Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Universal Blu Ray Catalog Releases - Quality Control Issues


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#1 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 20 2011 - 12:53 AM

I have read statements from Universal that say it is normal practice to use digital noise reduction and edge enhancement on their catalog titles, when they re-released Gladiator they said they are not adding these "enhancements".


Well here's the thing, i keep ending up so disappointed when i buy a Universal back catalogue release, i'm trying hard to think of one that i bought which had zero issues, oh for sure Ridley Scott's extended cut of Legend was good, far better than the sharpened theatrical cut but it had issues of its own due to using an answer print.


The Back To The Future films all had smoothavision applied to selected scenes, i had hoped for better from Jurassic Park, but nope the Universal people strike again and i end up spending money on something that disappoints me.


I wrote this in another forum but i will repeat the post here.


I got my Jurassic Park trilogy delivered today, i wanted to make some screencaps for my own site and also intend writing a review after i have watched it on the big screen projector setup, well its obvious within the first minute that halo's are present around people and objects, grain is slightly exaggerated as a result of the sharpening.

Universal strikes again, they just cannot be relied upon to do a catalog title right.

I am so surprised that Spielberg did not get involved, maybe he was too busy with Tin Tin, maybe if he does view it we can get a recall and better product in the same way Ridley Scott got them to upgrade Gladiator.

Okay it isn't as bad as Gladiator was, but c'mon, its 2011, edge sharpening is NOT needed on blu ray, if you want a sharper image then do it via your television/projector/blu ray player, don't bake the sharpening and associated issues into the damn transfer.

This sickens me, i was really looking forward to this release.

Spielberg has usually taken an interest in ensuring his films look great on blu ray, either he doesn't care for Jurassic Park ( i know he doesn't for The Lost World and neither do i ) or even he cannot get the muppets who run the Universal video department to stop this practice of adding sharpening to catalog releases.

I'm very disappointed, i imagine the sequels will also suffer from Universals "policy" of sharpening up their catalog releases.

Looking closer at some of the worst affected sharpening scenes and it looks to me like some DNR has been applied, the grain looks smudgy, unnatural looking, if DNR was applied then detail would be removed, it makes sense that they would apply sharpening to try and get back that detail, i'm talking about the scene where they first see the dinosaurs and are amazed, terrible halo's and grain looks smudgy, i considered the fact that it might be compositing halo's, nah, its on the dinosaur, the trees, the people, everything, thats not a compositing issue.

Now the scene where the baby raptors are born looks far more natural and detailed, that scene has had complaints about being "too grainy" well i disagree and most of that scene looks far more film like to my eyes and funnily enough most of it is a closeup scene.

I think its possible this might be an old 2K transfer and made for DVD, long and medium camera setups seem to exhibit edge sharpening to varying levels and some grain reduction also to varying levels, closeups seem much better to me, often for DVD they would sharpen the long and medium shots but not so much the closeups, thats what i think i am seeing here but i'll know more when i view it on the big screen and this is just my initilal thoughts.


I just want Universal to stop with this "normal and routine" process of using DNR and EE on their back catalog, don't spend the money on this, save your money and just give us the film, warts and all, but as of today i am done buying any catalog titles from Universal, completely done, no more, if Spielberg films can suffer from Universal's badly thought out policy then any film can suffer it and i won't spend another penny on this, oh for sure the masses will buy and lap it all up, not because they are stupid, but because they do not know what edge sharpening halo's are or don't care because their televisions are set up with sharpensss to the max and they see edge halo's on everything and think its normal, that is not intended as an insult to people, its a fact, people view televisions in torch mode, get impressed, buy the tv and set them up that way, its a shame but its true, i wish it wasn't.


I mostly buy catalog releases these days or wait for price drops on new releases, i tend to avoid Universal and Paramount back catalog releases, especially Universal, i logically thought Spielberg would have approved Jurassic Park, i don't think he has, if he has then i would be surprised, something is not right with this release, i fear for the sequels too.


I have written an email to Universal to ask about Jurassic Park and whether they are using an old 2K master, whether its from 11 years ago, or 2006/7 and i also asked if Spielberg approved it, i asked if their normal process of applying DNR and EE was adhered to with this release, i doubt i will get a reply.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#2 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 20 2011 - 04:14 AM

Just watched the whole film, edge halo's are seen in many scenes, they are usually mild, but less noticeable during the scenes set at night, although i still saw some in a few scenes - Definitive upgrade over the old DVD. ( but i want more than that )

The sound mix originally wowed me, i have gotten used to some great mixes since this film came out and it wowed me slightly less, very decent but not great anymore.

I wonder if the first dinosaur scene and edge halo's is due to how it was put together, actors were shot against a green screen, water and the lake was composited in separately as were the dinosaurs, maybe it was very soft back then and they sharpened it up for its cinema release, maybe i'm stretching and making excuses for Universal who we know love to add edge enhancement to their catalog releases.

Spielberg is seen discussing the film in what appears to be new extra content, was this made in 2006/2007 or earlier this year/late last year, If the latter then did he approve the transfer. ?


If he did approve the transfer then i'm left disappointed, i see edge halo's in scenes which have no effects work and no green screen so that cannot be the cause of them.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#3 of 90 jaaguir

jaaguir

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 75 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 15 2011

Posted October 21 2011 - 04:10 AM

First I'll say I haven't sen the Jurassic park blu-rays. If this wasn't a Spielberg release, I think nobody would even bat an eye about the DNR+EE resulting in an electronic looking image. They love to do it, to varying degrees. In my opinion, Universal are the film-lover's nightmare on blu-ray. Judging by your comments, this isn't one of their worst efforts. But this is a Spielberg release, and as I read in an insider thread back in the day, he usually demands quality and gets it. I would be shocked if these weren't new scans. He should have approved the new masters too. Maybe it's true he doesn't care much about theseand didn't pay much attention, I don't know. Maybe you're being over-sensitive? (just saying). By the way, I'm no technical expert but I've read many times, "natural" halos in the image don't really have to do (necessarily) with green-screen work, as you seem to imply. Halos can appear due to optical effects on camera, it's been going on forever. Apparently certain lighting conditions are required and it also depends on what's being in front of the camera. Well I'm sure you can find out about this and understand it better than I can (or have bothered to do). But it is possible that they'd always sharpen the composite shots for home-video. Digitally composited shots almost always looked soft and grainy (and with funky black levels) back in the '90s. About the "Legend" blu-ray, I thought the director's cut looked beautiful. Of course it was grainier, but I like that look. You can't have everything! Well actually I think you can, that transfer just replicates how an original fine print looks, and since that was the source, it's just as good as it could be, and that's how it always should be.

