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

[MarcoBiscotti]

Robert, I've sampled the Standard-Def DVD "Collector's Edition" of the new release which is obviously presented from the same master and based on the BR screen caps Dave posted, I think it looks terrible.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Everybody has an opinion.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

Surely, but to reiterate mine is strictly in terms of the "darkness" and contrast of the transfer. I feel they really went over the edge and washed out much of the image in the frame as a result, which is a shame because it would otherwise be a nice looking presentation, at least for the SD-DVD release.

 

[Robert Harris]

This thread has become confusing enough, with viewers referring to past incarnations of the subject on home video, theatrical screenings by memory, strips of film, and some who have not yet even viewed the disc in question.

Taking the proverbial cake, however, is the use of digital photographs of color litho plates from a book as evidence of color propriety for a film.

In short, I believe that this entire thread is now going off the deep end and reading much like a Christopher Guest production.

Since this is a High Definition forum, might we at least eliminate postings based upon those who are now chiming in after viewing on stardard definition?

SD and an HD images are quite dissimilar.

The point should also be made that this disc was meant to be viewed on HD monitors, and will appear different at each level of resolution. Those viewing at 1920 will perceive a far different image than those viewing at 720.

RAH

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I wouldn't be worried about being banned from that forum. If you read the forum rules, my bet is you won't be able to find you have violated any rules, only that anybody can be banned for any reason or lack of reason. The forum is known for banning members for any disagreement with the basic covenant that Blu-ray is great, does nothing wrong and will win the format war quickly. I don't think the forum is worth messing with the other resources, new releases announcements, product release announcements and links at Blu-ray.com are the only thing worth having from the site. Read some of the offensive diatribes about Wal-Mart employees and anybody that likes HD DVD for an example of conduct that doesn't get one banned since that is all pro Blu-ray according to the perspective rampant there.

I am going to live with my D-VHS recording of this film from HDNet Movies.

Chris

 

[Robert Crawford]

Which is the point I tried to make earlier without being rude about it.





Crawdaddy

 

[Dave H]

Definitely and in addition, the quality of (hopefully ISF) full display calibration to the particular player is a huge factor, as well.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Well, it honestly comes down to "who do you trust". I trust that the filmmakers are being honest with me. I may personally dislike a visual style of a film (I think the orange tint of Heaven's Gate is horrid), but that's a matter of personal taste, not right or wrong. Maybe a pink Blade Runner would prevent a personal purchase, but I'd defend the right of the filmmaker to present it as such if he declares it is his intention.

Now, if there is a legit reason to no longer invest that trust, such as a manipulative lie, then I'd have to re-evaluate my position. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Yes. Why is this so hard to believe? They never got it right from the answer print from day one, and now they have. This explains it perfectly.

 

[Douglas Monce]

With all dew respect to Dave and his screen shots of the film. I will say they are interesting and they can give SOME idea of the different color pallet of the film in the different video versions, however his screen shots of the BD don't look like what I'm seeing on my screen when I watch this movie.

His screen shots do indeed look a bit washed out and desaturated. What I'm seeing doesn't look like that at all. I think Paul Hillenbrand has hit the nail on the head when he talks about filters in the previous versions. The bride scene is a complete wash in the warm fire light. EVERYTHING in the shots is that color in the old version.

In the new version, it's still quite warm from the fire light, its just that now you can also see many other colors that seem to have been on the film all along but apparently weren't visible in the previous versions. All you have to do is look at the faces and you can now see variations in the flesh tones that were before all one shade of yellow. The sheet that they are rolling around on is made of many different colors. You can't see that in the older version.

I just rented this film, but now actually having seen it I'm going to have to go out and buy it. I really think it is quite beautifully done.

Doug

 

[Carlo_M]

I will buy it, especially since no one has indicated that my beloved Ms. Bellucci is in any way harmed by the new look of the BD

But I do want to echo thanks to both Dave and RAH. Because without Dave bringing up his observations, this never would have been investigated. This is why I continue to be a member at HTF, because of the insightful membership and the invaluable resource of true industry professionals such as Mr. Harris.

I can now eagerly anticipate the arrival of this disc, knowing that it will look different from previous incarnations, but as they say "knowledge is power" (or is it half the battle?) and at least I will be armed with it when viewing for the first time on BD.

I have a new Sony SXRD set on the way (hopefully in a week or so) and this will make for great initial viewing on it!

 

[Ed Speir IV]

Just wondering...does anyone have the new DVD that was released at the same time as the Blu-Ray?

I would think that if it this was indeed a technology limitation, the new DVD would pretty much look like the old SuperBit version and the Blu-Ray would be decidely different.

Has anyone compared the new DVD and the Blu-Ray?

 

[Douglas Monce]

Ms. Bellucci has survived fully intact and looking lovely as ever.

Doug

 

[Michael Reuben]

I just have to say that this is my favorite intentionally funny post in a very long time. Thank you!

M.

 

[ToddJ]

Does anyone have any more screenshots of the Blu-Ray version?

