/review/8-and-a-half/1650), and a "highest recommendation" from DVD Talk (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/40362/8-1-2/)?

Yes, what a "terrible" looking disc. How anyone could suffer through it boggles the mind. It's like smearing crap in your eyes and eating vomit.

Are there caveats in some of those reviews? Sure. Do any of those reviews tell consumers to run to the hills in fear of being castrated by the evil video of the disc? No where close.

It's the idea that everything must be 100% perfect or it's complete crap and worthless that really bothers me on these forums. There IS such a thing as a middle ground. Saying everything with any minor shortcoming is "terrible" and "garbage" is hyperbolic nonsense, and only frustrates the studios into NOT listening to the white noise.

8 1/2 looks just damn fine. It is a solid, if imperfect disc. Anyone who can't enjoy the movie with the presentation on that disc has some seriously ridiculous and unrealistic ideas of perfect standards, and being "shocked (shocked!)" that I think such views are far too outlandish and frankly paranoid comes with the territory.

I don't know why I bother about this anymore. Every thread here has examples of people who have gone insane in regards to this. Enjoy the movie for once and stop being so anal over a presentation that even if it's a 3/5 in reviews is about 10x better than you'll ever see it in the theater, especially for a catalog film. Try going to see a print of 8 1/2 in your average specialty cinema screening and see how well it looks.

Sheesh.

 

[Derrick King]

Yes Scott, I've seen the 8 1/2 Blu-ray and it is fine.

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
It's the idea that everything must be 100% perfect or it's complete crap and worthless that really bothers me on these forums. There IS such a thing as a middle ground. Saying everything with any minor shortcoming is "terrible" and "garbage" is hyperbolic nonsense, and only frustrates the studios into NOT listening to the white noise.

So true.

 

[Edwin-S]

I'm not sure what a person is supposed to be noticing in those screen grabs. The B&W ones don't seem to be all that bad. The top one from Kagemusha doesn't look good, but the other two look okay. That film was pretty grainy looking to me in any version that I have seen; although, that has to be taken with a grain of salt since I have never seen the film theatrically. There were other screen grabs that I saw from Kagemusha that looked rife with EE, so based on those grabs I decided not to buy the BD. I know a lot of people here see no value in screen shots but, in my case, I have to go by something that doesn't involve me spending 55 dollars (taxes included) just to find out that the film, in fact, does look as bad as the screen shots indicate.

I'm not quite sure what the beef with American Graffiti is. The screen grabs don't look all that bad to me. One of the main problems with screen grabs over the internet is that they are being seen on mainly uncalibrated computer monitors, so there is no way to tell if what is being displayed is in any accurate to the actual film frame that it was taken from. Those grabs could look very different from monitor to monitor.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Brandon, really, settle down a bit. I didn't insult your mamma.

Anyone is free to judge what looks fine and what does not look fine. Those reviews are all positive, yeah. But I don't pay attention to reviews, because most of them are written by kids in order to get free product or people who really don't know what to look for. The reviews for Patton were almost universally positive too.

If 8 1/2 and Kagemusha look fine to you, then OK fair enough. That doesn't mean that they aren't rife with video artifacts. That is because they were transferred on old telecines and the artifacts are plainly visible to anyone who knows what to look for.

You don't see these artifacts on Sony titles or 95% of Warner or Fox products. MGM and Paramount are hit and miss but Universal is consistent in this look. That is why they deserve to be singled out. You might think that is insane. All I can say is I'm sorry you feel that way. But it is what it is. You don't see me calling out terrible transfers by Sony or Warner or Fox on a daily basis do you? No. So lay off me when I want to send a message to Universal.

Thanks

 

After The Ten Commandments screencap controversy, I will reserve any kind of opinion until I see a disc in motion. There are too many variables.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
Brandon, really, settle down a bit. I didn't insult your mamma.

Anyone is free to judge what looks fine and what does not look fine. Those reviews are all positive, yeah. But I don't pay attention to reviews, because most of them are written by kids in order to get free product or people who really don't know what to look for. The reviews for Patton were almost universally positive too.

