The Big Lebowski: CE - 10.18.05 (1 Viewer)

[JulianK]

That's not a great idea.

There are often problems on cuts that wouldn't be present the frame (or two) afterwards.

Most films that were cut the old-fashioned way (ie: by glueing two bits of film together) will suffer some sort of warping distortion either side of the cut. There's also potential for splice marks, and other gunk that can be accumulated by the physical uneven-ness of the splce.

Cuts can also suffer from mis-cued telecine timing errors, which generally manifest themselves as darkened strips at the top or bottom of the frame.

If a film has been through any kind of electronic processing (especially - but not exclusively - through a standards converter, or a digital noise reduction process), there's a good chance that the cut will no longer be clean: it will be an electronic blend of two or more frames. This often affects all the other frames, of course, but it's obviously a bigger problem where two adjacent frames are completely different.

So, not a good policy. (Although I understand why they'd adopt it - I've used it myself!)

 

[MikeEckman]

Julian,

Although you are right that any number of editing related flaws may be present on the frame before and after a cut, wouldnt you think that they woudl be present on either version of the DVD?

If a movie was edited, and there was a bad splice, that bad splice would show up on any version that film appeared on home video.

Unless on a new SE of a DVD, they went to the original source elements, re-edited the film, them mastered a new copy and transferred it to DVD, you are going to see the exact original film elements no matter how many times they re-release a DVD.

 

[JulianK]

Mike, you'd be right in an ideal world!

Of course, no two copies are exactly the same, even if they're made from the same master (unless we're talking digital). Every time you copy the copy, you introduce new flaws.

If you made two positive copies from the negative they'd be slightly different - slightly different densities, slightly different hues, etc. Obviously, it's the lab's job to make the copies as similar to each other as possible, but they'd be different. You'll always get fluctuations in a mechanical and photochemical process.

If a splice is in the source used for two copies, then, yes, the splice would be in both. Unless someone fixed one of them!

Even if you made two transfers from the same source, then there's a chance that the flaw would not be reproduced precisely the same in both.

When you enter the video domain, shot changes are especially prone to processes like standards conversion and interlace problems. What may show up as two perfectly separate frames on one transfer, may be a blend of up to five frames on another!

(This is, of course, why DVD Beaver's comparisons are so useful!)

 

[BennyD]

Have there been any reviews released yet, or a common consensus on whether the new transfer offers an improvement from the older transfer? Count me in as one of the few that is disappointed with the lack of quality extras, but first and foremost I care about how the actual film looks. It's going to be a hard sale for me if there isn't a noticable improvement in transfer, and having to say that saddens me. Looks like someone really dropped the ball on what could have been a great DVD.

 

[JoshB]

DVDBeaver has a pretty good review over at there site, with a comparison to the original:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/Reviews/bigl.htm

 

[David Wilkins]

So...like, when are we going to see an HTF review of this disc, in order to lay to rest the doubts about transfer quality...or, to confirm those doubts?

 

[Mick Wright]

From looking at DvdBeaver's screenshots, this transfer is heavily filtered.

I'm gonna, like, pass man.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Crap.

 

[John CW]

There's a LOT less compression though, which irked the hell out of me before. What's with the crumby Mortimer Young introduction, anyway? It's hardly worth upgrading for and I was less than impressed with the 'hilarity' it afforded on the Blood Simple: Director's Cut DVD.

 

[John Stone]

They've failed to achieve.

It's one of my all time favorite films, but I'm not double-dipping this time.

 

[Random Hero]

It looks like I might pick up the new disc, but definitely just the regular version. Why should I pay $30 more for a towel and a few coasters? For that price, I expect at least an extra bonus disc.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Like, Dude, I just retrieved the sceener from my door step this evening. Even though there are other discs already in queue, I'll track down my old copy and see what I can provide. So far, the extras are not all that impressive. And I saw the box set at Best Buy this evening, and there's no way I would pay $45 for a towel, four coasters, and some photos in an envelope. Oh wait, I bought the collector's editions of Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, so never mind. :b

- Steve

 

[dpippel]

Wellsir, I spent some time with the new CE this evening and I gotta say that Universal has screwed the pooch. Yes, the new transfer gets rid of all the nasty compression artifacts present on the original. The resulting image is quite heavily filtered however and looks VERY soft. It is NOT a good transfer. They've traded one bad job for another unfortunately.

For cryin' out loud, how hard is it to produce a decent DVD transfer from good elements these days? Not very hard apparently because lots of studios are doing it, but Universal found a way to f@ck it up! Between the shoddy new transfer and the more than pathetic "Achiever's Edition", I'm VERY disappointed in The Big Lebowski CE. Way to go Universal!!!



This aggression will not stand, man.

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Help me out here, guys. Give me some time references and examples of the filtering of which you speak...

- Steve

 

[Random Hero]

Well, if I don't have the movie, should I still pick this up for $13, then?

 

[Steve Tannehill]

Compared to the old release, you lose a teaser trailer, a full-frame version, and the neato Polygram logo. You pick up a new transfer with less dirt and speckling in the correct aspect ratio (1.85x1 instead of 1.78x1), get three soundtrack options instead of one, three subtitle options (including English this time), and a silly bit of restoration humor. You lose cast/crew notes with filmographies, but gain a few pages of production notes, and 26 b&w still photos taken by Jeff Bridges (on the DVD, not physical photos). You apparently get physical photos of some of these when you splurge for the expensive collector's set.

Personally, I would pay $13 for this if I did not already have the movie.

- Steve

 

[Random Hero]

Thanks for the info, Steve. Looks like I will pick the DVD up, then. Definitely just the $13 one, though. I think they are charging way too much for those "extras."

I liked the teaser, but I'll live without it. Glad to see English subs, production notes, and still photos on the new disc.

Never knew about the old disc being in the wrong aspect. The correct aspect and the new transfer are great bonuses.

 

[dpippel]

Steve - Just pick a scene. I haven't watched the new release all the way through yet, but the softness I'm speaking of is pervasive. I've viewed the original TBL disc literally dozens of times and am very familiar with its problems. While this new transfer corrects almost all of them, the lack of fine detail really detracts. Viewing equipment:

* ISF calibrated Hitachi 57SWX20B HDTV monitor
* Denon DVD-2900 DVD player (component out)
* Aragon Soundstage processor
* Sherbourn 5/1500A 5 channel amplifier
* Onix Rocket RS750 mains, RSC200 center, RS250 sourrounds
* SVS 25-31 PCi subwoofer

Fans of TBL have really been looking forward to the release of the CE and Achiever's Edition and Universal has let them down terribly.

 

[Doug Schiller]

I watched up to the "What makes a man, Mr. Lebowski?" scene.

To me, this looks like the exact same print/master used for for the original release except they used today's advanced compression methods.

The most difficult scene, the close up of the new rug at the Dude's house is much better than the old release but I still see some shimmering here and there.

Universal must have thought the print was in decent enough shape not to put the money into it to remaster it or the Coens showed no interest or denied it.

I have seen TBL in the theaters and it probably looked liked this anyway.

It really lacks the detail found in newer remastered transfers like The Warriors, Deer Hunter, and Blues Brothers.

Oh well, I'm happy but with the dated print, and almost no extras, you can't help but wonder what could have been done.

I'm hoping the guys over at HDNet get a chance to strike a HD transfer and put it on their channel.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

DVD Talk's review seems to agree with the comments here so far. Oh well, I'd already given away my copy, so I'll be merely satisified with this one.