#4 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 21 2011 - 05:09 AM



Originally Posted by jaaguir 

First I'll say I haven't sen the Jurassic park blu-rays.
If this wasn't a Spielberg release, I think nobody would even bat an eye about the DNR+EE resulting in an electronic looking image. They love to do it, to varying degrees. In my opinion, Universal are the film-lover's nightmare on blu-ray.
Judging by your comments, this isn't one of their worst efforts. But this is a Spielberg release, and as I read in an insider thread back in the day, he usually demands quality and gets it. I would be shocked if these weren't new scans. He should have approved the new masters too. Maybe it's true he doesn't care much about theseand didn't pay much attention, I don't know. Maybe you're being over-sensitive? (just saying).
By the way, I'm no technical expert but I've read many times, "natural" halos in the image don't really have to do (necessarily) with green-screen work, as you seem to imply. Halos can appear due to optical effects on camera, it's been going on forever. Apparently certain lighting conditions are required and it also depends on what's being in front of the camera. Well I'm sure you can find out about this and understand it better than I can (or have bothered to do). But it is possible that they'd always sharpen the composite shots for home-video. Digitally composited shots almost always looked soft and grainy (and with funky black levels) back in the '90s.
About the "Legend" blu-ray, I thought the director's cut looked beautiful. Of course it was grainier, but I like that look. You can't have everything! Well actually I think you can, that transfer just replicates how an original fine print looks, and since that was the source, it's just as good as it could be, and that's how it always should be.


Judge for yourself if i'm being over sensitive. I also doubt these halo's are optical effects on camera as they appear during scenes where the film grain looks to have been tampered with (and in scenes which are shot on location outdoors in Hawaii) this results in a loss of detail and they sharpen to compensate, the sharpening then results in halos, this looks like an old master prepared for the DVD days.


I considered the compositing and also considered that effects at 1K might need sharpened, but then i don't recall seeing something so bad at the cinemas and it looks like its been done for the home only, i also looked at the scene of Jeff Goldblum in the car, a scene which follows the first dino scene, the car and Goldblums shoulder has a halo on it, that scene is shot on location and is not a green screen scene, i doubt Spielberg would shoot a film in 1993 with halos present throughout the transfer, i may buy into the effects argument and the need to sharpen but not the non effect shots and thus i believe its logical given the record of Universal and their blu ray releases to believe they sharpened it, without Spielbergs consent, possibly, possibly with his consent, i don't know, its unusual for Spielberg to allow edge sharpening on his films, this one looks processed during the daytime scenes, it looks better during the night scenes.


I don't believe digitally composited shots always looked soft or necessary overly grainy either, if shot 35mm all the way through then yes thats possible but often in the late seventies, eighties and early nineties they would use VistaVision or 65mm for effects work and this helps immensely with such issues, now go back to the sixties, watch Jason and the Argonauts, yes there are halos on the composited shots, but not on the non-effects shots and i see the halos on non-effect shots here, i see them on a variety of different lighting setups too.


No argument about the directors cut of Legend, i loved it, it looked very good to me, i should add i want the film look, i want the film grain preserved and i intensely dislike edge sharpening which is not needed for blu ray releases but Universal said in an interview it is standard process for their blu ray catalog releases as is DNR to varying degrees.


My review is here if you care to read my thoughts and how i come to these conclusions.


http://www.darkrealm...-jurassic-park/


Some screencaps directly off the disc.


The edge enhancement scenes

http://www.darkrealm....c_5.jpg?9d7bd4

http://www.darkrealm....c_3.jpg?9d7bd4

http://www.darkrealm....c_2.jpg?9d7bd4

http://www.darkrealm..._jurassic_1.jpg

http://www.darkrealm..._jurassic_4.jpg

The Grain scenes which i thought looked very good and detailed in motion
( but other sites have criticised and called too grainy )

http://www.darkrealm....c_1.jpg?9d7bd4

http://www.darkrealm....c_3.jpg?9d7bd4

http://www.darkrealm....c_2.jpg?9d7bd4

http://www.darkrealm..._jurassic_4.jpg

http://www.darkrealm..._jurassic_5.jpg


I also thought the sound mix had something wrong with it, it was very good in places but i recall it being better, since they re-mixed for 7.1 its possible they did something i dislike to the soundtrack, reviews are giving the mix 5/5 though so i guess i'm in the minority on this one.


Universals track record with catalog releases on blu ray is poor, thats why i suspect the issues i see are entirely down to their handling of the transfer, if Spielberg comes out and says he approved it then i might be convinced with regards the composite scenes but that would not explain other scenes away, and its ominous the publicly material said digitally re-mastered which is not the same as having a brand new film scan made and when a studio like Universal says digitally remastered it usually means messing around with an old transfer to try and make it look shiny new but they usually just end up making things look poor.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#5 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 21 2011 - 05:48 AM

Someone working for Universals blu ray film remastering department voted. ?


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#6 of 90 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,596 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted October 21 2011 - 06:07 AM

Malcolm, I'm afraid I must disagree with you on your conclusions.


I've been watching the Jurassic Park trilogy set on Blu and I'm not seeing problems with DNR or EE.


I'm seeing grain and a quite satisfying amount of detail.  This is on a 65" Panasonic VT30 plasma.  I'm also hearing an incredible amount of detail in the 7.1 DTS-HD mixes.


The new Laurent Bouzereau material was done this year, from what I can tell, not back in 2006 or 2007.


My understanding is that some work had to be done with the first film, but not to DNR and EE it.   I also understand that Spielberg and the other producers of the movie approved of the new transfers.   He was very much involved.   I don't have a reason for the use of a VC-1 encode rather than AVC, but to my eye it hasn't hurt the image.


The BTTF comparison is unfortunate and was discussed on this forum last year, where we concluded that this was NOT a case of "smoothavision".  I'm sorry that this complaint keeps being raised as a definitive when it was not.


