A Few Words About A few words about...™ Jaws -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[NY2LA]

The extras are in standard definition, including the more recent documentary, which looks like it was done around 2005.

Please tell us that The Shark Is Still Working is NOT windowboxed. Even Standard def can be full 16x9 width on a DVD.

 

[alter filmnarr]

@robert harris
@haineshisway
I'm living in Austria, 54 and movie enthusiast since - let's say 45 years, and collector since 35 years. I did not own any 16/35/70mm copies, but renewed my growing "favourite movie" collection in any new format which was available (starting with S-8 ;-)). My hunger to smell, touch and "baby" the "real material" was satisfied with 10 years of working for 2 big cinema chains here in Vienna during the eighties.
Because of that small experience" I also believe to know how "real film" looks like.
I also believe, that with BD we have for the first time in our lives the possibility to watch movies in incredible quality for almost no money (= 2 cinema tickets are more expensive) in our homes.
So I always read with VERY BIG PLEASURE the reviews of You both.
I'm always very happy, when You, Mr, Harris give a "highly rcommended" to one of my favourites, and when You, Mr. Kimmel are happy with a transfer, then I know it will be sure good enough for me - even if it's not perfect in absolute terms.
I'm completely with You, Mr.Kimmel with Your opinion about "armchair specialists" and the "doom and gloom" brigade.
It's really incredible what reasons people can find to state, that "all major studios are criminals", the guys who do the remastering jobs are idiots and that the DVD's look better than the BD - only to find a reason NOT to spend any money. Because they are "movie lovers" and demand "perfection".
In the moment I was almost kicked out from a German forum, because I statet, that (although not 100% perfect), I enjoyed "To Kill a Mockingbird". Some guys told me, that I'm blind, have no idea how film has to look and should shut my mouth. And even You Mr. Harris have no idea (!!!). Unbelieveable!
God, HOW do these people watch a movie??? Can they ever enjoy anything??
I switch on my sytem (mostly) my PLANAR front projector + CAMBRIDGE BD Player, after 5 minutes I can recognize, how the transfer looks like anf then I'm IN the movie. If it's perfect - SUPER - if acceptable - fine. It's illusion to believe, that all studios will do 100% ideal transfers for all their titles in such a short time. It's time and money and a market which demands lower prices every day.
So it's really good to have You for "benchmark opinions". Persons, who know "the story behind". Thank You for that!!
And although the first "DNR" alarms are ringing, I'm really looking forward to see one of my favourite Spielberg movies on BD!

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by alter filmnarr /t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957174
@robert harris
@haineshisway
I'm living in Austria, 54 and movie enthusiast since - let's say 45 years, and collector since 35 years. I did not own any 16/35/70mm copies, but renewed my growing "favourite movie" collection in any new format which was available (starting with S-8 ;-)). My hunger to smell, touch and "baby" the "real material" was satisfied with 10 years of working for 2 big cinema chains here in Vienna during the eighties.
Because of that small experience" I also believe to know how "real film" looks like.
I also believe, that with BD we have for the first time in our lives the possibility to watch movies in incredible quality for almost no money (= 2 cinema tickets are more expensive) in our homes.
So I always read with VERY BIG PLEASURE the reviews of You both.
I'm always very happy, when You, Mr, Harris give a "highly rcommended" to one of my favourites, and when You, Mr. Kimmel are happy with a transfer, then I know it will be sure good enough for me - even if it's not perfect in absolute terms.
I'm completely with You, Mr.Kimmel with Your opinion about "armchair specialists" and the "doom and gloom" brigade.
It's really incredible what reasons people can find to state, that "all major studios are criminals", the guys who do the remastering jobs are idiots and that the DVD's look better than the BD - only to find a reason NOT to spend any money. Because they are "movie lovers" and demand "perfection".
In the moment I was almost kicked out from a German forum, because I statet, that (although not 100% perfect), I enjoyed "To Kill a Mockingbird". Some guys told me, that I'm blind, have no idea how film has to look and should shut my mouth. And even You Mr. Harris have no idea (!!!). Unbelieveable!
God, HOW do these people watch a movie??? Can they ever enjoy anything??
I switch on my sytem (mostly) my PLANAR front projector + CAMBRIDGE BD Player, after 5 minutes I can recognize, how the transfer looks like anf then I'm IN the movie. If it's perfect - SUPER - if acceptable - fine. It's illusion to believe, that all studios will do 100% ideal transfers for all their titles in such a short time. It's time and money and a market which demands lower prices every day.
So it's really good to have You for "benchmark opinions". Persons, who know "the story behind". Thank You for that!!
And although the first "DNR" alarms are ringing, I'm really looking forward to see one of my favourite Spielberg movies on BD!