If 8 1/2 and Kagemusha look fine to you, then OK fair enough. That doesn't mean that they aren't rife with video artifacts. That is because they were transferred on old telecines and the artifacts are plainly visible to anyone who knows what to look for.

You don't see these artifacts on Sony titles or 95% of Warner or Fox products. MGM and Paramount are hit and miss but Universal is consistent in this look. That is why they deserve to be singled out. You might think that is insane. All I can say is I'm sorry you feel that way. But it is what it is. You don't see me calling out terrible transfers by Sony or Warner or Fox on a daily basis do you? No. So lay off me when I want to send a message to Universal.

Thanks

I think we all need to calm down and respect contrary opinions that don't agree with your own.






Crawdaddy

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
No. So lay off me when I want to send a message to Universal.

Thanks

Maybe the best way to do that is by communicating directly to them by letter. People on this forum have been complaining about the quality of Universal's BDs for quite some time and yet nothing has changed in regards to the quality of Universal releases. The lack of a response indicates to me that Universal has no presence on this board. No one from there reads or pays attention to anything that is being said here.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S
Maybe the best way to do that is by communicating directly to them by letter. People on this forum have been complaining about the quality of Universal's BDs for quite some time and yet nothing has changed in regards to the quality of Universal releases. The lack of a response indicates to me that Universal has no presence on this board. No one from there reads or pays attention to anything that is being said here.

In my experience, writing by actual letter (as opposed to email, or website feedback forms) always has a better long-term result. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but in my experience it is. And don't just write to the home video department; chances are, if the releases aren't all they could be, it's not the fault of the people in home video (usually they're the lowest in the food chain in terms of pull) - they're probably just not being given the budgets they need to do the work to the standard they'd like. Look up the CEO of the company, not just the division, and write to them, politely of course. State specific evidence of your complaint - for instance, that you've been disappointed with the following catalog titles. Make sure to note that your issue isn't the quality of the film itself, and that as an educated consumer, you understand that not all movies are going to look like they were shot yesterday. Give an example or two of what you think the gold standard is in terms of presentation so that they have something to go on. Mention that you appreciate that they're releasing these titles in the first place, and maybe work in something like, "You put a lot of effort into creating all of these interactive bonus features and I appreciate that you're putting that kind of effort in; but that it's all for nothing if the quality of the film itself isn't there." The reason I say all of that as I did is because the people at the top are generally not film experts the way we might be, so to their eyes, a DNRed, ultra-smooth transfer might genuinely look better to their sensibilities - so I think it helps to explain that you just want the film to look as it did the day it came out, and to look like film and not video. If you feel it's appropriate, direct them to the HTF and other reputable sites (although I'm sure they're still aware of these places) and mention that X studio has a presence on there, and that their presence has inspired you to purchase more from that company than you might have otherwise, because you know they're listening and that they prove time and again that they listen to what people are saying. If there's a title the studio did do right, throw in a line praising that, that little bit of diplomacy can go a long way. One letter in and of itself isn't going to tip the scales, but if in general, if people started doing that, there's a better chance of the issue being resolved long-term.

That said, I'm gonna withhold judgment until I see the disc. I don't find screenshots to be very reliable, especially in terms of possible video artifacts, because they can skew what something looks like in motion. Afterall, these discs weren't authored to be watched frame-by-frame, and sometimes things that are perfectly fine can end up looking a little wonky on a screenshot. Add in the differences between computer monitors, extra compression used to post the images online, and there are too many variables. That's not to say that, in the end, the disc doesn't look terrible - it's just that I feel I need to see it in motion before I feel comfortable making a judgment. Some things do look dreadful; on the other hand, if I went solely by screenshots, I could probably find a reason not to enjoy almost anything I own. Screenshots can be useful for certain purposes - to establish, for instance, if a piece of footage appears in the film when reports have it being cut, or serious print damage, and a whole other array of potential issues. But in my opinion they're only one of many tools that can be used to evaluate a disc.