I'll have a full review of the trilogy up this weekend, but I'm not disappointed with this release, and I intend to recommend it - provided that people are willing to buy parts 2 and 3, which go down in terms of the movies themselves and not the picture or sound.



#7 of 90 GMpasqua

GMpasqua

    Screenwriter

  • 1,423 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 21 2010

Posted October 21 2011 - 06:09 AM

What's a Univeral Blu-ray Catalog title?  Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image



#8 of 90 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,596 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted October 21 2011 - 06:23 AM

I'll go a little farther and say that I doubt that Spielberg will make a public statement about the quality of the blu-ray transfer.  He tends to let these things speak for themselves, and I believe he's currently in final post on both of his 2011 movies.  This is akin to Peter Jackson being asked to come out to defend the blus of the LOTR extended editions earlier this year - I just don't see that happening.


At the same time, I also want to say that while I disagree with you on this topic, I understand and agree with the intent behind the poll.  We've all seen too many times where the older transfer is deemed "good enough" or where an HD-DVD port is presented like a new product.  When I see that kind of thing, you've seen me comment on it. 

And I don't want you to feel your view is being dismissed - just that we have different views and that's the nature of this forum.



#9 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 21 2011 - 06:40 AM



Originally Posted by Kevin EK 

Malcolm, I'm afraid I must disagree with you on your conclusions.


I've been watching the Jurassic Park trilogy set on Blu and I'm not seeing problems with DNR or EE.


I'm seeing grain and a quite satisfying amount of detail.  This is on a 65" Panasonic VT30 plasma.  I'm also hearing an incredible amount of detail in the 7.1 DTS-HD mixes.


The new Laurent Bouzereau material was done this year, from what I can tell, not back in 2006 or 2007.


My understanding is that some work had to be done with the first film, but not to DNR and EE it.   I also understand that Spielberg and the other producers of the movie approved of the new transfers.   He was very much involved.   I don't have a reason for the use of a VC-1 encode rather than AVC, but to my eye it hasn't hurt the image.


The BTTF comparison is unfortunate and was discussed on this forum last year, where we concluded that this was NOT a case of "smoothavision".  I'm sorry that this complaint keeps being raised as a definitive when it was not.


I'll have a full review of the trilogy up this weekend, but I'm not disappointed with this release, and I intend to recommend it - provided that people are willing to buy parts 2 and 3, which go down in terms of the movies themselves and not the picture or sound.


The screencaps don't lie, many day time outdoor scenes contain edge enhancement, sometimes mild, sometimes medium, never really terrible but its there.


Plenty of film grain during night scenes but consider this, nighttime photography often hides edge sharpening issues, still, i do think the transfer looks better whenever you get scenes shot during the evening. The grain during the daytime scenes look tampered with, detail falls, edge enhancement sharpening is seen.


If Spielberg is truly happy with this, then that saddens me, but consider this, perhaps he approved the film scan and Universal ruined it with the encode by adding things like edge sharpening.


As for the sound mix, i have great speakers and a fantastic subwoofer, i have just come off watching The Lion King, fantastic 7.1 remix, this film was also re-mixed so we can't use the excuse of "preserving the original mix" - This mix is not as good, bass doesn't move the air as much, surrounds are certainly very active, but the music score isn't as richly detailed, not as "airy" and really its just my opinion but i stand by it, i recognise others will not share this opinion, the sound mix was good, it just was not great and i always remembered it as sounding great.


Anyway, here are some more screencaps, look at screencaps 3, 5 and 12, can't you see the edge sharpening halos. ?  Did Spielberg truly want this. ?  Hmmm, i just don't think so but i respect your opinion. The scene from screencap 12 is an animatronic, no CGI, no compositing required, no excuse for halos to be there, its not an isolated moment, its there in a lot of scenes.


This is not a minor colour issue as seen on LOTR, this is edge enhancement, its ugly, its not my equipment adding it either and screencaps get taken directly off the disc without manipulation and with all sharpening features switched off.


Weren't we also told that the producers of the Back To The Future films approved those transfers too, its a standard line used too often to justify poor transfers, Spielberg is usually reliable but if he did approve this then i think he is looking to make money only and then re-release the films with better transfers in 2013 in time for the twentieth anniversary, excuse me for being cynical but Hollywood is a cynical money making business.


http://www.darkrealm...-jurassic-park/



     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#10 of 90 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,596 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted October 21 2011 - 07:32 AM

I appreciate your interest in providing screencaps, but I always prefer to stay with what I can see on the plasma, particularly since these are moving images.


I strongly doubt that Universal would have messed with these movies without involving Spielberg, particularly since they are together the most financially successful package he has made for them.


On my 7.1 system, (using a Denon 3311 receiver and a Martin Logan Dynamo Subwoofer) the bass does more than move the air.  I have to be careful about playing scenes like the first Brachiasaurus reveal or the T-rex attack late at night because it really shakes the room.  (I also noted a sound bitrate going up to 7.3 mbps during those scenes and others, which is a record for me.)


Back to the Future Blu was supervised and approved by Bob Gale, and we established last year that it was not a bad Blu-ray by any means.  There were some people who felt there were issues, but we were able to establish that it was actually a quite satisfying package.


I don't believe that Spielberg or Universal intends to re-release another Jurassic Park Blu package in 2013, but you raise a good point that they could release the movies individually at that time for the 20th Anniversary - although I doubt that any but the first movie would sell that well.  I don't believe anyone intends to make new scans or transfers or encodes of these movies in any case.


It's my feeling that we'll be seeing Blus of Jaws and E.T. over the next couple of years.  2012 is the 30th Anniversary of E.T., which indicates that we should see something of that a year from now.  I don't think they'll wait for 2015 for Jaws, but I could be wrong on that.  I'm also thinking that we'll likely see a Blu of 1941 somewhere in there.   I realize that if Paramount puts the Indiana Jones movies out next year, that could give Universal pause re E.T. - but on the other hand, they released this package in the wake of Star Wars so...


That said, you're correct that this is a cynical business.  Just look how many times the Bond movies have been released and re-released on disc.  I think that Rocky has been put out four times on Blu alone. 