Gerhard,

Your email is appreciated.

Regarding DNR, and I always use the term loosely, one must understand what the starting point is with a Blu-ray, especially when scanning an original negative at 4k, which will show every bit of grain.

We look at DNR, historically, as generally being a bad thing. But there are forms of grain reduction that are positive, that reduce / replace grain structure without lowering resolution, and without creating digital artifacts. This is an art, and is far more difficult than turning a knob. One of my overriding problems with Olive's transfer of High Noon is that grain was not handled well, leaving us with an awkward looking image, and no matter how wonderful the image may look generally, once grain is affected in a negative fashion, nothing else is really helpful.

Jaws was most likely shot on Eastman 5254, same as The Godfather films, and while not inherently grainy, especially in fully exposed scenes, there is certainly obvious grain, especially when viewing the OCN. Going from the OCN to an IP to a dupe to print stock, reduced the impact of grain measurably, and while Universal's new Blu-ray may not be totally representative of what is on the OCN, it is representative of what would have been seen in theaters, with a few caveats.

The new Blu-ray is more highly resolved than would have been seen theatrically, with more accurate color and densities.

I view that as a good thing.

The other is having the Steven Spielberg seal of approval.

I'm thrilled with the work that Universal has performed on this release.

RAH

 

[alter filmnarr]

Thank You for Your reply, but I thing there was some misunderstanding.
With "DNR alarm", I meant the first guys in the net, who start to criticize the transfer after seeing the first screenshots - without seeing the disc.
For myself I know, I will be PERFECTLY FINE with the disc - at least after knowing Your opinion.
I had also the pleasure to see "JAWS" 1974 in a VERY big cinema here in Vienna. The cinema still exists - the only historical big "Single Screen" Theater in Vienna.
What I also wanted to tell is, that even if a disc is not PERFECT - they are mostly enough reasons to have a "good time" in the HT.

 

[JoshZ]

When the DVD was released, many fans complained that the 5.1 soundtrack had replaced many of the original sound effects with awkward substitutes (a la The Terminator). Is the 7.1 track on the Blu-ray from that same source, or did Universal go back to the original mono and remix from there?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by JoshZ /t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957218
When the DVD was released, many fans complained that the 5.1 soundtrack had replaced many of the original sound effects with awkward substitutes (a la The Terminator). Is the 7.1 track on the Blu-ray from that same source, or did Universal go back to the original mono and remix from there?

Something i'd also like to know and is the 2.0 track a downmix of the 7.1 or is it the original mono track. ?

 

[antoniobiz1]

It is hard for me to find occasions in which I disagree more with what is being stated here. And it is hard to believe that so many of you are happy to mock people who, from 1976 (when home video was born) keep asking always the same thing: give us what was in the theaters. No more, no less.
Without the "doom and gloom brigade" you would have sped-up, pan and scan, mono, censored discs. I'm not making this up: I did not read about it, I'm 48 and lived through it. Without the "brigade", that is what you had. That is what they did, over and over again.
One thing, just one: give us the movie. As it was. But, alas, no, they can't. It was stereo: they'll give you mono. It was soft: they'll sharpen it. It was sharp and colorful: they'll crop it arbitrarily on reel 2 and six, cut two scenes and change the colors. You know, it's not like they can get it right every time.
See, I would love to see some of you at the gas pump after you ask the guy to fill up your car. When you find out he is asking you the full price but filled it up two thirds, and part of the fuel is water. You would complain when you find out, right? But he replies: "You know, it's a dream to think I can get it right 100% of the times". Or: "You know, people here don't come to check the fuel. The come here to ride their car!". There and then, I would love to see your reaction.
And, of course nobody stopped the projection back in 1975 to complain about DNR and EE: it did not exist. That is why we don't want it now.

 

[StephenAlto]

When the DVD was released, many fans complained that the 5.1 soundtrack had replaced many of the original sound effects with awkward substitutes (a la The Terminator). Is the 7.1 track on the Blu-ray from that same source, or did Universal go back to the original mono and remix from there?

