ZULU - On Bluray ( UK ) (1 Viewer)

[OliverK]

It has been stated that the actors are wearing heavy make up and the film was shot in harsh light conditions. The overall quality looks great to me.

What about the furniture, walls and vegetation - those wore makeup, too ?
And as a side note: All of us here like Zulu, that's why we are in this thread - don't you think Zulu deserves better ? It could very possibly look as good as HTWWW but it doesn't. I think pointing out the flaws is paramount (pun intended) especially when this disc is released by a company that has recently released a stunning filmlike restoration of The Godfather and that now stoops down to such a low level of quality.

 

[OliverK]

The stills look horrible. Exactly the kind of waxworks that are a travesty when you know what film originally looks like.

I made it like 20 minutes into the film and unfortunately these caps are a very good representation of what I see on screen. I have checked my caps against those from Xylon with a couple of titles and they are virtually identical when I hit the same frame so this should give you a point of reference.

 

[Danny_N]

Quote:

I don't mean this in a mean way but I guess you must have spent more time making/posting/analyzing caps than watching the movie itself. I'm glad that I can still enjoy watching the movie at least and not feel the inclination to analyze to death what I see on my screen.

 

[OliverK]

I don't mean this in a mean way but I guess you must have spent more time making/posting/analyzing caps than watching the movie itself. I'm glad that I can still enjoy watching the movie at least and not feel the inclination to analyze to death what I see on my screen.

I did not need a lot of time for these caps as they are from the time span I watched, except for maybe one that I picked up zapping and looking for things to get better later on.
I spent most of the time on these posts and back and forth that naturally comes with the caps and with discussing the transfer.
I do however consider it time well spent as I feel that only criticism that is voiced in a public forum in a respectful manner will lessen the chance of future titles looking like this and then I just have a passion for large format movies and how good they can look. So far only HTWWW and 2 or 3 other titles give a proper impression of the superiority of large format photography and I would really like that to change, there are not that many of these movies left after the disappointments we already had especially with the likes of Spartacus, Patton and now Zulu and a few other efforts that were not that bad but still problematic.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Low level of quality is very relative of course. I don't expect every release of a classic movie to look as good as HTWWW or The Godfather. Simple economics tell me that that is simply not possible for the studios.

Neither do I. But I expect ALL (new) HD relases to look like the films they were mastered from about as close as the technical parameters of the format allow. Possibly minus unintended random film artifacts that have no artistic merit (such as scratches, tears and other damage, NOT GRAIN!). Is that too much to ask for? Is it really? Is the relevant criterion whether it looks 'better' than some DVD? 'Better' meaning whatever it means? Is that the reference for a HD transfer? The DVD? Of course not. It's the original film source. Nothing else. That this is even a point of debate is disturbing.
Concerning cost and affordability. It does not cost more to NOT apply DNR and sharpening unless you believe that this forces you to use a BD50 instead of a BD25 or people will buy fewer copies because of the film look intact.
And I'm getting really tired of the all the pseudo arguments against using stills to demonstrate technical aspects of a transfer. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH STILLS AT ALL AS LONG AS THEY ARE CORRECTLY MADE AND INTERPRETED. MORE, THEY ARE THE ONLY OBJECTIVE AND SHAREABLE EVIDENCE WE HAVE TO DISCUSS IMAGE QUALITY DETAILS ON THE NET!
Correctly made means they are direct digital from the disc, 1:1 pixel mapped, with the correct color matrix applied, no filtering added (no sharpening, no smoothing, no degraining...), no RGB remapping (video versus PC levels) and not recompressed or at least not compressed in a way that compression artifacts interfere with what it is that they are supposed to document.
Correctly interpreted means you limit yourself to image properties that do not depend strongly on seeing the stills at 24fps (watching the film is watching stills at 24 fps!) but are evident on static stills as well as watching at 24fps. And, oh wonder, there are image properties that are well visible at 24 fps and on static stills, namely
- aliasing
- sharpening haloes and sufficiently strong ringing
- Some types of (strong) DNR artifacts
- and of course other things such as scratches, strong grain, shadow detail etc.
Concerning "Zulu" we are dealing with strong grain processing in the stills shown here, the effects of which is very obvious provided someone knows what unfiltered film looks like and what these filters do. If they don't it's no excuse for attacking the concept of stills or question the integrity of people using them. What film looks like can be studied over and over in cinemas (and properly done HD transfers). And what this kind of DNR processing looks like as well. Most players and displays have now such filters built in. And photoshop is installed on many computers. People can try for themselves what the different filter types look like.

 

[Danny_N]

If they don't it's no excuse for attacking the concept of stills or question the integrity of people using them.