I also agree with you that Spielberg made the Jurassic Park movies more as a business thing than as a personal thing.  He knew when he read the galleys of the JP book that he had something on the order of Jaws.  And he knew that the CGI FX could take it over the top.   During the post of JP he was really focused on Schindler's List, and in the new interview he admits that he doesn't remember much from the last few months of the finish of both movies.   He also admits in the new interview that he knew he had to make another JP movie and that he doesn't think Lost World was as good as the first one.  It's also clear that the 3rd movie was more of a technical exercise than anything, but that's kind of obvious when you watch it.  For me, I prefer the first book - which is a polished run at Michael Crichton's usual structure.



#11 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 21 2011 - 08:10 AM



Originally Posted by Kevin EK 

I appreciate your interest in providing screencaps, but I always prefer to stay with what I can see on the plasma, particularly since these are moving images.


I strongly doubt that Universal would have messed with these movies without involving Spielberg, particularly since they are together the most financially successful package he has made for them.


On my 7.1 system, (using a Denon 3311 receiver and a Martin Logan Dynamo Subwoofer) the bass does more than move the air.  I have to be careful about playing scenes like the first Brachiasaurus reveal or the T-rex attack late at night because it really shakes the room.  (I also noted a sound bitrate going up to 7.3 mbps during those scenes and others, which is a record for me.)


Back to the Future Blu was supervised and approved by Bob Gale, and we established last year that it was not a bad Blu-ray by any means.  There were some people who felt there were issues, but we were able to establish that it was actually a quite satisfying package.


I don't believe that Spielberg or Universal intends to re-release another Jurassic Park Blu package in 2013, but you raise a good point that they could release the movies individually at that time for the 20th Anniversary - although I doubt that any but the first movie would sell that well.  I don't believe anyone intends to make new scans or transfers or encodes of these movies in any case.


It's my feeling that we'll be seeing Blus of Jaws and E.T. over the next couple of years.  2012 is the 30th Anniversary of E.T., which indicates that we should see something of that a year from now.  I don't think they'll wait for 2015 for Jaws, but I could be wrong on that.  I'm also thinking that we'll likely see a Blu of 1941 somewhere in there.   I realize that if Paramount puts the Indiana Jones movies out next year, that could give Universal pause re E.T. - but on the other hand, they released this package in the wake of Star Wars so...


That said, you're correct that this is a cynical business.  Just look how many times the Bond movies have been released and re-released on disc.  I think that Rocky has been put out four times on Blu alone. 

I also agree with you that Spielberg made the Jurassic Park movies more as a business thing than as a personal thing.  He knew when he read the galleys of the JP book that he had something on the order of Jaws.  And he knew that the CGI FX could take it over the top.   During the post of JP he was really focused on Schindler's List, and in the new interview he admits that he doesn't remember much from the last few months of the finish of both movies.   He also admits in the new interview that he knew he had to make another JP movie and that he doesn't think Lost World was as good as the first one.  It's also clear that the 3rd movie was more of a technical exercise than anything, but that's kind of obvious when you watch it.  For me, I prefer the first book - which is a polished run at Michael Crichton's usual structure.


I wrote the review based on what i saw on my viewing, i provide the screencaps as backup evidence in case people consider my equipment at fault, the edge enhancement is there Kevin, whether Spielberg approved it is the only question mark i have on all that, many (but certainly not all) day time scenes look processed and i'm talking scenes without effects work or green screen.


I strongly doubted that Universal would have messed up Gladiator, but they did, they only re-issued it with a statement saying "edge enhancement and dnr was a normal part of the process" but they were allowing us to see Gladiator without these normal procedural "enhancements"


Back To The Future has issues where it is just all too smooth during some scenes, this may not be dnr, i believe effect shots were VistaVision, but, some fine film grain texture would have been appreciated during those moments, too smooth is not good when viewing on a projection setup as i do.


Spielberg stated many years ago that he was bored when making The Lost World, to me its not a good sequel, it has a few standout sequences such as the raptors in the high grass scene but taking the film off the island adds nothing to the film, Spielberg did it to make his version of King Kong ( with a dinosaur replacing Kong ) i hated The Lost World when i saw it at the cinema back in the nineties, hated it with a passion, i disliked intensely the silly scene of the girl kicking the raptor and i felt and still feel that Goldblum is better as the sidekick and not the hero, i will revisit the film soon and maybe appreciate it more.


The third film is more like the first minus any character building dialogue, it feels like an action re-tread of the original, i liked it better than the second, getting the theme music from the first back was a big bonus and probably why it worked so well for me, that and having Sam Neill in his Indiana Jones hat and i just enjoyed the third film, i switched off the brain and that helped.


I have a lot of Spielberg films in my collection, this is the first one that i think looks processed and tampered with in a negative way for its blu ray release.


P.S. I need to add, i'm not calling this release a disaster, i'm saying there are issues in a number of scenes, i gave it 3.5/5 at my site for image quality, a great transfer would see a 4.5/5 since i never give 5/5 and do not believe in perfection. I too would recommend it to fans of the film, its a huge upgrade from any DVD edition.



     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#12 of 90 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,596 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted October 21 2011 - 08:28 AM

Malcolm, you and I agree on the issues with the second film.   I'll address this in my review, but The Lost World is clearly a movie made out of business necessity rather than a creative necessity.  You can tell from the set material and from the interviews that Spielberg was using this as a warmup for Amistad and then Saving Private Ryan.  He hadn't made a movie in almost four years and was still in the process of starting up Dreamworks (partly with the proceeds from JP's box office and video business).  I also agree with you that the torpedo shot of the raptors is a great idea.  I would add that I liked the inclusion of the scavenger dinos - lifted fully from the first book, and the dino hunt near the beginning of the film.  Pete Postelthwaite steals the movie for me.  But the story runs out of gas after the T-rex couple throws the trailers off the cliff and disrespects poor Richard Schiff.  And even that scene makes very little story sense.  Yes, the ending is flat-out ridiculous - the only bit that works is the T-rex teaching the baby rex to hunt - which is another lift, this time from the second book.


I'm honestly not seeing the kind of processing and tampering that you are - but we're using different setups.  I'm using a plasma and you have a projector setup.   We may be seeing different aspects of the same transfer in different ways due to our equipment.  I should add that I have the VT30 on "THX" mode, which is supposed to be fairly close to tap dead center for proper picture quality for screening movies.  I will have a professional come by to check the calibration fairly soon, but we're anticipating that any adjustments will be minor.