Also, one thing I try to keep in mind with catalog titles (especially ones from before home video became a big deal and studios realized these things could have a perpetual shelf life), is that the best materials may no longer exist, or that new HD masters can reveal flaws in the original that were simply a product of its time. In the case of titles by companies like Criterion, sometimes while they have the rights to release a title, they may be refused access to the best quality materials so they have to do the best with what they've got. That's not to say that every error or bad decision in quality control should be easily forgiven, but at the end of the day (and I'm only speaking for myself here, others may feel differently as is their right) I'm a lover of film, and Blu-ray is simply a means to an end, a way to view a film I love in the home. There have been very few releases that I can think of that I felt were flat out unwatchable - not as accurate to the filmmaker's intentions as I would have liked or overly processed, sure - but not unwatchable. On some days, just that I can view the film and have it look better in my home than it's ever looked there before, is enough. I like perfection as much as the next guy, but I'm personally not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

(I understand why people would feel differently, and to be clear in what I'm saying, I think it's a legitimate point of view - maybe even more legitimate because money doesn't grow on trees, and that spending $20 or more on a disc isn't something done lightly, and that a purchase that doesn't satisfy you takes away money from a different purchase that might have. And I'm thankful that we have a place like the HTF where everyone is free to post his or her opinion, where all viewpoints generally are represented, because it gives me more information to decide what's worth a purchase and what's not.)

 

[Ronald Epstein]

As others have urged, I would highly advise that
all of you wait for official release or trusted reviews
before making determinations based on screen shots.

I had hoped we all learned our lesson from the
last screen shot debacle that was posted on
DVD BEAVER that turned out to be totally false.

I also agree that writing letters to the studio is
always a good idea -- if and when you have
absolute confirmation of a problematic title.
Please make certain you are polite in any letter
you write.

Finally, I do want to confirm that Universal is
not officially reading this forum, though I would
expect someone from marketing is. We had
invited them to make an official presence here
and they declined. The studios who we know
officially read this board regularly are Fox,
Paramount, Warner and Sony.


Visit our

REVIEW ARCHIVES

 

[Jarod M]

The situation with Universal product has been discussed in this forum and elsewhere. And some of the info has come from very good sources. Universal doesn't want to spend the money necessary to do proper releases. When I say "proper," all I mean is up to the standards of the other majors, who, for the most part, have put out very good, if infrequent, catalog product. What's really scary is that 1. Universal has rights to a huge catalog, including a big chunk of older Paramount films, and 2. their penny-pinching ways, if seen as successful, could cause the other studios to follow their lead. If Universal wouldn't spend the extra dollars on one of its biggest selling catalog properties (BTTF), then I doubt it'll spend money on any other release if they can help it.

AG might look just fine. I don't know. I would be surprised if Lucas would approve product that cut corners in the way alleged. There are also all of those Spielberg properties that Universal owns. Spielberg doesn't like his films to have that "digital" look. Will Universal pay for new transfers for those films? They might have to, if they are going to meet Spielberg's requirements. Evidently Spielberg wasn't involved with approving the BTTF films on Blu-ray, despite being Amblin product.

Another Universal property that has been discussed is The Game, which is rumored to be released by Criterion. It'll have to be approved by Fincher. I'm afraid this release might never come to pass.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Ron - just curious - with Universal having recently come under new ownership, have you considered making a new invitation to them when the dust settles over there? With a new corporate structure, maybe they'll be a little more receptive to having a presence?

I miss the days when some of the people in the various home video departments would comment directly in threads - I understand why that's not often the case anymore, but it was a pretty cool thing when it happened. The official HTF chats with studio people are always very enlightening, and even when they can't give specific information about something in the works (which is understandable considering that the deals may not be finalized yet, etc.), it's great to get a window into what they do, and even the chance to directly say "Thank you" for extraordinary releases.

HTF is the only forum I post in these days, so I can't really comment on what other forums (about any topic, not just home video) are like, but I've always felt that everyone who runs this board and the overwhelming majority of posters here really keep this place a class act. I think as long as we, as participants, keep that up, this will continue to be a special place.

