A Few Words About A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

Originally Posted by MatthewA /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray#post_3626897
Here's the bums' contact info:
[COLOR= rgb(0,0,0)]
[/COLOR][COLOR= rgb(0,0,0)]5555 Melrose Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90038-3197
Telephone: 213-956-5000
Fax: 213-956-1100 [/COLOR]

Demand that this disc be recalled as defective NOW!

Why not go directly to the source:
Home Video Angst
Various Homes, with HDTV and Internet access
Somewhere in the greater Earth area.
Not far from the sun.
I've never heard of a studio agreeing to recall a title based on over-processing. For as many voices that think of that as sabotaging a film's surface, I bet they could find an equal number of see it as "necessary to make the movie look good in high definition." Not an actual quote, but paraphrasing some horrible user reviews I read on Amazon.fr (they're European, they should have class! But no.)

 

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by Powell&Pressburger
Too bad Paramount didn't do some restoration or cleanup for the HD release.

Jack; read Robert's posts again - the problem has nothing to do with restoration or cleanup. In fact on that front it's pretty damn good by all accounts.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'll make the point again. All necessary film based restorative work that may have been necessary has been performed.
Beautiful prints can be made.
There would have been two ways to create a new quality Blu-ray.
1. Use the elements created several years ago and harvest a new image from them for what could have been a superior Blu-ray.
2. Return to the original elements, re-scan and harvest a new image at 4k. Use that data to create both new long term preservation elements, as well as the basis for a Blu-ray.
As far as I know, neither of those options were taken. This is neither a difficult work order, nor a difficult job. It is also not budget driven, as cost is not a problem.
None of the problems that I'm seeing are coming from a film restoration / preservation area. Everything wrong with this disc relates to poor decision making on the executive level, followed by unprofessional digital handling.

Originally Posted by Powell&Pressburger /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Too bad Paramount didn't do some restoration or cleanup for the HD release. Just like Mr Harris stated this is a holiday staple that they will release year after year after year. If you do it correctly from the start then you can sit back and repress the discs year after year if needed. Everyone wins.
I will stick with the classic Miracle on 34th Street for a holiday themed film this year.

 

[Worth]

Thank you! I just picked up this disc and scanned through it briefly to get a sense of what it looked like. It's a major disappointment, particularly in light of some of the glowing reviews it's been getting.

It reminds me very much of Paramount's "Star Trek" and "Fatal Attraction" discs. Clean and sharp, but very digital looking. Not film-like at all.

 

[Reagan]

It all makes perfect sense to me. Use an old HD master, do some digital tweaking, put it out on Blu-ray, and enjoy the sales. It's the cheap way out. And it's been done many times before (see pretty much every Disney Blu-ray disc for a movie that saw a theatrical release in 1999 or 2000). Only here, it's being done with a certifiable classic - which makes it a shame.

-R

 

[MatthewA]

If VCI could do a better job with the 1951 "A Christmas Carol" than a major studio can do with a no-longer-PD title, then I just won't be buying any more Paramount Blu-Rays until I see actual reviews, not pages full of screen caps.

And I stand by my request for a recall. This has to stop and it has to stop now. How many more films will be vandalized this way? Of course, based on how they've interpreted consumer complaints before, they'll probably think we want unrestored, dirty, splice-marked prints.

But is it any worse than any of Paramount's other DNR jobs?

 

[PaulDA]

I'm very disappointed to learn of this as this is my favourite Christmas movie and it gets an annual viewing. I was so looking forward to a proper BD. Ah well. I'll stick with what I've got for now, then.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Now I'm going to have to watch my BRD before Christmas since the opinion of this release has gone from looking great to being awful. Interesting....






awdaddy

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray#post_3626955
Now I'm going to have to watch my BRD before Christmas since the opinion of this release has gone from looking great to being awful. Interesting....

A lot depends on screen size and expectations. Further explanation in the review I'm in the process of posting.

 

[Josh Dial]

Well, this review saved me $25. Thanks!

I make it a personal policy to not support DNR idiocy (which is what it is--whoever decides to overly-process a film on BD is an idiot).

 

[BrettB]

Bummer. Top 5 film for me. Will stick with my dvd.

 

[Patrick McCart]

This is a shock since captures I've seen in reviews don't appear to be processed this badly. But I am familiar with the "floating" grain appearance and it's incredibly distracting. What's odd is that while the Artisan/Republic DVD also had too much DVNR over what appeared to be an excellent 35mm source. Paramount's website noted that they restored the film mainly from the camera negative. I'm disappointed since I wanted to pick this up for Christmas viewing.

I'd like to hope Paramount would offer a fixed edition sans DNR. Even better if they switch Dolby Digital 2.0 for PCM or TrueHD on the audio.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Patrick McCart /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/30#post_3626985
I'd like to hope Paramount would offer a fixed edition sans DNR. Even better if they switch Dolby Digital 2.0 for PCM or TrueHD on the audio.

Pipe dream.

