USHE Press Release: Back To The Future 25th Anniversary Trilogy (Blu-ray) (2 Viewers)

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Ding! Ding! Yes, it was CONTACT.


DVDBEAVER posted screenshots that spread

fear across the BD community.


Turned out, as Mai Fong posted above, that the

transfer was far better than it was depicted to be.

I looked at those screencaps though and thought they looked great.

 

[Nelson Au]

Ron, was that other film you thought looked okay, but screencaps looked like DNR was over-used, the Star Trek film set from last year? The first 6 Star Trek film set.


I recall seeing screen caps from Star Trek The Motion Picture and the cast looking like wax work figures. But in motion, the first film looked okay. I recall the reviewer on the HTF saying that if you have a screen bigger then 50", you'll notice the DNR, and if you have a screen smaller then that, you won't see it. I thought the first Trek film looked okay on my 50" screen. But I do hope that film gets a proper remaster. But its watchable.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

Ron, was that other film you thought looked okay, but screencaps looked like DNR was over-used, the Star Trek film set from last year? The first 6 Star Trek film set.


I recall seeing screen caps from Star Trek The Motion Picture and the cast looking like wax work figures. But in motion, the first film looked okay. I recall the reviewer on the HTF saying that if you have a screen bigger then 50", you'll notice the DNR, and if you have a screen smaller then that, you won't see it. I thought the first Trek film looked okay on my 50" screen. But I do hope that film gets a proper remaster. But its watchable.

It was Contact.

 

[Todd H]

Originally Posted by Scott D S

The films themselves underwent an extensive high definition remastering process for Blu-ray that was approved by Bob Gale. The result are transfers that have been scrubbed clean of any evidence of dirt, imperfections, or at times, film grain. Some scenes I sampled, such as when Marty and Doc gear up to first test the time machine, are so squeeky clean the actors look like mannequins and their environment like a digital creation. Other instances, including the openings of Back to the Future and Back to the Future III, are presented more naturally with film grain intact.

DNR (digital noise reduction) pundits will likely have a field day complaining about Back to the Future on Blu-ray for weeks or even months after its release. If you can get by a cleaner image that doesn't always reflect its age, the Back to the Future Trilogy on Blu-ray looks to be a ton of fun in high-def.

Hmm...

I've got a bad feeling about this...

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Bill Hunt has his review up (ours will be up by the
end of the weekend) and it doesn't seem like he has

any strong issues about the minimal amount of DNR

that was used. In fact, he does mention film grain

in his review a few times.


Doesn't sound to me like this is as bad as everyone

is making it out to be.

 

[Todd Erwin]

I did a home theater install the other day, and the owners had a Samsung LCD display that was so out of whack that everything looked like video, worse than how the displays often look in stores such as Fry's Electronics, Target, and some Best Buy locations. I suggested to them that they get it properly calibrated. (The company I was contracted with wasn't paying me for video calibration, only to check the wiring and calibrate the sound levels.)


Makes me wonder if the display being used and how it is configured is part of the problem here.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Toddwrtr



Makes me wonder if the display being used and how it is configured is part of the problem here.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "the display being used". Do you mean the display reviewers are using? Screenshots don't use a display; they're taken directly from the disc.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Bill Hunt has his review up (ours will be up by the
end of the weekend) and it doesn't seem like he has

any strong issues about the minimal amount of DNR

that was used. In fact, he does mention film grain

in his review a few times.


Doesn't sound to me like this is as bad as everyone

is making it out to be.

Although I respect Bill Hunt for his info/rumor reporting, I'm not sure how much you wanna trust their reviews on BD PQ. They seem to downplay a lot of the DNR/EE issues, if they mention them at all. I just went thru some of their reviews for the known suspect titles, and that's basically what I find, eg. It's a Wonderful Life, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Gladiator (old version), Hero, Trading Places, etc. I couldn't find a review for Dark City there, but I seem to recall Bill not having any issues at all w/ it -- some other suspect cases missing from their reviews section are Elizabeth, Gangs of New York (old version), Patton, etc.


Based on the rating scale that Bill uses, the best DVD quality = 10 / 20 while the best HiDef quality = 20 / 20, and yet, he still has the old Gladiator BD at 15.5 (and It's a Wonderful Life originally at 19.5, but downgraded just slightly to 19 as a result of the DNR/EE debate w/ acknowledgement to RAH's complaint about it). Most other titles w/ known issues (outside of the worst Star Trek BDs) tend to get 16.5-or-higher, eg. Sum of All Fears got 16.5, Hero got 18.5(!). And it's not easy to separate the titles w/ transfer issues from the ones w/ original source issues since very many of both get somewhere between 16.5 to 17.5 (besides the odd case of It's a Wonderful Life w/ its whopping 19-19.5).


So to me, it seems very hard to tell how bad it really is based on reviews at The Bits.


_Man_

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

The digital bits review gives me hope. It doesnt sound like its anywhere near Predator or Gladiator territorry. Did anyone notice in the review, that it says only the first one got a great remaster, but the other 2 not as good ???

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong



Although I respect Bill Hunt for his info/rumor reporting, I'm not sure how much you wanna trust their reviews on BD PQ. They seem to downplay a lot of the DNR/EE issues, if they mention them at all. I just went thru some of their reviews for the known suspect titles, and that's basically what I find, eg. It's a Wonderful Life, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Gladiator (old version), Hero, Trading Places, etc. I couldn't find a review for Dark City there, but I seem to recall Bill not having any issues at all w/ it -- some other suspect cases missing from their reviews section are Elizabeth, Gangs of New York (old version), Patton, etc.