(And just to quickly follow-up on something I said earlier and to agree with Ron again, it's amazing the effect that writing a real, snail mail letter to a studio's home video department can have when it's about something legitimate, be it complaint or praise, and worded in a polite manner - cranky letters in my experience get form letters in return, if anything. Letters that treat the recipient with respect and that have clearly had time put into them get back real responses, and it's nice to know that if I ever really feel something's amiss to know that someone out there is listening. Having once worked in a home video department for a very small label once, I can say from experience that most of the people, if not all, who choose this line of work care about what's being released, would probably release everything all at once if that were actually possible, and really want to do the best they can. Problematic releases, things that might appear "just barely good enough" as opposed to truly shining, more often than not are the result of their corporate higher-ups imposing budgetary restrictions that they have no control over. Again, in my experience as a customer and my admittedly limited experience on the other side of things, the people that make these releases are just as passionate about them as we are. They may not always be given the tools necessary for that to shine through as well as they'd like, but they do care. Acknowledge that fact and you'll always get a better response.)

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Josh,

First, I need to thank you for your loyalty in staying with us here.
We have many members, like yourself, who have rarely strayed
from this forum and it gives us pride to know that we still provide
an atmosphere for discussion that exceeds other sites. Thanks.

Regarding Universal....

Though the corporate structure has changed, the same people
are in place in the Home Entertainment division -- and they are
truly good people -- some of whom we have known for as long
as this forum has been in existence.

Just because Universal refused to make an official presence
on this (or any other) forum, doesn't mean they don't read it
nor care. We offered them their own landing page on our forum
and the ability to promote their product through it (just like
Paramount and Fox is doing). I just don't think they wanted
to be put in a position where they were expected to respond to
member inquiries.

That doesn't mean they don't read this forum. I would bet
they do. They would be stupid not to use this forum for marketing
research. HTF has been around forever, and the studio
certainly knows of our presence here.

I do know that criticism towards them has been at an all-time
high, and I certainly understand why. Personally, I think they
could be doing a far better job with getting more catalog product
out on Blu-ray and giving better care to it. I do know that they
received so much criticism over past years that they invited
Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits out to their offices to see the processes
being put forth in their transfers. Bill posted a very optimistic
article about what he saw. However, based on complaints that
I have read over recent months, I still remain cautious about the
quality of product coming from that studio. I certainly do not want
to make any pre-judgements prior to actually seeing a release or
reading a review from someone I trust (such as our reviewer, KevinEK).

Finally, as far as studios participating here, it becomes
increasingly difficult for them to agree to it. The atmosphere
has radically changed over the years, and the studios are just
very hesitant to put themselves out there. I am not even certain
we will ever have another Warner chat again, though at least one
person over there assures me we will at some point.

Still, I do get information passed on to me privately from time
to time that you will see me post in the forum area. So, absolutely,
the studios are interested in your feedback and do find a channel
for getting some of the answers to your most pressing concerns out
in the open.


Visit our

REVIEW ARCHIVES

 

[Joe Karlosi]

'

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
Every thread here has examples of people who have gone insane in regards to this. Enjoy the movie for once and stop being so anal over a presentation that even if it's a 3/5 in reviews is about 10x better than you'll ever see it in the theater, especially for a catalog film.

Sheesh.

How true. It gets really ridiculous at times, doesn't it? I'm guilty of occasionally complaining about "lesser quality" now and then, but never to the point of some of these rants.

Just yesterday I was at "The Museum Of The Moving Image" in NY, and one of the rooms featured old TV sets from the '30s, '40s. '50s, '60s. You want to talk about lousy quality? Little tiny screen that were little more than round circles and about 6 to 12 inches wide, in some cases. I walked away from there telling my girlfriend: "I'll never complain about watching a less-than-stellar digital media disc on my 46" HDTV ever again!"

 

[cineMANIAC]

It amazes me that people are willing to forgive (or put up with) lackluster Blu-ray transfers if "the price is right". The whole point of upgrading to hi-def is to enjoy better picture quality. I'm even willing to overlook some extras not porting over when something is re-released but it's never going to be acceptable to slap an old transfer onto a blu and call it a day, regardless of how "nice" the price is. We, as consumers, must demand excellence and vote with our wallets.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Problem is, when people don't buy a release, all that this conveys to the studio is that people aren't buying the release. They don't know it's a cue for them to "produce better quality". All they know is that it didn't sell.

