A Few Words About A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD (1 Viewer)

[Cees Alons]

Thanks for answering my question, Robert.
Interesting indeed.

When it's about matters of professional expertise, the one with the knowledge (and the expertise) is the real boss.


Cees

 

[Douglas Monce]

I think what he posted was not from the Superbit version but from the HD documentary on the BD which seems to come from a different transfer of the film. Dave correct me if I'm wrong here.

No I'm not seeing any additional details in that shot, but I'm compairing it with the same shot in the Documentary. Honestly I think that particular shot in the documentary is too bright. In the actual film it looks dark and gloomy with out loosing the detail of the castle on my setup.

BTW I'm using a 47inch 1080i plasma.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Yes but one important thing you left out. NTSC has its chroma information overladed on the luminance signal in a composite fashion which can cause all kinds of problems with producing accurate colors. HD has these signals separated which in its self is a huge improvement.

Doug

 

[Jack Johnson]

All this raises and interesting philosophical question about how much enthusiasts of a particular film should defer to the "correctness" of a transfer culled from an answer print when that unprecedentedly correct transfer reveals a film so drastically different in look and feel as to betray what attracted those enthusiasts to the film in the beginning.

Of course, when things are reasonably in scale with what we original saw, this isn't an issue; there is satisfaction in knowing we're getting intended, approved look. But should that approved look be grossly, drastically out of scale with what we knew, how many of us would remain slaves to an answer print?

To find out, I would propose an elaborate punking--but not really--of the home theater set by claiming the latest transfer of a beloved film squared, for the first time, with the answer print and that the director had signed off on it as the truest achievable transfer technology would allow from the original source elements. Now, imagine if that director were Ridley Scott and that the film was Bladerunner...and that the new, approved, answer print derived transfer rendered the film suffused from first frame to last with an obnoxious and intense pink sepia. "It's what I wanted, but was never able to render faithfully on home video," Scott would allege--playing along. Again, how many of us would find ourselves embracing the pink and rationalizing it simply on the basis of being told the transfer was supervised, that it corresponded to an answer print none of us had seen? A good many of us, I'd wager. Another example: The brightness is dialed down so that it's virtually impossible to see anything? Don't like it? Well, it's all in the answer print, it's correct. Would we junk those old dvd transfers? Would we watch the new one, suppressing our disappointment, trying to convince ourselves that the only thing that mattered was that answer print?

I want to be clear: I'm certainly NOT contesting the veracity of the story behind the purported accuracy of the blu-ray transfer of Dracula; I'm just interested in how much our acceptance, enjoyment and appreciation of a particular transfer is tied to our being told it's correct...and whether that can actually overpower a genuine preference we feel in our bones for one that is, officially, wrong. I honestly don't know where I'd draw the line myself, incidentally, but it might be shy of a pink Bladerunner.




--Jack

 

[Steve Schaffer]

Anyone doubting that local theater presentations can vary tremendously from the director's intent should listen to William Friedkin's audio commentary on the recent SD release of Bug.

He explains that when The Exorcist was originally released it came out in only 100 or so theaters, that he personally inspected every aspect of the projection and sound presentation in each theater prior to the release and did regular spotchecks of theaters to make sure all was up to snuff. Really interesting stuff.

Even Coppola on his Dracula commentary bemoans the mediocrity of today's typical multiplex presentations.

I only have a 60" Sony A-2000 rptv, calibrated only with DVE-HD and AVIA.
I use an HDA2 and a PS3 for HD DVD, BD, and SD DVD. I have a mid-fi Pioneer VSX-82TSX receiver and next-to-bottom line Energy speakers and a HSU STF-2 sub--far from high end home theater equipment. I do still go to the local multiplexes from time to time and can honestly say that even with SD dvd I get better pq and aq at home than I've seen in a theater since Titanic came out back in '97. Not only are most prints in our theaters damaged within days of release, but the picture is never properly focussed and most of the time the subwoofers are turned off or too low so as to minimize sound bleed into adjacent auditoriums. Every time I go to a major new film in the theater I find myself thinking how much better it's going to look and sound at home. I doubt if local theaters in the vast majority of the country do any better than the ones in my town. I'm old enough to remember large single-screen theaters with truly excellent presentation in this town, but no more.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I see your point and it is an interesting one. But to be fair I don't think this version of Dracula is really all that different that what people are used to seeing. There are a few shots that are very different such as the shot with the green back light. But that shot is on the screen for 1 second, maybe less.

Doug

 

[Dave Mack]

Doug, I'm pretty sure it's not just that one shot in the scene and it's more than one sceond. many shots in that scene look radically different. In the dvd, there is a blue light behind Dracula coming through the window. In the BD it is grey, almost like a B+W image. And there is green in many shots now there.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Oh yeah I was saying that before. You can see green light coming from somewhere in quite a few of the shots in the scene with the brides. I would disagree that the shot of Dracula coming though the window is almost B&W. I'm seeing a fair amount of blue in that shot. Kind of a slate blue, but blue none the less.