That works both ways. You continously try to invalidate the opinion of people whose threshold for what's acceptable and what's not is lower than yours, or simply enjoy a BD for what it is, with implying that they don't know what unfiltered film looks like. Well I do and I don't have to waste my time with Photoshop and screencaps to see the DNR and EE on Zulu. It was just not intruding enough for me to kill the pleasure of watching the content. That probably puts me in the "good enough" camp in your mind but I think I'd rather be there than in the "never good enough" camp.

 

[Mark Anthony]

"What about the furniture, walls and vegetation - those wore makeup, too ?"

I'm sorry you'll have to be more specific, in the clips you've provided I can't see anything indistinct or blurry thats not purposely out of focus in the shot.

"And I'm getting really tired of the all the pseudo arguments against using stills to demonstrate technical aspects of a transfer"

I'm sorry but it's not the responsibility of HTF poster's to bow to whatever tires you or not, so until you become a moderator here i'm afraid all bets are off and many, many people of far greater technical standing than myself take the same position that SCREEN GRAB'S ARE OFTEN UNREPRESENTATIVE OF THE FINAL PRODUCT!

The main reason is that time after time in thread's similar to this people post in reply to the original complaint saying, i't doesn't look like that on my screen", "it was no where near that dark or lacking colour or whatever".

To take another thread that illustrates my point, a few members on this forum and others went ballistic over BS Dracula, because it looked different to how it had done before, despite postings from some rather illustrious experts and people actually involved in the films and BD's production to say it now looked as was intended.

The naysayers used screen grabs to prove their point, and admittedly, in a few shots it did look different than before, thats the filmmakers progative, but many of the claimed faults and the screengrabs that highlighted them looked nothing like the BD i watched at 1080p/24.

I can see this debate going round in circles, so short of any new evidence i'm outta here!

M

 

[RolandL]

Comparison to DVD Beaver region 2/4, region 1 and Blu-ray.com Zulu . Looks like its cropped on all four sides.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Quote:

Most of the cases I see I can overlook too and I find them relatively minor. But once we define Patton, Longest Day or Zulu as minor we can entirely give up on the concept of HD that looks film like because basically anything goes then, based on whatever the technological or consumer preference of the moment is. It degrades film to a infinitely shapeable product with no intrinsic value itself beyond commercial exploitation. Changing the basic texture of film like that is not minor. It's comparable to colorising black and white films, or pan and scan widescreen films. It must stop the same way the colorising and panning and scanning stopped or were accompanied by original versions and versions with correct aspect ratio, so there was a choice for those who care(d).

 

[Ed St. Clair]

, but he gives the disc a glowing review. He also states that he expects the disc to trigger controversy.
Blu-ray.com - Zulu (Blu-ray) - Blu-ray Review

Here's a clue:
The reviewer works for blu-ray.com!

 

[Michel_Hafner]

I'm sorry but it's not the responsibility of HTF poster's to bow to whatever tires you or not, so until you become a moderator here i'm afraid all bets are off and many, many people of far greater technical standing than myself take the same position that SCREEN GRAB'S ARE OFTEN UNREPRESENTATIVE OF THE FINAL PRODUCT!

An irrelevant position in a specific case where they are either relevant or not. A silly straw man argument to avoid discussing something in detail. Holds no merit whatsoever in the cases I explained in detail. And 'final product' does not apply anyway. Relevant stills are always from the 'final product'.
Cesar

 

[OliverK]

It has gone to such extremes that it has become ridiculous, at least for me, because you'll find picture flaws on nearly every release if you look for them with a magnifying glass. I perfectly understand what you and Oliver want but I fear that you may very well end up throwing the baby away with the bath water.

You do not need a magnifying glass to find flaws with Patton, The Longest Day or Zulu.
I leave the magnifying glass stuff to others but for Zulu it was not needed and it is telling that so many rally to the defense of even this kind of transfer, must be part of the human condition.
If we cannot complain about the lackluster quality of less than 1% of the titles released so far on Blu-Ray we must be living in some kind of informal dictatorship. What is there to defend about Zulu, what will you gain by getting mhafner and me to stop criticizing ? More transfers like Zulu would be my guess - you want that ? I certainly don't so I will have my say about the 4 or 5% of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD releases that I watched or tried to watch and did not enjoy due to bad picture quality.
And the best thing is this: You can still enjoy Zulu while we are pointing out the flaws of the transfer AND you might even get better quality with the next classic movie because somebody spoke up and pointed out the flaws in this one, so this would be a win-win situation for everybody involved

 

[dannyboy104]

I made it like 20 minutes into the film and unfortunately these caps are a very good representation of what I see on screen. I have checked my caps against those from Xylon with a couple of titles and they are virtually identical when I hit the same frame so this should give you a point of reference.

