DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Open Water (1 Viewer)

[MatthewLouwrens]

Because it's supposed to look like that. Why downgrade a DVD for looking bad if that was how the film was made. The review very clearly, to my mind, identifies the problems, and explains why the film looks like that.

I will say it again - all we can and should expect from our DVDs is that they reflect the film as it was made and shown in cinemas. If the movie was made on a cheap digital camera, and thus doesn't look as good as a 35mm production. I was disappointed with how it looked in the cinema. You're disappointed with how it looks on DVD. What's the difference? Provided the conversion to DVD does not make the film look any worse, then it should be given full marks.

 

[Aurel Savin]

The two lead actors ... oh boy ... this has got to be the worst thing I have ever seen. I mean ... I wanted them to die from the beginning and literally cheered when it happened.


This is is just bad.
I commned the filmmakers for sticking with this and taking their time to make this film happen. But the two lead characters ... those were a big mistake. We are talking porn level quality acting.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

That is exactly where we completely disagree. You are saying to NOT take the source into account in giving a score for picture quality. You are saying that we should ONLY consider how well the source was transferred to DVD, no matter how poor the source was. I think this is a big mistake.

What if a new blockbuster was released to DVD and the source had all kinds of dirt and scratches in it, and the DVD show every spec of dirt and scratch in the source? You are saying that if the DVD doesn't make the source look any worse, it should be given full marks!

Doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If someone were looking to pick a DVD to show off their display's picture quality, and they picked something like Open Water which could receive "full marks" based on your definition, what do you think that person would think of the reviewer who gave the disc such high marks for picture quality? Probably not very highly.

 

[Lewis Besze]

I completetelly agree with Rob here,The video rating is technical as oppose to artistic,and yes the star rating should reflect that otherwise it becomes meaningless.The review itself should explain why the rating is low and everyone else should judge it accordingly.Let's just say that you not gonna use this DVD to show off your new TV/projector.Ok so it wasn't intented for,but it won't change the fact that it is not reference[technically speaking] quality.

 

[Jack Shappa]

If this were a student film it would be excellent. As a theatrical release it is literally a joke. Forget the lousy quality/camerawork, just the dialogue was enough to make George Lucas cringe, not to mention the ridiculous "character devlopment". I kept trying to enjoy it but it kept taking me out of the movie. I did enjoy the naked chick though.

- Jack

 

[Grant H]

Jack is a man after my own heart.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Pretty much my thoughts too. Sorry, but I was just bored through most of this film.

 

[Grant H]

Yeah, ever since Jack said that, I've begun to think of it as the perfect description of this movie.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

That's odd, I could have sworn I posted a response to Rob but apparently I did not.

I don't give a damn about someone that buys a disc to show off their system. That's their problem. The DVD reflects the film as it was supposed to be seen, and should therefore be given top marks.

Otherwise, we find ourselves in a weird world where B&W releases are given lowered marks for failing to allow people to show off the colour reproduction on their TVs, low marks for Casablanca for having mono sound that fails to show off the 5.1 system, or for dialogue-based films to be given low marks for failing to allow people to show off how good their subwoofer is. That is absurd.

In any case, unless I misread the review, there is no point where any score are given for picture quality, 5/5 or otherwise. Plus, the problems with the picture are clearly identified in the review, as I have already pointed out. So what exactly is your problem?

When I read a review, I want to know how well the DVD replicates the picture I would have seen at the movies. That's it. If it does this, then the DVD gets full marks. If it does not do this, then it gets bad marks. Usually, the term "Picture Quality" covers it, because most films are intended to look as good as possible. In this case, it does not. Obviously, as you pointed out "Transfer quality" does not cover it either - the bad-print-of-a-recent-film idea you raised. I don't know what the right description is. I do know that, if the transfer is as described, it is a 5/5 transfer.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I really don't know what you are trying to say here. You seem to be acknowledging the fact that only taking the transfer into consideration when giving a rating for picture quality isn't sufficient. Obviously, I agree!

The bottom line is this: giving a DVD that looks like crap a "perfect rating" because the "Transfer" is good just doesn't make sense.

Giving a MONO soundtrack a perfect rating for Sound Quality doesn't make sense either, since a MONO soundtrack will more likely than not give you reference quality sound.

The source should be taken into consideration when giving ratings for both Picture Quality and Sound Quality.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

So, are you suggesting, for instance, that a dialogue-based film like Before Sunset should get a low rating for not allowing you to show off your subwoofer?

What does a term like "reference quality" mean, anyway?

 

[Rob Tomlin]

A dialogue based film will probably not receive a perfect rating for sound quality in my view, that is correct...for the reasons already stated.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm not sure if I ever responded back but I will not lower a rating just because a movie was shot a certain way. For DVD, we need it to look the way it's suppose to and to me, this DVD is how the film is suppose to look so there's no need to bring it down. I also think it's quite silly that some lower the rating to a Mono track just because it doesn't fill up their five speakers. Hey, it's not suppose to. I've heard plenty of Mono tracks that are better than some of the best 5.1.

