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

[Cassy_w]

We also think the laserdisc looks better (and we find that to be the case only on very rare occasions). This is on a calibrated 36" Sony XBR.

 

[Sergio Martorel]

i strongly recommend buying the Uk-SE from Universal. Best Transfer so far, plus a very good (and as mentioned afore, lengthy) documentary.

It is uncut?

 

[Russ Felton]

I can absolutely confirm that the new Texas Chainsaw DVD is in fact the same one as the first DVD. It has the same menu and the same compression problems coupled with the non-animorphic transfer.

I am so glad I kept my Elite Laserdisc of this film!!!


Russ

 

[Joshua_W]

I saw these in Wal-Mart today. They only had one version of the disc, and it was in a standard keepcase. It wasn't the raw hamburger cover, but the one with the chainsaw blade. The cover was mostly solid black, with the non-black parts sort of metallic looking (sort of like the Final Destination 2 cover). Though I prefer the painted artwork cover of the previous release, this on actually looked pretty ... sharp. (Heh heh heh)

 

[Jean-Michel]

They only had one version of the disc, and it was in a standard keepcase. It wasn't the raw hamburger cover, but the one with the chainsaw blade.

Actually from what I hear they're both the same cover -- it's reversible. It's up to the retailer which side they want to display.

 

[ChrisBEA]

I picked this up today. And I must admit(please don't flame :b ) I had never seen this movie before in any format, I always wanted too, but never did, I didn't pick up the other DVD cuz I didn't want to spend near $30 for it. THis was a price I liked.....
ANyway, I just finished watching it, and I thought it looked good considering the age of the film, and besides that it was a very freaky movie.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

I believe the REAL issue here is that Pioneer decided to re-release the same disc with errors rather than correcting their mistake with the original DVD.

As for "quality", I think too many people are spoiled or trying to compare apples to oranges when it comes to reference quality. Not every movie was made the same nor had the same technologies available. TCM was made with a simple 16mm camera on low budget very grainy film that shows up even more so with the enlarging of the 16mm to 35mm. I see no problem with the original DVD knowing what was involved or the source.

 

[Ray_Gootz]

The transfer sucked. I belive I like the transfer on my VHS copy better!! But it was only 15 bucks, it has a funky cover and it has great extras. plus this is no.5 on top 20 favorite film list. So I bought itn and enjoyed the hell out of it.. I'll double-dip if they ever put out a huge special edition. I'll listen to the commentary tonight.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

The transfer sucked. I belive I like the transfer on my VHS copy better!!

Ray_Gootz and others... what are you using to compare the picture quality (LD/DVD/VHS) to? Do you have other 16mm films made on a $300k or less budget shot by amateurs to compare TCM with? That would only be fair. You can't compare it to today's mega budget major studio releases. The movie is in a different genera much like silent films.

 

[James Miller]

seems to me that no one is comparing TCM with any other 16mm low budget amateur genre film, rather they are comparing various home video versions of the same film...

i have the original DVD version, and no other, so I can't speak as to the quality of that release relative to any other... however I can say that to re-release a flawed transfer, when a fundamentally superior one exists, not to mention not even re-visiting the flawed print vis-a-vis taking advantage of compression/encoding advances over the years, for no other reason than cross-promotional profit is simply an abomination...

 

[Benson R]

I think everyone is forgetting that the corrections that were not used were the removal of some scratches and other similar things. I have seen this dvd and and it is incredible looking considering the source material. The only thing wrong with it is they could have done better by using the digital corrections and reencoding it in anamorphic.

 

[Sean Patrick]

steven page -

he is comparing the dvd to a vhs copy of THE SAME MOVIE!!!!

i can't believe some people's reluctance to accept this is a SUBSTANDARD dvd.

 

[James Miller]

no one is forgetting the extent and nature of the corrections that were not used, limited as they may be, rather what we are NOT forgetting is the fact that a corrected print does exist... clearly however the corporate powers that be either DID forget that or simply didn't care... my bet is the latter...

i also don't understand why some are minimizing the benefits of the corrected print; by definition a corrected print is superior to the alternative, being UNcorrected and therefore flawed...

in the grand scheme of things I rather doubt the world will stop spinning based on the re-release of a flawed print of TCM but the fact of the matter is that there is no reason why the corrected print could not and should not have been used this time around...

