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

[Kevin EK]

I really hope that they do a new transfer. Let's see what happens in the next few years. It would make me very happy to be able to purchase a Criterion Blu-ray of Spartacus someday.

 

[JoshZ]

I also wouldn't say that Universal has LOTS of substandard releases on Blu. I'd say they've had a few, and we've covered them here fairly carefully. But I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There were some really nice catalogue releases over the past couple of years, and we shouldn't discount those. The notion that Universal is just using the old masters was something I had thought until last year, when we were able to confirm that actually new masters were being done. The point that they've gone cheaper on several titles is still accurate, but it's not accurate to use that to describe their entire model. Otherwise, how do we explain the work done on the Monster movies last year, or the work done on High Plains Drifter this year?

Universal recycles old masters struck for DVD more often than not when releasing catalog titles on Blu-ray. Sadly, catalog discs that receive brand new masters from Universal are the exception, not the norm.

 

[Kevin EK]

I held that opinion until the middle of last year, at which point it was shown to us that they were actually making new masters. That doesn't excuse the cases where the new master had issues, but it simply isn't accurate to say that they're only using the old materials.

 

[JoshZ]

I held that opinion until the middle of last year, at which point it was shown to us that they were actually making new masters. That doesn't excuse the cases where the new master had issues, but it simply isn't accurate to say that they're only using the old materials.

What titles did they strike new masters for? Countless Universal catalog titles are clearly sourced from ancient DVD masters smothered in DNR and edge enhancement. If Universal was doing new scans for catalog titles, why don't they look anything like the studios' day-and-date titles, which don't have these problems?

On the rare occasions when Universal shells out for a new scan of an old title (something like Dune or Legend), the results clearly stand way above their other catalog releases.

Unless Universal is defining a "new master" as an old scan from the early 1990s with new digital processing applied to "clean it up" a little. I suppose I wouldn't put that past them.

 

[FoxyMulder]

What titles did they strike new masters for? Countless Universal catalog titles are clearly sourced from ancient DVD masters smothered in DNR and edge enhancement. If Universal was doing new scans for catalog titles, why don't they look anything like the studios' day-and-date titles, which don't have these problems?

On the rare occasions when Universal shells out for a new scan of an old title (something like Dune or Legend), the results clearly stand way above their other catalog releases.

Unless Universal is defining a "new master" as an old scan from the early 1990s with new digital processing applied to "clean it up" a little. I suppose I wouldn't put that past them.

Legend had sharpening issues, the Answer Print had it's own issues related to the source available, still it looked better than the theatrical cut of the movie, even the Universal Monsters boxset wasn't perfect, i had no problem with Creature's minor issues, it was The Wolf Man and Phantom that had more serious problems that in my opinion could have been easily avoided.

Too many older Universal films exist which look horrendous on blu ray, once again in my opinion it's not just because they are using an older master, it's because they are "enhancing" these older masters with unnecessary DNR and edge enhancement.

 

[Kevin EK]

Josh, to answer your question, Universal has been making new masters for their Blus for at least since 2011. We checked this last year when I was convinced that the Smokey and the Bandit Blu was just the older HD-DVD ported over. They confirmed that a bunch of new 2K masters had been done, including for such titles as Smokey and for Erin Brockovich. And titles that I had issues with earlier, such as Scarface, Blues Brothers and Animal House were new masters. So the issue isn't a matter of dusting off old files and putting them on new discs. The one caveat we should make is that in several cases, the old DVD files were used for the flipper discs where you had the Blu-ray on one side and a DVD edition on the other side. In those cases, I proved that the DVD sides were using the files from much older discs. But that's not the same issue.

The brand new movies with the day and date releases are obviously a different matter, and are handled by different people within the company.