 

[Robert Harris]

The film is taken from superb 35mm elements, and I'll state once again, that the problem is not with the analogue work performed on the OCN and other elements in the creation of new print materials. That work was all performed beautifully and to the highest professional standards. The problems are totally in the digital realm.
RAH

Originally Posted by Patrick McCart /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is a shock since captures I've seen in reviews don't appear to be processed this badly. But I am familiar with the "floating" grain appearance and it's incredibly distracting. What's odd is that while the Artisan/Republic DVD also had too much DVNR over what appeared to be an excellent 35mm source. Paramount's website noted that they restored the film mainly from the camera negative. I'm disappointed since I wanted to pick this up for Christmas viewing.
I'd like to hope Paramount would offer a fixed edition sans DNR. Even better if they switch Dolby Digital 2.0 for PCM or TrueHD on the audio.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Patrick McCart /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/30#post_3626985
I'd like to hope Paramount would offer a fixed edition sans DNR. Even better if they switch Dolby Digital 2.0 for PCM or TrueHD on the audio.

Paramount might start with some other titles, this isn't the first one that's riddled with DNR.
I almost bought this but I am glad both Michael Reuben's review and Robert Harris' words stopped me in time. Too bad, I've never even seen it and was getting interested, but it'll take a re-release from Paramount for me to buy this.

 

[Rachael B]

I suppose I'll make do with my Laserdisc for the time being.....I can have a wonderful time in SD.

 

[Cees Alons]

After The Godfather Trilogy, I trusted them. /img/vbsmilies/htf/frown.gif
Thanks, RAH (and Michael Reuben in the other thread). Too late for me, but I'm changing my watching schedule now. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif
Cees

 

[Gary Tooze]

Thanks Robert!
I hope you are doing well!
Here are some quotes from all the reviews I could find:
Blu-ray.com - "The image is consistently sharp, clear, and wonderfully detailed, with only the occasional shot going a bit -- but not distractingly so -- soft. Almost from the get-go, Parmaount's transfer impresses with the level of visible detail..."
DVDSavant - "The added sharpness and broader contrast in the B&W version really helps when reading fine details on faces and absorbing wide shots. The special effects also hold up well in HD. Clearly Paramount and Legend Films have taken pains to do the best job possible...."
DVD Verdict: "As for the transfer, it's nothing short of fantastic..."
DVDTown - "The black-and-white reproduction, though, is a different story altogether, among the most stunning such transfers imaginable, with some of the whitest whites, blackest blacks, and most gleaming contrasts one could ask for. Paramount claim in their press release that they fully restored the film. I shouldn't doubt it."
DVDFile: "It's a Wonderful Life has been spruced up and updated lovingly on Blu-ray Disc. First of all, the film looks spectacular - a film this age usually showcases quite a few examples of dirt and grime, but Paramount showcases It's a Wonderful Life with exceptional cleanliness."
My own DVDBeaver: "Contrast in the back and white version is extremely strong and may have some minor boosting of blacks and less grain that I would have anticipated. Zooming in extensively I couldn't find concrete or consistent examples of edge-enhancement. There was two instances of some minor chroma but it wasn't egregious enough to hinder viewing." and, as someone pointed out - we have immediately added an excerpt of your comments from here.
Actually, I am thankful that it can improve even beyond what I have seen on my 60" Kuro - where, to me, it still looks the best compared to all the past digital releases.
Best,
Gary

 

[Robert Harris]

Gary,

I've seen these reports.

Any evaluation comes down to three things: the system on which the disc is being viewed, the background, experience and perception of the viewer, and lastly how critical an eye one wishes to use and how forgiving one is of the product in question.

I'm generally reasonably forgiving of a bit of DNR, as well as minor digital problems. I'm not at all forgiving of heavy DNR and extremely poor compression or authoring. I'm seeing the digital problems which are a part of IaWL on a 30" Sony HD CRT which is a quite forgiving unit. I put this up about 30 minutes ago, and could easily discern the problem in the long shot of Stewart and Reed just after the fade in after the swim, and this is an extremely minor example.

If I'm seeing this on a 30" monitor, it either speaks volumes of the studio's QC program or points to the fact that they don't care.

As to the reviewers that you note above, I can't answer for them, for what they're seeing, for their equipment, or ultimately for their mindset or parameters for reviewing.

I can only make the point that I would be embarrassed to have allowed something like this go public on my watch.

I've become weary of hearing things such as "looks better than my VHS by a long shot," "the new Blu-ray looks far better and more detailed than my SD DVD," or as you put it "it still looks the best compared to all the past digital releases."

The point should not be one of comparison to lesser quality formats, but rather against how good it could look if properly produced. I acknowledge that many reviewers and much of the public cannot perceive this. But my bottom line comes down to the fact that someone at the studio level CAN.

And in that role, they should be preparing for public consumption the finest product that can be technologically created with rational budgetary guidelines and the capability of the technical staff at the studio.

The concept of Blu-ray and the technical parameters under which it exists, allows for a fully cinematic representation of 35mm film in a home theater setting. That is the basis via which every Blu-ray should be created. Nothing less.

I cannot say with specificity what went wrong with IaWL, although it would point to some sort of auto-filtering. Only that something did, and I wish it were otherwise.

I take no pleasure in writing negatives, but the bottom line comes down not to what the public is seeing today on a system that may have limitations, but rather what they'll see in the future in a full blown media room if they wish to have one. A Blu-ray disc is not something that should be purchased today for immediate needs. That same disc should be able to service future needs in far more demanding environments than the typical 32" LCD.

The Blu-ray system is up to these standards. The problem comes down to what is encoded on them.

RAH

 

[Craig Beam]

No sale. I'll stick with my DVD, audio glitches and all. Disappointing to say the least.