I'm going to take the chance on the AMERICAN GRAFFITI Blu-ray as long as there aren't unanimous advance reviews that it is worse, or no better than, the DVD.

The reason this thread title is misleading is because it gives the impression that someone has seen the actual Blu-ray for himself and didn't like it; not that he is reacting to some screen grabs. "THE SCREEN SHOTS FOR AG LOOK TERRIBLE" would be more appropriate -- even though I wouldn't agree with that.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I think there are two major problems here, and please
don't think I am trying to make excuses for Universal.

First, budget. I think all the studios are dealing with
budgets that don't allow them to do these huge cleanups
on every catalog release. I believe they are in a position
whereas they have to pick and choose what title(s) get
more priority than others.

Also, I fear, as with every other format that comes
along -- we will be the silent majority when it comes
to quality. I think the general public is far less
demanding when it comes to quality and as long as
the studios can slap old transfers onto Blu-ray and
still be able to sell them to a larger audience, there
is going to be less credibility given to opinions expressed
on forums like these.

This is just my opinion, and really, I hope I am wrong.



Visit our

REVIEW ARCHIVES

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by Luisito34
It amazes me that people are willing to forgive (or put up with) lackluster Blu-ray transfers if "the price is right". The whole point of upgrading to hi-def is to enjoy better picture quality. I'm even willing to overlook some extras not porting over when something is re-released but it's never going to be acceptable to slap an old transfer onto a blu and call it a day, regardless of how "nice" the price is. We, as consumers, must demand excellence and vote with our wallets.

There's a pretty significant middle ground here, particularly when it comes to marginal titles. If you really expect to get 4K or 8K scans with extensive digital clean-up for every catalogue title, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I'm willing to pick up something like say Ran on blu-ray because I like the film itself and the transfer equals or exceeds a typical release print. No, it doesn't look as good as it could, but there's a strong chance that this is the best release it's going to get, which makes it "good enough" for me.

 

[Jarod M]

I think there are two major problems here, and please

don't think I am trying to make excuses for Universal.



First, budget. I think all the studios are dealing with

budgets that don't allow them to do these huge cleanups

on every catalog release. I believe they are in a position

whereas they have to pick and choose what title(s) get

more priority than others.

Exactly what titles has Universal spent money on? The BTTF, particularly parts 2 and 3, could have been better. Spartacus was a disaster. Psycho was well received, but even it showed signs of being an older transfer. Many of these sources were old back at the beginning of the format war, and they're really old and outdated now as technology has improved over the last ten years. I believe it was a Warner rep who said recently that while sales have been disappointing, they haven't lost money on a Blu-ray release. It's also been intimated that it doesn't cost that much money to do a proper scan/transfer of many of these movies. The vast majority of these releases don't require a million dollar film restoration.

Does anyone think it's a coincidence that we haven't seen the Spielberg Universal movies yet, while others (The Color Purple (Warner), Close Encounters (Sony)) have come out in well received editions?

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Worth
There's a pretty significant middle ground here, particularly when it comes to marginal titles. If you really expect to get 4K or 8K scans with extensive digital clean-up for every catalogue title, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

I'm willing to pick up something like say Ran on blu-ray because I like the film itself and the transfer equals or exceeds a typical release print. No, it doesn't look as good as it could, but there's a strong chance that this is the best release it's going to get, which makes it "good enough" for me.

What's a marginal title? BTTF? Spartacus?

Again, people are acting like the costs are prohibitively expensive. If the costs are so much, then how is it we could ever see ANY catalog stuff released by small companies for which an older transfer/scan wasn't available? Didn't Baraka receive an 8k scan several years ago? Isn't that a much more marginal title than Ran?

 

[Patrick McCart]

I'd have to see it in motion, but the American Graffiti screenshots look fairly good. It was shot in Techniscope mainly with available light and at night, so the grain and softness is expected. It has a tinge of the "Universal sharpen filter" look, but not too digital looking like Back to the Future or Out of Africa.