 

[Ray_Gootz]

(Ray_Gootz and others... what are you using to compare the picture quality (LD/DVD/VHS) to?)

Well I'm comparing it to my VHS tape which was clear as day. This one was on all the correct settings and it was dark and murky as hell. I watched the old MPI VHS copy a thousand times and it was never as dark as this dvd. And I am a huge 70's horror fan. I have tons of movies from this era with better transfers.

put it this way, watching it on VHS I never got why people compared it to documentary footage but now I do. This looks like film found underneath Leatherface's toilet for 30 years.

 

[Sergio Martorel]

I have the VHS of TCM.

The image quality is WAY better than the DVD edition.

Pioneer screwed things up again, plain and simple. And worse, they´re STILL insisting that this is the "restored version supervised by Tobe Hooper" or something like that.

Boo Pioneer.

 

[Vincent_P]

Sean-

THANKS FOR CLARIFYING FINALLY. You've made clear now that your objection is to Pioneer using an old transfer that was A. optimized for laseridsc, and B. NOT the final master tape for said laserdisc, but an earlier "dupe" that was made before the final restoration work was done. THAT'S what I was trying to clarify- the "transfer"- i.e., the film-to-tape telecine work done by Elite in 1995/1996- is NOT the issue, I think we agree that they did the best they could GIVEN THE MATERIAL THEY HAD TO WORK WITH AND THE TELECINE TECHNOLOGY OF THE TIME. The problem is that Pioneer simply ported over a transfer that was optimized for the LASERDISC MARKET in 1996 to DVD, and they didn't even bother to make sure that they had the CORRECT MASTER TAPE at that- they used an early duplicate copy (that was made in case anything went wrong during the extensive restoration work) that didn't have the final digital restoration work done.

Now, years later, Pioneer has simply RE-ISSUED THE SAME TRANSFER THAT WAS OPTIMIZED FOR LASERDISC BACK IN 1995/1996, and apparently used the same "uncorrected" master at that. I AGREE with you- blast Pioneer to hell and back for doing this!

What I'm arguing is essentially semantics- you called the "transfer" itself "subpar even for 5 years ago"- since you've said that you think the Elite laserdisc looks good, obviously the "transfer" itself wasn't subpar. It was the best transfer it could possibly have been given when it was done, what market it was done for (laserdisc), and the telecines available at the time. It was "state-of-the-art" for it's time.

PIONEER screwed up by using the wrong, uncorrected "back-up" copy of the master tape to make their DVD, and have compounded that error by re-releasing the same incorrect DVD in 2003, but it's not the "transfer" done by Elite for the laserdisc market in 1995-1996 that is at fault here- it's Pioneer for being cheap and re-issuing something that they didn't do correctly in the first place, and not re-transfering THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE using the current state-of-the-art 2003 telecines with 16:9 anamorphic enhancement for their so-called "30th Anniversary Edition".

Vincent

 

[Sergio Martorel]

Now, years later, Pioneer has simply RE-ISSUED THE SAME TRANSFER THAT WAS OPTIMIZED FOR LASERDISC BACK IN 1995/1996,

No. Completely wrong. They didn´t used a telecined transfer AT ALL. They used the U-MATIC master that was the base of the TCM *VHS* copies back when the movie was FIRST released in the USA - and I´m not talking about the MPI edition.

Wait a second and I´ll provide you with some screencap comparisons.

Tell me something... have you actually WATCHED the DVD? Or you´re just guessing? Or maybe you work at Pioneer?

 

[Sergio Martorel]

LASERDISC:



DVD:

(note the obvious video noise on the windows of the van, and the color bleed on the blue cloth thingie on the left. Note the complete lack of details).

 

[Myo K]

whoa, from that screenshot, pioneer must have some lazy qc people over at their dvd department. if those screenshots are true, the dvd transfer is flat out shoddy.

 

[BobSmith]

anyone find that the bad video quality adds to the film to make it more of a "being there" feel.