I'm sorry you feel that way as that's not what this forum is about!Funny, I feel the same way as one of the first people who flagged issues with this disc. I called it a misfire and I still believe that it is. I pre-ordered and received it. I didn't like the packaging or the picture quality. I posted several reviews from other sites that agreed with my views. I felt like I was attacked for doing so. All the other reviews I cited were dismissed one by one. But I guess now I'm in the majority.... I would still like to hear other views, isn't this what the forum is for?
I'm sorry you feel that way as that's not what this forum is about!
Please, let's stop with the blaming and just move on. Thank you.I really don't recall anyone attacking anyone. Certainly when you were thumbs-downing every post I made I was very clear that I hadn't seen the disc yet and therefore could not comment on it, only that I was distrustful of sites I have no history with where the writing was so bad that I couldn't take any of it seriously. Once I'd seen the disc you know what my response was, and then others began seeing it and yes, then it was pretty unanimous that we all knew something was amiss.
This is one of the problems with screen caps - they'll post something that isn't accurate to the sequence, one frame of a moving shot, for example, or where someone's head gets cropped a bit too much but the shot is a moving shot and in motion you don't even notice it because that's the way it was shot.
Zulu and The Italian Job are the two botched releases from new scans that I still remember very well, that was more than 10 years ago.They were probably watching the UK release of Zulu and thought that's what whites are supposed to look like.
View attachment 73394
View attachment 73395
Zulu and The Italian Job are the two botched releases from new scans that I still remember very well, that was more than 10 years ago.
Better not to go there again as I still feel that the scan that they used would have been good for a much better release of Zulu but instead they gave us this fake version.
It also shows that once a studio messes up a movie it will usually stay in that state and NOT be remastered by them, I think Zulu was from 2008 and Paramount probably still stands by it as they like to say these days...
Yes, thankfully they did. I own it now and while it is a dated transfer that I believe came from MGM I still find it a lot more watchable. It needs a contrast boost though and all sharpening / edge enhancement circuits turned off as it already brings its own edge enhancement.But with Zulu, Twilight Time released a different version (with it's own problems) but the whites are not blown out and you are seeing more picture information.
UK
View attachment 73434
Twilight Time
View attachment 73433
It might be, but there are elements in the caps-a-holic frames showing quite focused objects, and others showing smeary textures (not very different from what can be seen on the new Grease restoration).I’ve been working on a presumption of grain reduction and / or DNR.
That my not be the case. An alternative would be a critically out of focus scan, that went unnoted.
I have absolutely no doubt that many consumers don't know what a good presentation of such a movie should look like, and possibly are happy with the look of this 2020 BD. There have been people very happy with the new Terminator 2 restoration, for instance, and it's quite clear that if there wasn't a viable enough market for restorations filtered through DNR and EE, these tools would have stopped being used at such a visible level long ago. But they're not.I don't know, but, what I think is true is that the majority of those people careless about fine grain structure than how it looks on their display. There is even a silent segment of this membership that probably likes this current presentation. I bet it's the same over on other forums too. A few brave souls has stated it so, but the reaction to their posts probably prevents anybody else from speaking up.
It's very rare to see frames taken from a very moving shot (which is indeed a bad idea for a lot of reason), but that's why there are other caps in any case. And save for looking for very specific things and as I already detailed, properly taken screencaps are absolutely not misleading. I, for once, have never been misled.This is one of the problems with screen caps - they'll post something that isn't accurate to the sequence, one frame of a moving shot, for example, or where someone's head gets cropped a bit too much but the shot is a moving shot and in motion you don't even notice it because that's the way it was shot.
I have absolutely no doubt that many consumers don't know what a good presentation of such a movie should look like, and possibly are happy with the look of this 2020 BD. There have been people very happy with the new Terminator 2 restoration, for instance, and it's quite clear that if there wasn't a viable enough market for restorations filtered through DNR and EE, these tools would have stopped being used at such a visible level long ago. But they're not.
Zulu and The Italian Job are the two botched releases from new scans that I still remember very well, that was more than 10 years ago.
Better not to go there again as I still feel that the scan that they used would have been good for a much better release of Zulu but instead they gave us this fake version.
It also shows that once a studio messes up a movie it will usually stay in that state and NOT be remastered by them, I think Zulu was from 2008 and Paramount probably still stands by it as they like to say these days...
There was an earlier post that RAH made that there is a problem/error with the day for night shots in TCAT. But I didn't think it looked that off. So I wanted to try an experiment. Not to dispute your expertise RAH, just wanted to see the differences from all the major formats. You've seen an actual film print of this film, I've only seen the film on home video.
So what I did was take screen caps from my own copies of the laser disc from 1982, the DVD from 2002, the blu ray from 2012 and the current blu ray from 2020. I didn't want to do the 2007 DVD, though I do own it. What's interesting is the difference in the color used to tint the night shots. The 2002 DVD and 2020 blu ray has colors that are a fairly similar. For fun I also included a shot from the early part of the film with the cat and later the car chase. The car chase surprised me as the cropping difference was apparent there.
The cat, 1982 LD, 2002 DVD, 2012 BD and 2020 BD
View attachment 73454
This is the establishing shot, Day for Night, 1982 LD, 2002 DVD, 2012 BD and 2020 BD
View attachment 73455
On the grounds Day for Night, 1982 LD, 2002 DVD, 2012 BD and 2020 BD
View attachment 73456
Oh, its Fousard! 1982 LD, 2002 DVD, 2012 BD and 2020 BD
View attachment 73457
Then why are we dawdling? 1982 LD, 2002 DVD, 2012 BD and 2020 BD
View attachment 73458
Isn't it interesting that the 2002 DVD and 2020 Blu Ray's colors are most similar. For the laserdisc master, there was no tinting done on the day for night shots. For brightness, the LD and 2020 blu ray are similar. As far as cropping, the 2002 DVD and 2020 blu ray is ver similar.
I don’t know what to say, I really wanted this disc to be good and I really hope that the true story comes out about the "restoration".
...
I heard, late last night, that the new restoration of Paramount’s To Catch a Thief, has received one of the most prestigious awards in the international archival field – the Cecilia Giménez Parchment – awarded for special recognition by the University of Turino.
...
I totally understand what you mean in terms of litteral aspect here, but what word should be used then ? Restoration is the word used because be it a good or a bad one, we understand what was the technical process behind : sourcing and scanning the elements, cleaning them, grading them, etc etc. It's extremely likely that in the case of TCAT, we're just some DNR away of having something extremely nice looking.But I have a problem with the misuse of the term "restoration," especially when the entity behind such a "restoration" speaks with great pride about their work. That diminishes the work of those who take their jobs seriously.
With all due respect, Paramount referencing the latest Blu-ray of To Catch a Thief as a "restoration," is simply a lie, slathered in pretty copywriting. Keep in mind that however data may have existed as a raw scan, colored, cleaned, stabilized files, must eventually find their way to the Blu-ray bucket. One cannot legitimately speak of quality that might have once been part of a pre-Blu-ray file, if it has been affected in negative ways en route to the hone theater.
The word “restoration“ has a specific meaning. It is not merely a marketing term.
I totally understand what you mean in terms of litteral aspect here, but what word should be used then ? Restoration is the word used because be it a good or a bad one, we understand what was the technical process behind : sourcing and scanning the elements, cleaning them, grading them, etc etc. It's extremely likely that in the case of TCAT, we're just some DNR away of having something extremely nice looking.
But "to restore" indeed has a specific meaning, and clearly, Paramount hasn't "restored" TCAT here, but transformed it into something it's likely not to be anywhere close its original look.