For me, the JP Blu set is similar to the Superman and ALIEN sets, in that the prior extras have been carried over, with some new material added.  Unlike the Star Wars set, where you have to keep everything in order to have all the materials.



#13 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 21 2011 - 08:44 AM



Originally Posted by Kevin EK 



I'm honestly not seeing the kind of processing and tampering that you are - but we're using different setups.  I'm using a plasma and you have a projector setup.   We may be seeing different aspects of the same transfer in different ways due to our equipment.



Fair enough but at least tell me you see the halos i discuss in some of the screencaps and then can acknowledge that if its in the screencaps then its on the transfer, even if there may be a disagreement between us on whether its there because of grain reduction and the need to sharpen detail because of that.


In fact, here is an idea, put the disc back into your Oppo ( i too have an Oppo ) pause one of those scenes in the screencaps i provide and go up to your plasma screen, i guarantee its there and you will see it, the screencaps are not in any way manipulated, they are 100 percent faithful to the source, once you see the halos you can then examine the scene closer and you will see the grain structure is there but not fully intact and it looks poorly defined grain, not totally film like, manipulated film grain, thats grain reduction and a loss of detail = edge enhancement sharpening and halos.


Now screencaps may in some circumstances be no good for showing contrast/colour/brightness changes since displays will be different ( especially true of computer displays ) but as long as you have your sharpness switched off in your graphic cards control panel then you should see the edge enhancement on my provided screencaps as it is on the disc and screencaps are useful for seeing EE, if you trust the source has not applied sharpening or knows what they are doing when taking caps. ( I Do - Know what i'm doing )


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#14 of 90 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,596 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted October 21 2011 - 10:57 AM

Malcolm, I'll take a look at it - after dark tonight.  (I normally evaluate the PQ in the dark with the lights out, as the glass reflects any light source...)  And yes, I'll use the Oppo to check.


But let me ask you this - the issues you're seeing:  are you seeing them while sitting back at a normal distance from your screen at your couch, or are you needing to walk up to the screen to see them?  I base my PQ evaluations on watching from a normal distance back - roughly 9 paces from the couch to the wall mount.

I'm certainly not challenging your setup or your knowledge.  You know more than I do about the setups, etc.  All I can say is whether I see a PQ issue that completely takes me out of a movie, as was the case for me with Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Scarface.  When that happens, I get fairly cranky in the reviews because it's difficult for me to watch and enjoy the movie, and I figure it will be just as bad for anyone else with a setup close to mine.


I should also say that two major daylight moments did not look processed to me - specifically the big reveal of the brachiasaurus and the herds at the water, and the departure at the end of the film.  I could see grain in the sky and grass, but not the hard, digital-looking noise that I saw in the other releases.


#15 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 21 2011 - 11:43 AM



Originally Posted by Kevin EK 

Malcolm, I'll take a look at it - after dark tonight.  (I normally evaluate the PQ in the dark with the lights out, as the glass reflects any light source...)  And yes, I'll use the Oppo to check.


But let me ask you this - the issues you're seeing:  are you seeing them while sitting back at a normal distance from your screen at your couch, or are you needing to walk up to the screen to see them?  I base my PQ evaluations on watching from a normal distance back - roughly 9 paces from the couch to the wall mount.

I'm certainly not challenging your setup or your knowledge.  You know more than I do about the setups, etc.  All I can say is whether I see a PQ issue that completely takes me out of a movie, as was the case for me with Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Scarface.  When that happens, I get fairly cranky in the reviews because it's difficult for me to watch and enjoy the movie, and I figure it will be just as bad for anyone else with a setup close to mine.


I should also say that two major daylight moments did not look processed to me - specifically the big reveal of the brachiasaurus and the herds at the water, and the departure at the end of the film.  I could see grain in the sky and grass, but not the hard, digital-looking noise that I saw in the other releases.


The big reveal of the Brachiasuarus is one of the scenes which i have an issue with, there are halo's throughout that scene and while i thought it may be a compositing thing since the actors were shot green screen and the background digitally added, i then changed my opinion because Jeff Goldblum and the car he is in also has halos and that is a scene shot on Hawaii, no green screen or compositing and its part of that whole edited shot, that tells me the whole scene was sharpened not just individual elements of it, i also feel the film grain, while there, looks tampered with, Examples below, take a look at Laura and Sams shoulder and arm regions and the edges of the trees on either side of the frame and note the halos, then take a look at the car scene which follows this moment and note the halo on Jeffs shoulder area and to the open part of the car frame to the top back of Jeff and the thin halo which is certainly not a normal filmed look, that to me screams of Universal applying edge sharpening, detail is lacking which also screams of digital noise reduction and detail removal. It looks processed, heavily filtered and fine detail removed.


The lake scene with the herd was fine, no complaints there.


http://www.darkrealm...ic_3.jpg?9d7bd4


http://www.darkrealm..._jurassic_1.jpg


My viewing distance for a 104 inch screen is roughly 10.5 feet away,  its within the 14 feet guidelines for that screen size but its comfortable viewing, it replicates the cinema experience, its not too close for me and not too far away and my room is totally dedicated and black, nothing in the room except my home cinema and blu ray collection, ceilings are black, side walls are black, black material all around the front area and at the back.


For your tv size the recommended distance for 1080p viewing is 8.5 feet or closer and within a 30 degree viewing angle, not sure about your 9 paces, is that within the distance i mention. ?


I never walk up to the screen to see issues, on a projection system at a decent viewing position you can spot them very easily, once i spot an issue on the bigscreen i tend to look at it again on the computer and then make a screencap if i want to show the issue on a forum or my own website, i never could spot issues with my tv setup, something about the way a flatscreen projection system works means you view films like you would at a good cinema, the experience to me is totally different than watching on a tv, i remember missing all the edge enhancement on the vista series dvd of Tombstone when i had my tv, i think Robert A Harris missed things as well until he got his projection system, now he tends to see things more easily, mind you i don't want to speak for him, he posts here and i'm sure he can pipe in if he wants to, its not just the size of the display, its having a fully dedicated room that helps and the fact i have learned a lot in the last 10 years on cinema, still learning, i just know Jurassic Park has issues, the only area of disagreement is what is causing it all, i suspect grain reduction and edge sharpening for many of the problems i see but maybe there is more to it than that.