As for the digital work done on several Universal titles, I would agree that it's regrettable. And they've had multiple titles I've specifically discussed here at HTF which really cry out for a redo - including The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Sting, and of course the subject of this thread, Spartacus. But I repeat that it's going a bit overboard to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, Phantom of the Opera had registration errors and should have been redone. Creature from the Black Lagoon had a real problem with the way the 3D was presented. But as I noted in the review, that box set also included beautiful transfers of Dracula, the Frankenstein movies, The Mummy, etc. Yes, The Sting was a problem title last year, for the reasons we discussed. But there were plenty of good transfers done, including All Quiet on the Western Front, Pillow Talk, Jaws, Harvey, etc. I know people had quibbles with To Kill A Mockingbird, but I believe everyone agreed it was a lovely transfer, with people agreeing to disagree about how the enlargements were handled. I thought the re-do of Out of Africa was quite good.

It's become very easy to simply dismiss Universal's catalogue output on first glance, and to assume the worst. I believe that would be just as much of a mistake as to attack Fox's output because of problem titles like Predator. It would be a mistake to dismiss Paramount's catalogue work (like Wings last year) just because other titles had issues. It would be a mistake to dismiss Warner Brothers' output just because they keep re-releasing the same movies in new packaging. Part of my task in doing the reviews here is to evaluate each release on its own merits. I would hope that everyone could approach the releases in the same manner.

 

[FoxyMulder]

What was wrong with the 3D the way it was presented. ?

I personally thought it looked very good, i did recall reading some comments from Bob on a few errors but nothing about the way it was actually presented, i also read that the studio toned down the depth for the blu ray release.

Creature from the Black Lagoon had a real problem with the way the 3D was presented.

 

[Kevin EK]

On Creature in 3D on the Blu-ray, the foreground objects are pushed too far into the foreground. Bob has a great explanation for what went wrong at his website. He cited my review, but put it in much better perspective. The short answer is that at moments like the Creature swimming behind foreground reeds, those reeds are really poking you in the eye. They're meant to stand out but not THAT FAR.

 

[FoxyMulder]

On Creature in 3D on the Blu-ray, the foreground objects are pushed too far into the foreground. Bob has a great explanation for what went wrong at his website. He cited my review, but put it in much better perspective. The short answer is that at moments like the Creature swimming behind foreground reeds, those reeds are really poking you in the eye. They're meant to stand out but not THAT FAR.

I loved that part of it, i guess my 3D tastes are different.

Of course that doesn't mean the transfer is correct, if it isn't meant to look like that then it's wrong to be released like that, having said that i am actually less opposed to such changes, i'm more upset by over sharpening or DNR or poor encodes that result in artifacts all over the place.

 

[JoshZ]

It's become very easy to simply dismiss Universal's catalogue output on first glance, and to assume the worst. I believe that would be just as much of a mistake as to attack Fox's output because of problem titles like Predator. It would be a mistake to dismiss Paramount's catalogue work (like Wings last year) just because other titles had issues. It would be a mistake to dismiss Warner Brothers' output just because they keep re-releasing the same movies in new packaging. Part of my task in doing the reviews here is to evaluate each release on its own merits. I would hope that everyone could approach the releases in the same manner.

Each studio's track record speaks for itself. When the majority of Universal's catalog titles look as poor as they do, I think it's perfectly fair to assume the worst when a new disc is released. We're not talking about one or two odd titles that didn't live up to the same standard as the rest of the studio's work. More often than not, a Universal catalog title will look crappy. The bad far outweighs the good.

Warner generally has solid film-to-video masters that they sloppily encode onto disc without enough QC. That's just the way that studio works.

Fox is hit-or-miss. You never know what you'll get from them. It could be something brilliant, or something totally unwatchable.

Are these generalizations? Sure. Ultimately, each disc deserves to be evaluated on its own merits, and any one of these studios could produce a quality disc or a crappy disc. However, I've spent enough money on product from all of these studios to spot obvious trends.

 

[Kevin EK]

We'll have to agree to disagree, Josh. I agree with you completely that each disc does deserve to be evaluated on its own merits.