Doug

 

[Dave Mack]

indeed, it's a bit odd in even if the dvd was off, the blue light (which WAS too bright in the DVD) was at least consistent through the whole scene. here it goes from sickly green, to grey, almost B+W, then to VERY subtle blue at the end.

 

[ScottR]

I watched the SB again tonight and it looks to my eyes as if it has a pinkish/red cast to the entire film. Blues look almost purple. Did anyone else think that there was a faint pinkish/red cast to the SB?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Definately I agree that in the BD the blue light seems to shift from blue to slate grey to green, ETC. Also there is one shot of one of the brides where the light seems to shift from the warm fire light to a greenish.

Doug

 

[ScottR]

Also on the SB, the subtitles flicker. I don't know if this was caused by DVNR or what. Other than that and the red cast to the picture, I enjoyed it and probably won't get the BD.

 

[Dave Mack]

I have a few new things to show but I don't want to hijack Mr. Harris' thread so I'm opening a new one.

 

[Dave Mack]

Hiya guys.

My original thread was closed on this and I don't want to hijack Mr. Harris' review thread so I hope it's ok that I opened this one. As long as everyone remains civil and any debate healthy and productive, I think it should be ok.

We are all aware by now that some scenes in the new BD of Bram Stoker's Dracula have VERY different colors from the previous DVD and LD and even earlier HD transfer that was shown on cable and had clips from it edited into the new documentaries on the BD disc.
There are many therories as to this. I won't go over them again.
But what's interesting is that it really is only CERTAIN scenes that seem to have dramatically different colors on the new BD. Many, many scenes look pretty much the exact same like the opening prologue.

We are now told that this is the proper way the flim should look and ALL other home video versions are now moot, even the Coppolla approved LD.

Many, myself included, seem to recall the bold, vivid colors throughout the entire film, I even saw this years after it's initial release at a revival screening in 35mm and it still seemed to match my original perception which the VHS, and DVDs, (I never owned the LD) only reinforced. We were all now wondering, home video release aside, sould we ALL have remembered the film so inaccurately? That what we thought was a bold, dramatic, over the top, colorful, theatrical film was really quite muted half the time more like a Tim Burton film?

Now here's another interesting thing. I have a copy of the book, "Bram Stoker's Dracula"
The Film and the legend.
Official book of the film, screenplay etc. when the film came out. Here are some pics..

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/f/f7/htf_imgcache_13938.jpeg] [/url]

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/c/c3/htf_imgcache_13939.jpeg] [/url]

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/2/2d/htf_imgcache_13940.jpeg] [/url]


BD of mina scene


[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/8/80/htf_imgcache_13941.jpeg] [/url]





SB dvd


[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/0/03/htf_imgcache_13942.jpeg] [/url]




BD

[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/7/7e/htf_imgcache_13943.jpeg] [/url]






and SB dvd


[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/3/3f/htf_imgcache_13944.jpeg] [/url]



Now, these shots from the book look much, much closer to the SBdvd as far as the color goes. They do NOT look all desaturated like in the BD. So this is how the "official" book of the film chose to represent these scenes back when the film was released. The shots in the book are either from onset photgraphers or actual film blowups. Most likely, all 35mm so any limitation of "early 90's video" technology should not have had any effect on the way the shots look. This is what I recall. And many others remember this "look" from theaters, previous video versions and now I've found that it's in the OFFICIAL book looking just this way and it looked like this on the earlier HD broadcast. But now some phantom answer print has manifested that looks VERY different in many of these scenes that supposedly looks like the BD. A print no fan of the film has ever seen. But now we're being told that this new version is "correct". All these years, from the theatrical release through the Coppolla approved LD and the VHS, DVDs, HD transfer shown on cable, this is what we all thought was correct and was the film most of us liked and wanted to have in HD. But we got something else. JUST in my opinion, it seems very revisionist. Coppolla himself admitted on the commentary that he hadn't watched the film in "years". Isn't it just possible that he wants it to look a little different now? 15 years later? How old is that "answer print" now..? 15 years?