Oh and gate weave during the opening titles, if this really was a brand new minted film scan, even one from 2006/2007 and not an older dvd master then why does it still have the gate weave seen on the old dvd edition. ?




     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#16 of 90 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,596 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted October 21 2011 - 12:58 PM

The thing is, I'm not having major EE or DNR issues with the brachiasaurus scene, on any of the shots that you're describing.  I'd have to go back and specifically look to see if I can detect them - which again will mean that I am not trying to watch the scene, but looking instead for a detail.  Which I'm happy to do.  But my criteria for reviews is when those details overwhelm the scene, as happened for me both on Scarface and Fast Times.  If it's a finer detail that we have to hunt, that's not likely to knock my score down.


I have a large living room, which is bright by day but very dark by night.  I have the plasma mounted on one wall with the low end roughly at my hip height.  The 9 paces correlates to my foot size of 10 1/2 inches.  So that should be 94 1/2 inches or so, which translates to just inside 8 feet.  I wouldn't want to sit any closer as the 65" screen becomes overwhelming.  Further, it is not recommended to sit too close to any television set or projection screen as you can hurt your eyesight.


I'm not qualified to know about Robert Harris' setup - but I respect his input and I believe that he knows more than all of us combined.  He's the only one I know of posting here who has spent decades restoring original camera negatives of some of our most treasured films.  We're lucky he has the time to contribute.


I understand that you are seeing things that are causing issues for you - but I don't know that I agree that these are significant issues, or that Universal would have tampered with one of Steven Spielberg's biggest hits without his input.  The transfers we are seeing were approved by Spielberg and by Joe Johnston.  If there is any issue, this may be something closer to Do The Right Thing, where people here assumed that Universal had somehow messed up the Blu-ray when in fact Spike Lee and Ernest Dickerson were fully involved.  (In fact, Dickerson supervised the color timing on that release himself.)


I honestly don't know when the scan was done, but I do know that Universal didn't just use transfers from 2001 or anything like that.  They might make a mistake like that with Out of Africa as we saw but not with Jurassic Park.


On the other hand, if you found the Back to the Future Blu-ray set to be of poor quality, then it would make sense that the same evaluation would apply here.  I didn't have problems with that release, and I'm not having problems with this one.


#17 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 21 2011 - 02:27 PM



Originally Posted by Kevin EK 

The thing is, I'm not having major EE or DNR issues with the brachiasaurus scene, on any of the shots that you're describing.  I'd have to go back and specifically look to see if I can detect them - which again will mean that I am not trying to watch the scene, but looking instead for a detail.  Which I'm happy to do.  But my criteria for reviews is when those details overwhelm the scene, as happened for me both on Scarface and Fast Times.  If it's a finer detail that we have to hunt, that's not likely to knock my score down.


I have a large living room, which is bright by day but very dark by night.  I have the plasma mounted on one wall with the low end roughly at my hip height.  The 9 paces correlates to my foot size of 10 1/2 inches.  So that should be 94 1/2 inches or so, which translates to just inside 8 feet.  I wouldn't want to sit any closer as the 65" screen becomes overwhelming.  Further, it is not recommended to sit too close to any television set or projection screen as you can hurt your eyesight.


I'm not qualified to know about Robert Harris' setup - but I respect his input and I believe that he knows more than all of us combined.  He's the only one I know of posting here who has spent decades restoring original camera negatives of some of our most treasured films.  We're lucky he has the time to contribute.


I understand that you are seeing things that are causing issues for you - but I don't know that I agree that these are significant issues, or that Universal would have tampered with one of Steven Spielberg's biggest hits without his input.  The transfers we are seeing were approved by Spielberg and by Joe Johnston.  If there is any issue, this may be something closer to Do The Right Thing, where people here assumed that Universal had somehow messed up the Blu-ray when in fact Spike Lee and Ernest Dickerson were fully involved.  (In fact, Dickerson supervised the color timing on that release himself.)


I honestly don't know when the scan was done, but I do know that Universal didn't just use transfers from 2001 or anything like that.  They might make a mistake like that with Out of Africa as we saw but not with Jurassic Park.


On the other hand, if you found the Back to the Future Blu-ray set to be of poor quality, then it would make sense that the same evaluation would apply here.  I didn't have problems with that release, and I'm not having problems with this one.



I never said it was major, its there and yes it is very distracting on projection setups, i have the film on my medium issues list, i'm truly amazed that you are not seeing this problem, the proof has been provided by me and indeed the reviewer at AVS mentions the edge sharpening although he doesn't think dnr is the cause, now major, minor, medium, thats all relative to your tolerance of the issue but one thing is for certain it is there, that cannot be denied, should not be denied, a review must mention it, thats how i feel about all this, what more can i say or do to convince you of this, you still don't acknowledge this issue then i guess your review is going to skip over this aspect of the transfer, how do you know Spielberg approved this, has he said so, this isn't about Back To The Future and you appear to be trying to lump these films together, you cannot do that.


Please remember i still gave the film 3.5/5 - that doesn't equate to a major issue, but an issue is still there, whether Universal messed up, Spielberg approved it, or not, all of that doesn't matter, the bottom line is it is there and its very easy to spot, so why are you saying you don't see it.


If a film has edge sharpening applied and visible in a number of scenes, and Jurassic Park does, then how can you even say it is not an issue, significant or otherwise its there, my point is it shouldn't be, edge sharpening happens for a reason, its logical to say that Universal or Spielberg thought the transfer was too soft, either because grain reduction was applied, thats my theory, or because the original cinematography was considered too soft, now we know Spielberg has said he will not tamper with his older films, therefore we can rule out the theory the original cinematography was too soft, that leaves us with the grain reduction destroying detail and edge sharpening needing to be applied theory, this results in halos and a processed look.