Hi. I was one of the many fans who complained. If you'll pardon me for including a link to my blog, this is an easy way to A/B the original mix versus the 2000 5.1 mix. Although there are many, many instances of "awkward substitutions" (well put!), missing ambiences or major amplifications of the music over the FX, this moment of the shark crashing through the window is the perhaps the most obvious:
http://peelslowlynsee.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/jaws-before-and-after/
Personally, when I get the Blu-Ray, I'll tread warily to this moment, fingers crossed that the 7.1 mix restores it's former Oscar-winning glory.

 

[haineshisway]

It is hard for me to find occasions in which I disagree more with what is being stated here. And it is hard to believe that so many of you are happy to mock people who, from 1976 (when home video was born) keep asking always the same thing: give us what was in the theaters. No more, no less.
Without the "doom and gloom brigade" you would have sped-up, pan and scan, mono, censored discs. I'm not making this up: I did not read about it, I'm 48 and lived through it. Without the "brigade", that is what you had. That is what they did, over and over again.
One thing, just one: give us the movie. As it was. But, alas, no, they can't. It was stereo: they'll give you mono. It was soft: they'll sharpen it. It was sharp and colorful: they'll crop it arbitrarily on reel 2 and six, cut two scenes and change the colors. You know, it's not like they can get it right every time.
See, I would love to see some of you at the gas pump after you ask the guy to fill up your car. When you find out he is asking you the full price but filled it up two thirds, and part of the fuel is water. You would complain when you find out, right? But he replies: "You know, it's a dream to think I can get it right 100% of the times". Or: "You know, people here don't come to check the fuel. The come here to ride their car!". There and then, I would love to see your reaction.
And, of course nobody stopped the projection back in 1975 to complain about DNR and EE: it did not exist. That is why we don't want it now.

Oh, I think the point has eluded you - you don't know that there's DNR and EE in the transfer of Jaws, which, BTW, is what's being discussed here - you don't know this because you haven't seen it. Of course we all want the best from every transfer. When I use the term "the doom and gloom brigade" I'm using it not in a general way but a very specific way and you know that. I'm talking about people who leap to judgment based on not having seen the disc, based on screen captures, still frames that may or may not have been captured well and which rarely reflect how the transfer actually looks. They do this from the moment a capture appears. It's not right. It's bad. It's pointless. It's useless. After they've seen the disc they are free to make with their pronouncements - they won't necessarily be correct, but at that point at least they've seen the thing. Many of these people who are the most vocal never actually purchase the disc. I remind when the captures on a certain site of The Ten Commandments went up. The outcry was unbelievable until the person who posted them sheepishly acknowledged that he'd done a poor, no, a terrible job in doing the captures. But the damage was done on that site, and even when other captures went up there were still people saying it didn't look good. Really? Only one of the best transfers ever done for Blu-ray. The same thing happened with Breakfast at Tiffany's and it's funny to read the posts of those who were crying DNR when what they were seeing was a diffusion filter - when that was pointed out, they disappeared for a time, and when queried about it NOW they say they never said what they said.
If a transfer is bad, you will hear it from me loudly and clearly (see my comments on The Seven Year Itch, which, BTW, most people seem to be thrilled with, which is amusing in itself.

 

[haineshisway]

@robert harris
@haineshisway
I'm living in Austria, 54 and movie enthusiast since - let's say 45 years, and collector since 35 years. I did not own any 16/35/70mm copies, but renewed my growing "favourite movie" collection in any new format which was available (starting with S-8 ;-)). My hunger to smell, touch and "baby" the "real material" was satisfied with 10 years of working for 2 big cinema chains here in Vienna during the eighties.
Because of that small experience" I also believe to know how "real film" looks like.
I also believe, that with BD we have for the first time in our lives the possibility to watch movies in incredible quality for almost no money (= 2 cinema tickets are more expensive) in our homes.
So I always read with VERY BIG PLEASURE the reviews of You both.
I'm always very happy, when You, Mr, Harris give a "highly rcommended" to one of my favourites, and when You, Mr. Kimmel are happy with a transfer, then I know it will be sure good enough for me - even if it's not perfect in absolute terms.
I'm completely with You, Mr.Kimmel with Your opinion about "armchair specialists" and the "doom and gloom" brigade.
It's really incredible what reasons people can find to state, that "all major studios are criminals", the guys who do the remastering jobs are idiots and that the DVD's look better than the BD - only to find a reason NOT to spend any money. Because they are "movie lovers" and demand "perfection".
In the moment I was almost kicked out from a German forum, because I statet, that (although not 100% perfect), I enjoyed "To Kill a Mockingbird". Some guys told me, that I'm blind, have no idea how film has to look and should shut my mouth. And even You Mr. Harris have no idea (!!!). Unbelieveable!
God, HOW do these people watch a movie??? Can they ever enjoy anything??
I switch on my sytem (mostly) my PLANAR front projector + CAMBRIDGE BD Player, after 5 minutes I can recognize, how the transfer looks like anf then I'm IN the movie. If it's perfect - SUPER - if acceptable - fine. It's illusion to believe, that all studios will do 100% ideal transfers for all their titles in such a short time. It's time and money and a market which demands lower prices every day.
So it's really good to have You for "benchmark opinions". Persons, who know "the story behind". Thank You for that!!
And although the first "DNR" alarms are ringing, I'm really looking forward to see one of my favourite Spielberg movies on BD!