I really don't understand the arguements. Why shouldn't we want a DVD to create the look the film is suppose to have? I've never understood the Mono sucks, 5.1 is better fight either. People will burn a studio down if they don't release OAR but there are several who will complain if a Mono film doesn't get a new remixed 5.1. I don't see the point in this.

There's a big difference between a film fan and a HT fan. If a movie does justice to my system then that's great. However, as a film fan, I don't want them adding sound effects to CASABLANCA to make it a good, recent 5.1 track. I don't want them adding color to help show off my screen. It's about the movie and the DVD should deliver what the movie is suppose to.

Seriously, who would want to read a review where the CASABLANCA transfer rated 1/5 because it didn't have good color detail?

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Boy Michael, I am surprised that you would take my opinions regarding ratings for picture quality and sound quality to mean that I am someone who wants a movie like Casablanca to have a remixed 5.1 track!?

Where do you get this from? You ask "Why shouldn't we want a DVD to create the look the film is suppose to have?" Why would you ask this? Does anybody question or dispute this? Seriously, does anyone think a DVD can look better than the original? Of course not. Where did I or anyone else imply otherwise?

Is my point not clear? I simply believe that a rating for picture quality should take the quality of the source into account. Why shouldn't you? We should be getting to the point where studios have mastered the transfer process, and they should all be great (I know this isn't the case yet). So, if we reach that point, will that mean that ALL DVD's should get a perfect rating for "picture quality"? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion.

Please take a look at my DVD collection, and you will see a significant number of old, classic movies, many of which are not only black and white, but have MONO soundtracks. Why would I own these DVD's if I were upset that they were MONO or Black and White or not "reference quality"? Just because I think the source should be taken into consideration doesn't mean that I want a remixed 5.1 soundtrack for Casablanca, or to have it colorized for that matter. :rolleyes

As for Open Water, you say "this DVD is how the film is suppose to look so there's no need to bring it down". So, you would give this DVD a perfect rating of 5/5 (or whatever scale you would use) despite the fact that it looks like crap just because it looked like crap originally?

And how do you know this is how the film was suppose to look? There are definitely artifacts in the DVD. Are these the result of the original source, or the transfer? How would you know? Did you compare it directly to the original source?

Don't you think that giving a DVD with picture quality as poor as Open Water a perfect rating to be a bit confusing and misleading? Like I have said previously, if I bought a DVD based partially on a review saying the picture quality was top notch, or got "full marks", and the quality was what we have with Open Water I would be very, very disappointed.

 

[Brian.L]

I can see both sides of this argument, but this is a really valid point, becuase comparing the DVD to the original source is not exactly a simple prospect.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Thank you. This is why I have a problem with your argument - because you start criticising an excellently-produced DVD not on the basis of how well it does the job of displaying the movie that was made, but on the merits of the creative choices behind the movie itself. Why should the DVD producer of a dialogue-based movie see their efforts in making a great DVD suddenly given lower marks in a review because of the very nature of the film itself? That is an absurdity. To say nothing of the fact that you're assessing it on whether the subwoofer gets an exercise, while I want to know whether or not I can hear what is being said.

You ask why anyone would believe that you would want Casablanca to have a 5.1 remix. It's because you are at the same time arguing that a film like that should have its score lowered because it doesn't have a 5.1 remix.

You do raise a valid point that it may be difficult to assess original artifacts from artifacts in the
DVD preparation process, and to that degree I would observe that there is a lot of guesswork involved in the review preparation as to whether something is or isn't an artifact created by the transfer to DVD. But that's true of every review around here. "The picture's too dark!" "The picture's too bright!" "The score is too loud compared to the dialogue!" "Is that how it was in the cinema?" Any time a film does anything that's a little different with the picture or the sound or whatever, we see these discussions starting up, with people trying to remember what the film was like six months ago when they were sitting in the cinema. Happens constantly around here. To that degree, the issue of digital-camera-artifacts or DVD-transfer-artifacts is no different to any other of these discussions that never find resolution.

We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this issue. I consider a DVD should be marked only on how well it reflects the film as it was made and intended to be seen by the filmmakers, and any assessment of the creative choices made by the filmmakers should be a seperate consideration. I am glad to see that Michael, if I understand him correctly, agrees with me.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I agree that we will have to agree to disagree!

I do find it interesting that Michael would agree with your approach in light of the fact that he even admits in his review that he didn't see Open Water theatrically, so he really has no reference to go by when telling us whether the DVD is an accurate representation of the original source. Yet another reason to simply view the DVD as a whole, in my opinion, rather than try to delineate the difference between transfer and source.

 

[Lewis Besze]

Well, interestingly Metropolis got a completelly new sound

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

We'll just have to agree to agree to disagree, as we are both just repeating the same arguments, and frankly I'm getting a bit bored with it.

 

[Kevin M]

Actually all that the 5.1 soundtrack did was recreate the sound of the full orchestra (with background ambiance, hence the use of 5.1) performance of the original score written for the original premiere, no recording of this performance ever existed before, as far as I know.


Are you two still going on & on about this?