Kevin, i think you need to invest in a projector, seriously man, this issue sticks out bigtime on some scenes ( major scenes ), its real, it exists, it is there and i have provided the evidence and plenty of words but still you don't seem to want to believe me, regardless of screen size there is an issue, you still haven't answered the question about gate weave, most new transfers fix this issue, if this is a new transfer why does gate weave still exist on the opening credits and i'm still waiting for you to tell me if you see the edge sharpening on the screencaps i provided, if you see that then can you acknowledge its presence on the transfer, it doesn't matter if you missed it when you viewed it, i just would like an acknowledgment so we can agree on something, we don't have to agree on the causes of it.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#18 of 90 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,596 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted October 21 2011 - 03:41 PM

Malcolm, I'll answer the last part of your post first.  I have already invested several thousand this year in upgrading my home theater from a 40" Sony XBR2 to the 65" Panasonic VT30, as well as the new Denon, the Oppo, the new subwoofer, the wall mount and the installation costs.   Where I come from, that's a lot of coin.   I did this both for my own enjoyment of the films, but also due to discussion here that I was not seeing significant DNR issues on the 40" screen.   If you're telling me that a new 65" plasma is inadequate for reviews on this site, then we may have some serious issues.  Even with the new equipment, I see my reviews as reflective of what a typical viewer could well have in their home.   4 years ago, a 40" screen was more and more common.  Nowadays the 65" screen is on the large side but more and more people have them.  A 104 inch screen is a wonderful thing, and I'm glad that you are fortunate enough to have one in your home.   But such an item is not on my horizon anytime in the near future.


Regarding Back to the Future, I brought that up because you cite it in your initial discussion as an example of bad work by Universal with the catalogue titles.  There are some people here on this forum who continue to hold that view, as well as similar thoughts about, say, American Graffiti, and will cite that to back up the idea that "this is yet another bad job by Universal".  But that point of view, while an opinion that people are entitled to have, is not a citable fact that can build a case.  It has been disputed by knowledgable people here on this forum and elsewhere - people who have said, as you just have, that any such issues of EE or noise reduction on those titles are not at a level that merits more than a caution if you're looking for the problem.   I'm trying to make sure that readers are not confused by "facts not in evidence" when evaluating these releases.  By the same reasoning, you could properly argue that my evaluations of Scarface and Fast Times were over-reactive to the issues I found there, and that many readers here had no problem with those releases.


As for Steven Spielberg's involvement, I don't have a personal statement from him that he supervised the release.  But it's simply common sense that no major studio would release a title of this stature and ignore the filmmaker, particularly as regards the picture quality of their movie.  And it's common sense that Universal has a very solid long-term working relationship with Spielberg, to a level that he continues to have offices on their lot even when making movies elsewhere.  They're not about to do something to one of his movies without involving him.  Now, an older Sydney Pollack movie that's already had a good DVD (Out of Africa), sure.  A Kubrick film where the filmmaker has passed away a decade ago and where the studio had no relationship with him following his exclusive contract with Warner Brothers dating back to the 1970s (Spartacus), sure.  Heck, any number of catalogue films that were put out on HD-DVD have been ported over to Blu without the filmmaker really having a lot of control over what was happening.  But nothing from Steven Spielberg, and particularly not one of the highest grossing movies in their library.   So I'm going to say it's an obvious thing that he was involved and that they were pretty careful with how they handled this.  I brought up Do The Right Thing because that was another case where readers here assumed the situation you're discussing, when in fact I have been able to prove that the filmmakers were very much involved in that case.  And, again, the repeated implied statements that the filmmaker is somehow not being included is another example of confusing readers with facts that are not in evidence.


As to the idea that I would skip over PQ issues in a review because I'm not seeing them, or not seeing them to the extent that a reviewer on another site is seeing them, I'll just say that I regularly acknowledge that sort of thing in my reviews.  I'll usually mention that the issues have been discussed and that either I am or am not seeing them, and I'll usually leave it to the readers to discuss.  For example, when we had these issues on Terminator 2 Skynet Edition, we went through this.  When we had these discussions on AG and BTTF, my reviews reflected them.  My review for this title will mention the issue.  But I don't intend to downgrade my score unless I see something that causes me to do so.  You should be aware that in these cases, I'll have the Blu-ray looked at by a second pair of eyes, more qualified than my own, to confirm whether there is or isn't a digital issue that is causing problems.  (And that person does have a 100 inch plus projection system)


Finally, as far as Spielberg's quotes about not tampering with his older films, you're conflating his comments from one subject to another.  He was referring to the revisionist changes he made to E.T. for the DVD almost ten years ago, and to the continuing changes made by George Lucas to Star Wars.  He wasn't saying that he wanted all his films transferred at, say 4K, with no digital work done.  He was saying that he wouldn't change the VFX or remove wires or remove other imperfections.  He was saying that he wouldn't make a CGI shark for Jaws.  But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't approve a transfer that did a small amount of DNR.  As we learned with the T2 discussion, a small amount of DNR does usually happen, but not at a level you would notice.  As Robert Harris has noted, the problem isn't if there's some DNR - it's if that knob is turned all the way up.

For me, the barometer is whether the issue is distracting enough to knock me out of the movie.  And you and I agree on that subject.  For you, this issue is distracting you right out of the scenes in question.  For that reason, I understand where you're coming from.


As I said, I will look over the appropriate scenes, and I have a second pair of eyes coming to bear.  Currently, I don't see the halos or the other issues you're discussing.  But I will look again.



#19 of 90 Kevin EK

Kevin EK

    Screenwriter

  • 2,596 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2003

Posted October 21 2011 - 06:30 PM

As for gate weave, I'll look at the opening credits again as well.  I had not seen a problem there either.  But those go by fairly quickly - we're talking three quick titles and you're into the movie itself.


My understanding is that a new transfer was indeed done for high definition.


I have a feeling that between the VC-1 picture encode, the fairly large sound encode, the new HD interviews and the older SD materials, that the discs are maxed.  I could well be wrong on that, but there could be a case that a 4th disc for the featurettes could have allowed more room for the picture and sound on each movie.  That said, I'm not having a problem with the set being kept to 3 discs rather than 4.



#20 of 90 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,792 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted October 22 2011 - 03:14 AM



Originally Posted by Kevin EK 


For me, the barometer is whether the issue is distracting enough to knock me out of the movie.  And you and I agree on that subject.  For you, this issue is distracting you right out of the scenes in question.  For that reason, I understand where you're coming from.