Thanks for making this post and for including me in it.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957188
Regarding DNR, and I always use the term loosely, one must understand what the starting point is with a Blu-ray, especially when scanning an original negative at 4k, which will show every bit of grain.

RAH

I have a question, wouldn't it be preferable, especially for projection owners, to have a transfer that shows all the film grain, i'm not complaining about Jaws on Blu ray, i haven't seen it yet but i prefer the no compromise approach to all this, i'll try putting it another way, i like what i see of Sony releases these past few years, maybe they also reduce the grain slightly, my perception is that even when Universal hit a home run, they seem to do much more grain reducing than Sony does, why is film grain treated differently by these two studio's and which approach do you prefer. Now i have to say that i ask this because for me on my projection setup i have never found film grain to be an issue on any release, i find that it enhances the movie watching experience and the image looks to me to be just a bit more detailed and alive when it's left in.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by alter filmnarr /t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957197
Thank You for Your reply, but I thing there was some misunderstanding.
With "DNR alarm", I meant the first guys in the net, who start to criticize the transfer after seeing the first screenshots - without seeing the disc.
For myself I know, I will be PERFECTLY FINE with the disc - at least after knowing Your opinion.
I had also the pleasure to see "JAWS" 1974 in a VERY big cinema here in Vienna. The cinema still exists - the only historical big "Single Screen" Theater in Vienna.
What I also wanted to tell is, that even if a disc is not PERFECT - they are mostly enough reasons to have a "good time" in the HT.

Which is precisely how your post was taken. Read you perfectly.

RAH

 

[Worth]

I have a question, wouldn't it be preferable, especially for projection owners, to have a transfer that shows all the film grain, i'm not complaining about Jaws on Blu ray, i haven't seen it yet but i prefer the no compromise approach to all this, i'll try putting it another way, i like what i see of Sony releases these past few years, maybe they also reduce the grain slightly, my perception is that even when Universal hit a home run, they seem to do much more grain reducing than Sony does, why is film grain treated differently by these two studio's and which approach do you prefer.  Now i have to say that i ask this because for me on my projection setup i have never found film grain to be an issue on any release, i find that it enhances the movie watching experience and the image looks to me to be just a bit more detailed and alive when it's left in.

I tend to agree. I haven't seen the disc yet, but I saw an archival 35mm print last year and then saw the new 4K restoration projected digitally a few weeks ago. While the restoration looked very good, I did find it a bit overly scrubbed for my taste.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957317

I have a question, wouldn't it be preferable, especially for projection owners, to have a transfer that shows all the film grain, i'm not complaining about Jaws on Blu ray, i haven't seen it yet but i prefer the no compromise approach to all this, i'll try putting it another way, i like what i see of Sony releases these past few years, maybe they also reduce the grain slightly, my perception is that even when Universal hit a home run, they seem to do much more grain reducing than Sony does, why is film grain treated differently by these two studio's and which approach do you prefer. Now i have to say that i ask this because for me on my projection setup i have never found film grain to be an issue on any release, i find that it enhances the movie watching experience and the image looks to me to be just a bit more detailed and alive when it's left in.

The way that film grain is treated comes down to a matter of opinion, with neither party right or wrong. As long as de-graining is done with a logical hand, a keen eye, and knowledge of film.

There are huge questions.

Should a film look like a 4k scan from the original negative, when nothing close to that was seen on screen?

