WHV Announcement: Clash of the Titans -and- The Neverending Story (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

The Neverending Story DVD included the trailer, so it's disappointing that it's been omitted from the Blu-ray.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Also, what's with the total lack of extras - not even the trailer was included! PQ was great (for the most part). I'm happy this was given the hi-def treatment. Audio is awesome, too!

I feel like a hypocrite. I want extras on the movies I buy. I'll buy the two disc over the one disc every time when there are two versions. I find that I really don't watch them. I don't know if its because I'm so busy or they are usually puff pieces, but I just don't really watch them.

 

[cineMANIAC]

I'm gonna have to do some soul-searching when deciding whether or not to buy the new Clash of theTitans Blu-ray today. Thirty bucks for what is esentially a slightly-better looking version of the old DVD just seems like unnecessary splurging. What is Warners thinking overpricing this release and not providing new extras?

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

I've been reluctant to pick up this or 7th Voyage of Sinbad or any Harryhausen disc I already own on DVD because it seems to me the BD image would only accentuate differences between the stop motion and live action elements, and other limitations in the process. Am I wrong in assuming the regular DVD image may be more forgiving?

 

[Jeff Robertson]

Perhaps if they eliminated the "book" packaging, it would have been priced differently. We'll eventually see it in a standard case, though. I'm guessing at some point after the remake film has run its course.

Judging by the DVDBeaver review, I'd say it is more than slightly better than the DVD since a cleaner print is used, but I agree that it is hard to justify at the price it is listed for now. I've been mostly pleased with Warner's catalog releases from the 70's and 80's so far but the continued lack of extras is a disappointment.

Originally Posted by Luisito34

I'm gonna have to do some soul-searching when deciding whether or not to buy the new Clash of theTitans Blu-ray today. Thirty bucks for what is esentially a slightly-better looking version of the old DVD just seems like unnecessary splurging. What is Warners thinking overpricing this release and not providing new extras?

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Luisito34

I'm gonna have to do some soul-searching when deciding whether or not to buy the new Clash of theTitans Blu-ray today. Thirty bucks for what is esentially a slightly-better looking version of the old DVD just seems like unnecessary splurging. What is Warners thinking overpricing this release and not providing new extras?

I think there's a chance you'll see a sale on it either the week of or week before the remake hits theaters. I'd wait because even if a sale doesn't happen, the price won't go any higher than it already is at Amazon or other online retailers.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollywoodaholic

I've been reluctant to pick up this or 7th Voyage of Sinbad or any Harryhausen disc I already own on DVD because it seems to me the BD image would only accentuate differences between the stop motion and live action elements, and other limitations in the process. Am I wrong in assuming the regular DVD image may be more forgiving?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: This was all well before the days of home video, so the animators and other special effects staff were designing entirely for high-resolution (equivalent or greater than 1080p) film projected on large screens. The worst I've seen in the Harryhausen Blu-rays is some softness to the image, but from what I've read that's from the film itself, not the transfer.

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow

Quote:

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: This was all well before the days of home video, so the animators and other special effects staff were designing entirely for high-resolution (equivalent or greater than 1080p) film projected on large screens. The worst I've seen in the Harryhausen Blu-rays is some softness to the image, but from what I've read that's from the film itself, not the transfer.

Actually, blu-ray typically has more detail than a 35mm release print and it's often closer to the original negative than anything you could see in the theatre.

Although film negative has far more detail than a 1080p blu-ray (somewhere between 3K-6K depending on whom you ask and how it was shot), it has to go through three generations to get to a theatrical print. Once the film is edited, an interpositive is made from the negative, then an internegative is made from that, and finally release prints are made from the interneg.

Even modern productions which use a digital intermediate go through a similar process - the negative is scanned, the digital intermediate is created, then an interneg is made from that and relase prints are made from the interneg.

Each of these steps results in a significant loss of resolution, and that's not even taking into account projector gate weave and imperfect focus.

35mm release prints typically have a resolution equivalent to about 720p, sometimes a little bit more, sometimes less:

http://www.filmschooldirect.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm

Film is analog so there are no real "pixels." However, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD.


This is the argument most film purists use. The truth is, pixels are not the way to compare resolution. The human eye cannot see individual pixels beyond a short distance. What we can see are lines.


Consequently, manufacturers measure the sharpness of photographic images and components using a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF). This process uses lines (not pixels) as a basis for comparison. Notice the lines in this resolution chart:

Part of a Standard Resolution Chart


There is an international study on this issue, called Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation. It was conducted by Hank Mahler (CBS, United States), Vittorio Baroncini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Italy), and Mattieu Sintas (CST, France).


In the study, MTF measurements were used to determine the typical resolution of theatrical release prints and answer prints in normal operation, utilizing existing state-of-the-art 35mm film, processing, printing, and projection.


The prints were projected in six movie theaters in various countries, and a panel of experts made the assessments of the projected images using a well defined formula. The results are as follows:


35mm RESOLUTION Measurement

Lines

Answer Print MTF 1400 Release Print MTF 1000 Theater Highest Assessment 875 Theater Average Assessment 750
Of course, film has other advantages - greater dynamic range, colour depth, no compression etc. But strictly in terms of detail, blu-ray usually wins out.

This is from the cinematographer of Jennifer's Body:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=43683

This isn't accurate or even provable, but my mental checklist is that 35mm negative is 4K at best (3K on average) whether or not you want to argue for even higher scanning resolutions, and that 35mm answer print resolution is 2K at best, and a 35mm release print from an IP/IN is less than that, let's say 1K.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Originally Posted by Thomas Agermose

Keeping my fingers crossed that the release will include the longer German cut.

How much longer than "neverending" can you get?

 

[Brandon Conway]

That's some great info, Nick. Many thanks for sharing!

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Yes, thanks to Nick and Jesse for responses on the image question.

 

[Johnny Angell]

So where's the review of Clash, I'm a'waitin.

 

[Jay Taylor]

I've never purchased one of these Blu-ray book sets. Does the Blu-ray disc use the book to store the disc? If so I'm concerned about the book being too wide to fit into my storage cabinet without laying it sideways in which case I'd rather wait for the non-book release. If the disc is stored in the book would someone please tell me the width and height of the book please?

 

[Brandon Conway]

The disc is stored in the book, at the back in a plastic tray one typically finds in a slipcase package. The book packaging is slightly taller than a regular plastic blu-ray case, but shorter than a DVD case. It is slightly wider than either a DVD or Blu-ray case, by about the same as a cardboard DVD slipcase package. It is about as thick as a regular DVD case (some exceptions are thicker: How the West Was Won, Amadeus, to fit multiple discs).

 

[Jay Taylor]

Thanks Brandon. From your description it should barely fit into my CanAm storage cabinet without laying it down because DVD slipcases barely fit as well. With the Can-Am cabinets the DVD/Blu-ray cases are stored on their right edge instead of their bottom edge.

www.can-am.ca/CD-storage-DVD-storage.htm