1.I would be interested to know how you might intend to view this movie in the future, if you felt that 20 mins of the Blu-Ray version was enough ? I know I need a copy at the ready,for when the occasion occurs.
2. Have you been able in the past to catch the film in a cinema in either 35mm or 70mm, if so what are your thoughts on the print etc?
With regards to this new HD version,it seems that no 70mm version now exists,this fairly new transfer looks to have been taken from 35mm source. The lack of any 4/6 track audio backs this up.

 

[OliverK]

1.I would be interested to know how you might intend to view this movie in the future, if you felt that 20 mins of the Blu-Ray version was enough ? I know I need a copy at the ready,for when the occasion occurs.
2. Have you been able in the past to catch the film in a cinema in either 35mm or 70mm, if so what are your thoughts on the print etc?
With regards to this new HD version,it seems that no 70mm version now exists,this fairly new transfer looks to have been taken from 35mm source. The lack of any 4/6 track audio backs this up.

Generally I try to catch large format films on film, 70mm is of course the preferred medium.
For example I did not watch Patton but will be able to catch a 70mm print of it at the Berlinale film festival next year, which is about a two hour drive for me.
With Zulu I will probably keep the Blu-Ray and sell it when I can also get a rental.
That way just in case I feel the urge to watch it I will have the best current digital media at my disposal, although it is very improbable I will feel that urge - the aversion to excessive DNR is strong with me
FWIW I saw Zulu a few years ago on DVD and IMO it is not a movie I have to rewatch every two years so I would rather want to wait for a satisfying (for me) presentation the next time around. At the moment I would both enjoy a vintage 70ies UK 70mm print or the new 35mm print of Zulu as so far I have never been able to enjoy it in a cinema - not really a popular movie where I live.
You are correct there is no new 70mm print of Zulu, in fact to the best of my knowledge there has been no new 70mm print done for any movie that has a comparably diverse distributorship as Zulu, such is the fate of movies that belong to more than one studio, the production process Super Technirama 70 of course does not help that much either. El Cid would be another high profile example of such an unfortunate situation.

 

[dannyboy104]

Thanks for your thoughts,

Whilst on the subject of Technirama, Channel4 (HD channel) in the UK, are screening "The Vikings" this thursday, I can't wait to see Jack Cardiffs superb cinematography.

 

[Mark Anthony]

Ok i'll bite..

An irrelevant position in a specific case where they are either relevant or not. A silly straw man argument to avoid discussing something in detail. Holds no merit whatsoever in the cases I explained in detail. And 'final product' does not apply anyway. Relevant stills are always from the 'final product'.
Cesar

Anyone is entitled to hold any position, if that's their view it's not irrelevent, especially on a forum such as this.
Screengrab's, however they've been obtained, are not representative of the final product when several people say that the very stills you are using don't actually look like the film on playback, you know when they're actually watching the film for enjoyment, rather than on artifact critique mode.
Given that you also believe "Baraka", widely acclaimed as one of the finest looking BD's to date by just about everyone who has reviewed it, to be an EE travesty speaks volumes about your opinions.
EE and dnr can be abused, and in the case of Patton, amongst others, it has been. But in this case it hasn't.
All you are doing is making the very people who might be able to do something about genuine technical faults on titles, not bother to read these kind of threads or forums in general due to hyperbole and hysteria about the slightest thing wrong.
M

 

[OliverK]

EE and dnr can be abused, and in the case of Patton, amongst others, it has been. But in this case it hasn't.

This is pure gold.

 

[OliverK]

Thanks for your thoughts,
Whilst on the subject of Technirama, Channel4 (HD channel) in the UK, are screening "The Vikings" this thursday, I can't wait to see Jack Cardiffs superb cinematography.

I have never seen that one - the variety of classic movies in HD that are aired on the sky channels is mind boggling ! Please report back how you like it.

 

[Danny_N]

Quote:

For that to happen your opinion has to be taken seriously by the people who produce the discs. Now let me ask you this. Do you have the feeling that your and Michel's concerns are still being taken seriously by professionals or not? Should the fact that an insider on another board calls you and the other AVS screencap analysts "video lunatics" not tell you something?

 

[OliverK]

For that to happen your opinion has to be taken seriously by the people who produce the discs. Now let me ask you this. Do you have the feeling that your and Michel's concerns are still being taken seriously by professionals or not? Should the fact that an insider on another board calls you and the other AVS screencap analysts "video lunatics" not tell you something?

Just for curiosity how do you suggest for me to voice my displasure on a transfer that I think has gone so wrong it is not tolerable anymore to me ?
And I am NOT a screencap analyst, I watched the movie before posting my impressions, no need to make this about the caps as I watched enough of Zulu to see what is wrong with it.
To add another insiders opinion: I talked to somebody who is in the business and does transfers for HD and he is of the opinion that Zulu has gone terribly wrong. But he will not voice his opinion in public for fear of repercussions, he also saw what happened to that one guy working for Warner over on AVS when he spoke his mind.