Based on the rating scale that Bill uses, the best DVD quality = 10 / 20 while the best HiDef quality = 20 / 20, and yet, he still has the old Gladiator BD at 15.5 (and It's a Wonderful Life originally at 19.5, but downgraded just slightly to 19 as a result of the DNR/EE debate w/ acknowledgement to RAH's complaint about it). Most other titles w/ known issues (outside of the worst Star Trek BDs) tend to get 16.5-or-higher, eg. Sum of All Fears got 16.5, Hero got 18.5(!). And it's not easy to separate the titles w/ transfer issues from the ones w/ original source issues since very many of both get somewhere between 16.5 to 17.5 (besides the odd case of It's a Wonderful Life w/ its whopping 19-19.5).


So to me, it seems very hard to tell how bad it really is based on reviews at The Bits.


_Man_

Good investigation. It's why I don't rely on "industry insiders" for disc reviews, but rather, individual users who I know are able to recognize and comment on DNR/EE, and have the large displays that make them apparent.

 

[Southpaw]

Well at least someone has commented on the PQ that has seen the film "in motion" like we're supposed to see films and not by screen captures.

I'm sure 2 & 3 aren't perfect but such is life.

 

[Kevin EK]

I'm going to second what Ron said above. I have the review copy and started going through it last night. I also have had BTTF 1 looked at on a much larger screen than I personally have at home. (My current screen is 40" - in another month or so, I should be able to upgrade to 65" and at that point I'll be able to catch a lot more of the clear-cut large-screen issues). As I understand it, BTTF 1 looks good - it's a little soft in some areas, but not necessarily due to the transfer - it's more of an issue that the style of filming requires a constantly moving camera with changing points of focus. It's really a matter of Robert Zemeckis' way of multitasking his shots. I'll know a bit more about the transfers on 2 & 3 by the weekend.


The additional extras mostly consist of the new interview documentary, which is primarily an updated set of interviews with the principals they could get. I've gone through the first two parts of it. The other new extras are a Michio Kaku piece and some U-Control functionality that allows you to see storyboards next to some scenes, and transfers over the Trivia track from the prior release. I will compare the trivia tracks to confirm this, but it seems logical to me that this was transplanted to the U-Control area. The other bit is a Setup/Payoff routine that I haven't played with yet.


I can confirm that the only glimpses you'll get of Eric Stoltz are what you've already seen in the excerpt available online now.

I can also attest that the packaging, which pairs each disc with a digital copy disc beneath it, is the same style that I complained about on TV season sets earlier. To get the discs out, you have to press on the side of the plastic, and it doesn't give that easily, leading to anxiety about broken discs. I am not a fan of this packaging style by any means.


I am prioritizing right now, so you'll see reviews of Psycho and Bionic Woman right away, followed by BTTF likely on Sunday. A big part of this for me is always the cataloguing of all the goodies, and identifying from whence they came...

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Southpaw

Well at least someone has commented on the PQ that has seen the film "in motion" like we're supposed to see films and not by screen captures.

I'm sure 2 & 3 aren't perfect but such is life.

You do realise that comment you made is inaccurate, i mention that because as someone who has a website where i post many screencaps from films, i do actually watch the movie first and then handpick the screencaps to use and incidentally i watch on a 104 inch calibrated screen and just to clarify things further i never stop the movie to pick out faults because if there are any they tend to stand out at that size of screen.

 

[Steve Christou]

The films themselves underwent an extensive high definition remastering process for Blu-ray that was approved by Bob Gale. The result are transfers that have been scrubbed clean of any evidence of dirt, imperfections, or at times, film grain.

Luverly. Seems I'm not the only one that loathes (excessive) film grain, the filmmakers themselves can't stand it either. Looking forward to watching these classic films again on my er massive 42inch telly.

 

[Carlo_M]

Looking forward to your review Kevin. My wallet hangs in the balance...

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

You need to look up what makes the image you see on screen, here's a clue it has grain in it and taking it out causes many issues.


You refuse to learn the basics on the hobby you are in which is film collecting, what movie have you watched which has excessive grain in it, name me one.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

There's nothing wrong with cleaning up excessive film grain, but the review you quote says the films have been "scrubbed clean of any evidence of" grain, which is an entirely different matter.

 

[Steve Christou]

I think you've become a little too obsessive regarding DNR and film grain Malcolm. Bordering on madness I'd say. A little film grain fine, but if it's too distracting I hate it. Simple as that. If they have to apply a little DNR to 'improve' the picture I'm all for that. You're having problems because you choose to watch your films on a giant wall sized screen. Tough titty matey.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Now that we are in discussion about film grain, I always liked it on blu rays when used right. 1 perfect example of when grain is used right, is warners blu ray of the original 1984 nightmare on elm street.It has the right amount of grain. The only blu ray in my collection, where the grain is way too much is Ghostbusters.

 

[Steve Christou]

Originally Posted by Xenia Zannikos

The only blu ray in my collection, where the grain is way too much is Ghostbusters.

I agree, Ghostbusters was a little too 'noisy' in places. 2001 sequel 2010 had problems in this regard. I watched Live and Let Die on Blu last week, a very fine layer of grain, perfect. King Kong? A friend brought it round recently, almost unwatchable. No sale here and I'm a huge fan.


I'm sure the Back to the Future films will look fine, it won't be another Predator. [wink]