I think you hit the nail on the head here with that comment, as we all have different eyes, i have read comments from people on various internet forums who are annoyed more by encoding artifacts issues ( however minor ) than edge halos or dnr, for myself i absolutely get thrown out of a film when i view edge enhancement, a lot of that does have to do with my screen size, i mean i can watch standard definition mushy edge enhanced sateliite tv on my 29 inch bedroom set, i can even enjoy it, don't tell the world but i am currently enjoying the re-runs of soap opera Dallas, anyways thats because i know the limitations of SD satellite encodes, but i also know the limitations of blu ray and expect studios and filmmakers to not apply any alterations to an encode that will add distracting halos to an image, if its already there, such as in the effects sequences in Jason and the Argonauts or because of not having anti-halation backing ( learned that here ) then thats ok, i accept it, i don't accept them applying it to a film which never ever had any halos, by that i mean to sharpen a release up because someone thinks the home viewer will enjoy it more if it looked sharper.


The halos are mild, they aren't thick or heavy, but they exist, no way would a Spielberg film from 1993 have edge halos on it, filmstock was good enough back then to not have an issue and add it and Dean Cundey is a good enough cinematographer to not be using the camera in a way that would add it to the production, that leaves us with Universal and the theory of sharpening up the release.


The bottom line is this, i have taken screencaps that show the edge halos, i have told you where these halos are on the screencaps, anyone viewing this thread can view those caps and see the halos, so now i ask this question, are those halos a normal part of the production, what is more likely, that Universal or Spielberg sharpened up this release ( back in 1993 for the cinema or for this blu ray release ) and thus added some mild halos into the mix or that they shot the film this way and halos are on the film captured, i mean regardless of what you see on your tv when viewing the film, you cannot deny the screencaps and can see it on them, the only question is at what point did these halos get added to this film, i say they are a result of edge sharpening after a grain reduction pass removed detail, you and i'm sure a few other people will disagree with me on that point BUT can we just agree the halos are there, can we agree my screencaps are accurate, indeed a few other sites show the EXACT same screencaps and halos are present in all of them.


Just so you know how impartial i am and how much i felt that Spielberg would never allow this film to be released in anything but a perfect state on blu ray let me copy my comments from another forum for you.


"Yeah, some people are saying Jurassic Park is from 11 year old master, thats total bullshit, where do these people get their information, the quality looks much better than you would find on an 11 year old Universal master, i also don't think it looks like blocky grain, it looks natural and as it should to me, not all film grain stock looks the same and i see a noticeable increase in detail, none of the usual Universal "processing" applied, i would be very surprised if Spielberg himself did not sign off on this. I can't speak for the sequels, just commenting on the screencaps of the original.

Why are some people saying this is an 11 year master, i mean c'mon, as i said above, i don't know where they are getting such information from, this looks to me like its going to be a fabulous release ( the original ) the grain levels look correct to me in those screencaps, in motion i bet they give the film a real cinematic look on a normal projection setup.

I'd bet my house on Spielberg having approved this transfer and all the naysayers talking about old masters and blocky grain being wrong and not having a clue about what they are talking about, it looks good to me, mind you when review sites start talking nonsense about too much film grain, well thats why we get DNRed crap, i wish they would stop and wake up and learn a few things, i mean the grain is obscuring the detail, it's a night shot and its dark, unless specifically lit a certain way then its going to be grainier and i would add that its very probable that Spielberg also wanted that grainy look, if you degrain it you will actually lose detail, it will turn to mush, i wish review sites would cut this crap out and just understand why the film grain is there and especially in scenes shot at night or in dark rooms.

You get one person at a site saying its an 11 year old master and then suddenly misinformation spreads across the internet, they should back up these comments with proof because it doesn't look like an 11 year old master they are using"



Now you can see from those comments above that i had subscribed into the theory that Spielberg would never allow this release to look bad, indeed i mention the screencaps containing the film grain, i say in this very thread that those are the moments that contain the detail and look great, the scenes that have these mild edge halos look processed and lack fine detail and film texture.


I have redone some of the screencaps showing edge halos with arrows pointing to the issue, i include them again, please look at them.


http://www.darkrealm...ic_1_arrows.jpg


http://www.darkrealm...ic_3_arrows.jpg


http://www.darkrealm...ic_5_arrows.jpg


If anyone has a reasonable explanation for the halos, and bear in mind that they exist on many other scenes in the film then please do offer up me an explanation.


Oh and i forgot to add, i'm now homeless after betting my house on how good this release would be.


P.S. Jurassic Park uses arond 44GB of disc space, not quite maxed, the main feature uses around 33GB of disc space, encoding isn't the issue though, bitrate is sufficient for the feature.


I also considered chromatic abberation, i don't think i'm seeing that, it looks like typical edge sharpening, although there is a question mark over the first dino scene and whether the sharpening was applied to compensate for softness after compositing the scene together, still it's there, its noticeable and its annoying.


Heres some bitrate info for those interested.


CHAPTERS:

Number          Time In         Length          Avg Video Rate ------          -------         ------          --------------  -------------- 1               0:00:00.000     0:05:19.819     25,479 kbps    2               0:05:19.819     0:04:54.919     25,552 kbps    3               0:10:14.739     0:05:02.302     28,558 kbps    4               0:15:17.041     0:04:16.172     30,724 kbps    5               0:19:33.213     0:04:13.586     26,348 kbps    6               0:23:46.800     0:07:53.347     33,390 kbps    7               0:31:40.148     0:06:19.045     32,140 kbps    8               0:37:59.193     0:02:27.480     26,359 kbps       9               0:40:26.674     0:15:01.358     29,565 kbps   10             0:55:28.033     0:06:15.208     32,177 kbps    11             1:01:43.241     0:09:00.873     30,285 kbps    12             1:10:44.114     0:09:17.014     32,706 kbps    13             1:20:01.129     0:14:02.842     27,056 kbps    14             1:34:03.971     0:05:41.340     28,299 kbps    15             1:39:45.312     0:03:57.862     28,756 kbps    16             1:43:43.175     0:04:13.670     29,079 kbps  17             1:47:56.845     0:06:48.533     27,395 kbps    18             1:54:45.378     0:03:19.032     29,842 kbps   19             1:58:04.410     0:01:51.569     30,354 kbps   20             1:59:55.980     0:06:40.608     7,789 kbps    
The full technical details can be found by clicking here.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users