Most normal 35mm prints of feature productions are fourth generation when they reach theaters, with grain not reduced, but softened to a more velvety appearance.

Dye transfer prints, especially, were never sharp, whether derived from three-strip elements, or color negative. They merely appeared sharp, as they were quite contrasty. Contrast equals the look of sharpness.

How are wires, make-up, effects, etc to be handled, if they didn't show up in prints, but do in the OCN?

You see where this is going.

The majority of prints on Jaws were either third or fourth generation, with a less obvious grain pattern. And this seems to be the look for which Universal has gone.

Matter of opinion, taste, and certainly as directed by the filmmaker.

RAH

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957348

Should a film look like a 4k scan from the original negative, when nothing close to that was seen on screen?

Most normal 35mm prints of feature productions are fourth generation when they reach theaters, with grain not reduced, but softened to a more velvety appearance.


RAH

As many cinemas now have 2K and 4K digital projection wouldn't modern shot 35mm movies with a digital intermediate now in theory be getting closer to what is seen on the original camera negative and we would be seeing much more than we used to see through 35mm projection, at least seeing more when compared to the average cinema and the worn prints they would show, as for the wires, well i believe you have answered that yourself in previous posts where you talk about The Wizard Of Oz and The Godfather Part 2 and the need to remove wires, i'm all for that if it improves the viewing experience and they were never meant to be seen.

I just wondered where you stand on all this and what you prefer, for me i think i like it better when they give us sharper grain and just leave most of it alone.

 

[Geoff_D]

Begs the question though RAH, if the Blu-ray is derived from the 4K master with the attendant grain reduction built in, then what does the grain on the preservation neg filmout resemble? The OCN, as it surely should do, or the softer print grain? Or would the filmout have been done prior to the grain reduction?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957360

As many cinemas now have 2K and 4K digital projection wouldn't modern shot 35mm movies with a digital intermediate now in theory be getting closer to what is seen on the original camera negative and we would be seeing much more than we used to see through 35mm projection, at least seeing more when compared to the average cinema and the worn prints they would show, as for the wires, well i believe you have answered that yourself in previous posts where you talk about The Wizard Of Oz and The Godfather Part 2 and the need to remove wires, i'm all for that if it improves the viewing experience and they were never meant to be seen.

I just wondered where you stand on all this and what you prefer, for me i think i like it better when they give us sharper grain and just leave most of it alone.

No. DIs are modified in every way imaginable.

RAH

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Geoff_D /t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957367
Begs the question though RAH, if the Blu-ray is derived from the 4K master with the attendant grain reduction built in, then what does the grain on the preservation neg filmout resemble? The OCN, as it surely should do, or the softer print grain? Or would the filmout have been done prior to the grain reduction?

Different animals. Asset protection vs. down-rez for home video.

Filmout may not have been done, but can be very different.

RAH

 

[Douglas Monce]

Thanks John - my memory from seeing it on its first run must be wrong
And yet there's more than just me in the UK that remembers additional dialogue in the autopsy sequence. Maybe its from Benchley's book which I had read just before seeing the movie.
As for Bryan Singer being the only person to spot the bad edit - I had been all over web-boards for 10 years trying to find an answer (gave up after the 30th anniversary dvd). That and the fact I'm sure I saw a print of Harvey on tv where the rabbit was visible at the end for a few frames.
Mr. Mulder, - I''ll dig the 30th anniversary edition out later and confirm,, but I'm pretty sure he word "bitch" was edited out. What annoyed me even more was the unnecessary addition of the "show me the tank" comment that immediately precedes it

I think you maybe remembering the extended television cut of the film, which added something like 30 min to the film, so that ABC could fill a 3 hour time slot with commercials.
I always assumed that "this is what happens" was a looped line put there to cover something they didn't get on the set. I've never seen a version where the word "bitch" wasn't covered by the sound of the gun fire.
Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I wondered if the "bitch" part of the line had been completely removed, IMDB claims that happened with the 30th anniversary edition, now i have that DVD but it's been a good five years since it was watched so i can't remember if it was missing and that got me worried about this release.  Glad to hear it's intact.

I have the first DVD release of this film, copyright dated 2000, and the word bitch is covered by the gun shot in that version. Also my VHS and Laserdisc copies had the word bitch obscured in the same manor. In fact even going back to the first Laserdisc ever released in the U.S. (Yes Jaws was among the first 5 discs released) the word bitch is not clearly audible.
Doug