What's new

TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE Re-release specs!!! (1 Viewer)

Kevin M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2000
Messages
5,172
Real Name
Kevin Ray
I didn't have that big a problem with the original dvd's older transfer (I would on the other hand like to see the "corrected" LD transfer) as I knew it was from a rather old 16mm film HOWEVER I was certainly hoping for a new cleaned up transfer in lew of this Remake.....after all isn't this the anniversary of the original?
What the hell Pioneer?
 

Zack_H

Grip
Joined
Jul 15, 2003
Messages
20
Well, now that this dvd is coming out on tuesday, has anyone heard any new info about it surfaced? Is it still basically the old disc?
 

Sean Patrick

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 22, 1999
Messages
732
that stinks. it was a subpar transfer 5 years ago and it's near unwatchable on my current setup.

they could have at least given us 16x9.
 

Vincent_P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,147
Is the transfer "subpar" or are you responding to the lack of digital restoration that was done for the LD version? Because if your problem is with the transfer itself, that's not at all fair. Elite spent a fortune making a new 16mm IN from the damaged 16mm camera originals (which were believed to have been lost but Elite tracked down, BTW), and then spent a fortune transfering it on what was at the time the best telecine on the market (this was before the Spirit-Datacine), then spent another fortune cleaning it all up.

While I agree it's ridiculous that Pioneer is simply recycling a transfer that was made for the laserdisc market over 7 years ago, to call the transfer "subpar" is an insult to all the loving work Elite, director Tobe Hooper, and TCM cinematographer Daniel Pearl put into the transfer. The transfer was state-of-the-art for its time and frankly was the best TCM could have possibly looked given the condition of the elements, the fact it was shot on 16mm reversal for practially nothing, and the limits of telecine technology in 1995-1996.

Remember you're talking about 16mm film from the 1970s that was shot on a shoestring budget- to expect it to look like the T2 EXTREME EDITION or something is absurd, and the fact that it does not doesn't make it a "subpar transfer even for 5 years ago".

So, blast Pioneer for simply recycling an old transfer all you want, but know what you're talking about before you criticise the original transfer for being "subpar even for 5 years ago".

Vincent
 

Sean Patrick

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 22, 1999
Messages
732
vincent -

have you read all of the posts in this thread??

Pioneer used THE WRONG transfer for the DVD.

All of the work done for the LD was lost on the dvd. What's on the 19998 dvd (and apparently the new reissue) is what amounts to a workprint.
 

Sean Patrick

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 22, 1999
Messages
732
PS -

a transfer is definitely SUBPAR if you can see black, slow scrolling bars in the blacks of many dark scenes.

those are artifacts of VIDEO interference somewhere along the way, not an artifact of 16mm film, which i have no problem with.
 

Thomas H G

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Messages
1,034
That's why I love this place. I had thought of picking this up. Now I won't even look at the dvd. Thanks for saving me money ya'll!
 

Vincent_P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,147
I have read the posts, hense my opening question which I'll copy and paste here:

"Is the transfer "subpar" or are you responding to the lack of digital restoration that was done for the LD version?"

I still stand by my point that the TRANSFER was not "subpar for even 5 years ago". Pioneer may have screwed up and used the wrong tape of the transfer without the digital restoration work, but the transfer itself was not "subpar for even 5 years ago". Elite did wonders given the material they had to work with.

Vincent
 

Sean Patrick

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 22, 1999
Messages
732
Vincent -

what kind of display are you watching this dvd on?

it was "questionable" on my 27"...but even then the scrolling that can be seen in the blacks REALLY bothered me.

Now on a 40" the dvd looks like a joke.

So yes, this was subpar 5 years ago and inexcusable in 2003. What makes it even more inexcusable is that there is a restored version available. Doesn't all that add up to a disaster for huge fans of the film like me???

I could understand if it was absolutely the best source print available....but knowing it doesn't have to look that bad is a travesty.

i mean, it's not even 16x9 enhanced!!! that would at least improve the resolution of the dvd.
 

DeanWalsh

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 17, 1999
Messages
390
a transfer is definitely SUBPAR if you can see black, slow scrolling bars in the blacks of many dark scenes.
What you're seeing sounds like posterization caused by the compression process. This was more common in the early days of dvd mastering, but is rarely seen nowadays given the increase in understanding of the mpeg2 format and improvements in encoders.
 

Sean Patrick

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 22, 1999
Messages
732
yet another reason why a reissued rehash of the same old transfer is ridiculous. from what it sounds it's the same exact disc...no 16x9 enhancement, no re-encoding with better compression, no use of the corrected print.
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
Damn, sounds like one hell of a bad transfer! I have the LD, and while it obviously doesn't look reference, it looks pretty decent on my 53" Panny.
 

Sean Patrick

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 22, 1999
Messages
732
the main problem is the aforementioned compression issues and the analog/tape-type distortions. looks like a bad LD transfer....even though the previous LD actually looked BETTER.
 

MikeHughes

Agent
Joined
Mar 23, 2003
Messages
41
i strongly recommend buying the Uk-SE from Universal. Best Transfer so far, plus a very good (and as mentioned afore, lengthy) documentary. play.com sells it for a measly 6.49 British Pounds(approx. 11 US$). Only thing is, you need codefree equipment. :)
 

James Miller

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 1, 2001
Messages
130
The consensus seems to be that this release sports the same transfer as the earlier one, but I don't think any posts have said this based on any definitive knowledge. (ie: feedback from the publisher, A-B comparison, etc;)

If anyone picks this one up and is able to do an A-B comparison it would be great to know for sure whether this is the same transfer or not.
 

Randy A Salas

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 25, 2002
Messages
1,348
If anyone picks this one up and is able to do an A-B comparison it would be great to know for sure whether this is the same transfer or not.
I've been too busy to do an A-B comparison, but I can confirm that the transfer on the new DVD is definitely not anamorphic. That being the case it most likely is the same transfer.

Not only that, but the packaging is really cheap-looking--a plastic gatefold slipcase (similar to the Universal Ultimate Editions) holding--get this--one of those oversized jewel cases that some early DVDs came in.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,819
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top