So far, every previous media re: this film including the TOPPS trading cards, (yes, I'm a geek, I bought the whole uncut strip!) has had this "look".
But ok, the changes in therory are fine. Artists do it all the time and have every right to do it. But we weren't expecting that. And they aren't really saying that. Nowehere in the press release or on the packaging do we see, "all new transfer of this beloved film personally supervised by FFC to match his original artistic intent."
Most of us thought we were getting simply a better, more detailed transfer of the over the top, colorful, wonderful film that we loved.
If this version never existed before the BD, (if the theatrical prints do actually look closer to the LD and DVD) then what are we getting? NOT the original theatrical presentation of Dracula, but a tweaked, altered, darker and for many of us fans, sadly inferior looking version. So far, every previous media re: this film including the TOPPS trading cards, (yes, I'm a geek, I bought the whole uncut strip!) has had this "look".

d


And Doug,

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/dracula.htm


DVDbeaver did a comparison of NTSC to PAL. (Doug brought up NTSC limitations in clor reproduction elsewhere)

They look pretty identical in regards to color although they are seperate and unique telecine transfers. Was every print floating around out there just "wrong"..?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Please don't, let's contain any further discussion about this matter in this thread. Thank you.





Crawdaddy

 

[Dave Mack]

Ok, Robert. Sorry. I just didn't want to go off course. Please close my new thread.

thanks! d

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Not ever seeing the film before I viewed the BD, all the comparison scenes that have been posted in both threads have caused me to make the following observational comments.

It looks to me that the original print that was used for the BD version could actually be the same original print that was used for the theatrical version, before color filters were used/added for effect. A filter would explain why the green doesn't show up in earlier versions as well as other lighting phenomena touches of blue, white etc.

Regarding the "grayish light" that the Blu-ray HD version is said to produce, instead of the pervasive tinting of the picture by examples displayed, would to me be a logical observational description for someone who is used to the color filtered look of the past releases.

When I see the same scenes on the Blu-ray disc, I don't think of "muted colors" or a "grayish" look. I see a natural look of the scene in a low light condition. Colors look solid, not almost "B&W". The stark green accent effect on an actor or the green fog of Dracula entering under a door, or a blue cast in other scenes, is very effective atmosphere.

This look in HD was very satisfying for me, but I can understand the complete disappointment for someone that has seen and loved other versions and not being able to relate to the suggested interpretation for the current look.

Paul

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Based on the screen caps I've seen, as much as I respect RAH's insight and opinions, I just can't buy into this... There was definitely some manipulation on the part of the color timing of this newest release. Whether intentional or not, at whomever's preference, whether reflective of the original theatrical prints or directorial intentions... the contrast is without question and cannot be argued, botched!

There is no possible way that the scene in which the letters are superimposed over the frame, could be an accurate reflection of what was intended to be seen... because quite plainly, nothing can be seen!

These are the most glaringly obvious examples. No filmmaker inputs a process or cinematic flare as such, for stylized purposes or to enhance the narrative, only to have it not seen in the actual film. Perhaps if it was some subtle in-camera technique for effect, nuances that can be debated, but not superimpositions over the frame that are suddenly washed out by contrast. Somebody obviously screwed around with the black levels on this new transfer.

I'm not even going to get into the color palette because that is easier open to debate and of less interest to me, both versions I've seen have a stylized effect and opinionated siding with viewers. However simply stated, the contrast is horrendous and NO home video release should look like this! There is no black/white separation at all and that is entirely detached from the look of the film... this is a mastering error on the part of the studio and not questionably a matter of filmmaker's preference - Impossible!

This is far from one of my favorite films, yet it is one that I'm fairly familiar with and I can assure all that it has never looked this dark before. I agree with a lot of what RAH has said in regards to the aesthetic values and filmic effects of darkness/light in horror cinema. I am in agreement and well aware when turning to the masters like Val Lewton and the classic Universal pictures of the '30s and '40s... yet this is a moot point because what we are viewing with the new transfer is not intended for stylized purpose. It is just completely blown out and blanketed by darkness that was never before introduced to this degree int he film. It is an issue of contrast, and the only issue I have with this new transfer.

To assume that viewers would require professionally calibrated home theater setups to view a commercial DVD production and be able to see significant detail in the blacks and backgrounds of the transfer is I think, pushing things a little bit, wouldn't you say?

If such is the case, than that in itself is an oversight and error on the studio's behalf as this is one of many concerns that need addressing and accounting for in the mastering phase. The blacks are washed out, all detail is lost and contrast is non-existent. If that's the way Coppola intends his film to look... fine. But I say it looks pretty damn awful.

Again, keep in mind that I am not basing my opinion on earlier DVD and LD transfers. I agree with RAH in regards to the color temperatures and advances of technology and know-how in that aspect. My one and only gripe is with the washed out levels and contrast. It's awful and every other review site seems to agree. It seems obvious to most anyone who views the disc. It simply does not look good.

 

[Robert Crawford]

So have you viewed the BRD on your HT setup?

 

[Robert Harris]

1. I am continually irked by people who refer in writing to certain screen legends as "Katherine" and "Coppolla." I have no idea who these people are.

2. If one were to use the OAP of Bladerunner as a reference for the new video release, the resultant DVD would most likely be extremely warm, and lean toward magenta.

3. Puck said it best.

RAH