 

[JeremySt]

 

[Dave Mack]

Doug, what display do you have?
I have an Avia tweaked Mits hc3000U PJ which has a very good rep.
I'm sure my screenshots are not exact in regards to perfectly capturing the color and brightness as I'm indeed aiming a digital camera at a projector screen. All I can say is that in the comparison shots, the differences are valid as I'm in full manual mode. Most people seem to think it's good for a rough "idea" of what the differences are. I am far from the only one seeing radical color differences in only select scenes and a much flatter, washed out look on the BD. Now also, many of these were taken on my first night ever even attempting screenshots. By that 3rd night, I feel I had gotten much better, (but that's beside the point)
An analogy, I am mixing my record at the moment. Now I have excellent, PERFECT flat studio monitors, big ones. I also have perfectly flat, studio level headphones. But when I mix, I also listen to the same tracks through good home speakers as well as other peoples (I often make cds and take them to different people's houses. I listen in the car and I even listen on a couple of boomboxes. Most people when they do professional mixdowns do as well. (You will ofteh see a cheap boombox sitting on the mixing desk as well as sometimes a few speakers aside from the monitors)
I do this so I can hear how the same mix will sound on all these different types os speakers.
Often if a mix sounds great on just the monitors, it will sound muddy as hell on other settups.
I would assume a similar thing should happen when a new transfer is made.
If the new transfer comes out so flat and dark that you would need only the best possible display to see even a remotely satisfactory image then that's odd. How many people have a settup like RAH's...? (And believe me, I am jealous!)
One percent? Maybe less?
I have watched dozens of BDs and now some Hddvds, have had HD for 2 and a 1/2 years as well as having an Oppo player, have watched numerous PAL discs upscaled. I have never seen a disc that so radically looks different than what either a previous media version looked like or what my memory (albeit not totally trustworthy) of a film looked like before this.
Now last thought, if all the theatrical prints were off, the official book of the film's photos were off, the previous video versions including an LD set that some paid $100 for was off, (thinking they were getting an accurate representation of the film) what really is the "accurate theatrical presentation" suppossed to be?
If you bought a new version of a beloved old album but the new mix was radically different in many songs, sounded muddier, the instruments were much less clear and now buried and even some were flipped from left to right, (the color on Dracula turning from blue to green is a nice comparison)
and in your opinion the earlier album, even if not in what's considered the hihest fidelity possible, sounded better to you than might you not be a tad disappointed? (Actually it happens all the time with "remastered albums") Especially if basically you were being told something like, "this is the correct way the album SHOULD have sounded. You just can't appreciate it." Or "Your stereo isn't good enough to make this sound great." and "unless you have $5,000 speakers, don't expect to hear everthing in the mix."

 

[Nick Graham]

Posted as an addendum to the DVD Empire review - this is th ebest explanation I have read in regards to the changes that are present from previous versions:



Editor's Note:
Kim Aubrey, who works for ZAP Zoetrope Aubry Productions LLC and worked on the Blu-ray transfer of this title, took some issues with some of the statements in our Empire Review.

In the interest of "fair play" and making sure our customers had all the facts, we thought it fair to include his comments here:

If the electronic transfer of the film that you are seeing reveals grain structure...that is, if you are SEEING the film grain, then by definition, you are seeing all of the sharpness that was captured by the film camera. We can’t manufacture sharpness or definition in the telecine process. It is true that in the standard definition home video era, it was common to dial in some electronic edge enhancement to overcome the limitations of NTSC Video and television receivers of that era. And it was common in pre HD transfers to “filter out” the grain giving movies more of a “TV look” which was considered desirable at that time. But the “detail enhancement” they used in that era was erzatz definition....fake. An illusion of detail. Again, if you are seeing “tons of grain” then you are seeing a faithful reproduction of the film element.

American Zoetrope, Francis Coppola’s company does not own (and has never owned) the facilities to do feature film telecine mastering...aka the film transfer. The studio that OWNS the title (in this case Columbia-Sony) owns Dracula and they commissioned and paid for the new transfer in 1996 because they believed that the old one was wanting. I agreed with them. I was post production executive on the film in 1991-1992 and I always was horrified at what the home video and TV editions of Dracula looked like because they were so far from what Coppola and Ballhaus had done for the original release prints. So orange-y. So bright. Zoetrope’s role in the new transfer was to make sure that the transfer colorist had access to a pristine original “final answer print” to screen and refer to. A final answer print is a vaulted 35mm film print in Sony’s possession that bears a signature from the original production indicating that the director or director of photography was satisfied with the color timing and that this print was to be the gold standard...the reference for all 35mm release prints to be compared with and accepted/rejected. It was a controversial answer print at the time. It was dark. The soundtrack was considered very avant-garde. Coppola was breaking rules. Some critics appreciated it, others did not.

 

[Kenneth Lee]

Hey All,

Like many others, I want to really thank RAH and Dave Mack for this very insightful and interesting topic. That's why I love HTF as well.

That being said, (and Dave, I'm glad you did bring up your concerns), I have to agree with RAH, at this point, we're beating a dead horse.

* Dave, you clearly don't agree with the BD transfer of this film.
* RAH has confirmed that this is the closest the film has ever gotten to the Answer Print.
* Kim Aubrey from ZAP Zoetrope Aubry Productions LLC and worked on the Blu-ray transfer of this title, has chimed in as well to confirm that this BD version is the most faithful to the Answer Print.

Done.

I understand your frustrations, but what do you want to do at this point?

Start a National Petition to recall Dracula? Demand a new transfer?

Again, I definitely see that the colors are radically different, and this is a very unique case of "something we remembered, and have seen being dramatically changed" (and we're being told, "sorry this is the way it was supposed to be"), and there may be frustrations, but we've gotten the official answers already. Unless you're starting a petition to recall this, this topic has been belabored to death.

 

[Chris S]

Of course this is only speculation on my part but from Kim Aubrey's comments it sounds as if the release studio, or at least someone other than Coppola/Zoetrope, played a hand in changing the image to the one we have become familiar with up until this point.