As we discussed, some people will definitely agree with you that the majority of Universal's catalogue on blu looks poor. Having reviewed a lot of them, I can only say that the majority were not poor looking and that it's an unfortunate overstatement to conclude that the bad far outweighs the good. And I can't assume anything when I'm in the position of reviewing a title. I expected 2 Guns to be a meh movie after having to review the same director's previous movie Contraband last year, and what do you know? 2 Guns was actually a lot more entertaining.

Your point about generalizations is correct. And that's why I resist the notion of "if it's Universal catalogue, it's GOT to be bad..."

 

[Yorkshire]

Each studio's track record speaks for itself. When the majority of Universal's catalog titles look as poor as they do, I think it's perfectly fair to assume the worst when a new disc is released. We're not talking about one or two odd titles that didn't live up to the same standard as the rest of the studio's work. More often than not, a Universal catalog title will look crappy. The bad far outweighs the good.

Warner generally has solid film-to-video masters that they sloppily encode onto disc without enough QC. That's just the way that studio works.

Fox is hit-or-miss. You never know what you'll get from them. It could be something brilliant, or something totally unwatchable.

Are these generalizations? Sure. Ultimately, each disc deserves to be evaluated on its own merits, and any one of these studios could produce a quality disc or a crappy disc. However, I've spent enough money on product from all of these studios to spot obvious trends.

I think the point is that, if each disc is to be evaluated on its own merits, what purpose is the generalisation.

I'd disagree about the balance, too. As an example, look at last year's monsters and Hitchcock sets. The problems were certainly infuriating, but the numbers stack up far more favourably for the good discs than the bad ones.

Bottom line, if a disc is good, it's good. If Universal release a good disc it's good, and even if 99% of the rest of their output is poor, that has absolutely no impact on whether I should buy that good disc or not.

Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

We'll have to agree to disagree, Josh. I agree with you completely that each disc does deserve to be evaluated on its own merits.

As we discussed, some people will definitely agree with you that the majority of Universal's catalogue on blu looks poor. Having reviewed a lot of them, I can only say that the majority were not poor looking and that it's an unfortunate overstatement to conclude that the bad far outweighs the good. And I can't assume anything when I'm in the position of reviewing a title. I expected 2 Guns to be a meh movie after having to review the same director's previous movie Contraband last year, and what do you know? 2 Guns was actually a lot more entertaining.

Your point about generalizations is correct. And that's why I resist the notion of "if it's Universal catalogue, it's GOT to be bad..."

The problem i have with your statement about Universal films on blu ray is that you have consistently failed to spot obvious edge enhancement on most, if not all blu ray releases, You have even admitted this in many reviews where you point out some people may see issues you have missed, therefore how can you say most are not poor looking when you miss one of the things which Universal like to do with their catalog releases, that is add edge sharpening to them.

 

[JoshZ]

I think the point is that, if each disc is to be evaluated on its own merits, what purpose is the generalisation.

I'd disagree about the balance, too. As an example, look at last year's monsters and Hitchcock sets. The problems were certainly infuriating, but the numbers stack up far more favourably for the good discs than the bad ones.

Bottom line, if a disc is good, it's good. If Universal release a good disc it's good, and even if 99% of the rest of their output is poor, that has absolutely no impact on whether I should buy that good disc or not.

Steve W

Are you not familiar with the expression "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"?

When Universal releases a good disc, I will buy it. But I'm forced to approach any new catalog release from the studio with skepticism. I won't buy it until I hear reports or reviews from reliable sources.

With a studio like Sony, you can generally expect a certain standard of quality and care from their Blu-rays (at least, post-2007). Yes, they've released a few dogs as well, but for the most part, I feel safe blindly buying a Sony catalog disc.

I don't feel safe blindly buying a Universal catalog release, not even for major tentpole titles (like Vertigo... or Spartacus for that matter) that ought to be considered crown jewels in the studio's catalog.

 

[ahollis]

I tend to wait before purchasing a Universal Blu-ray until I learn what the experts and members in this forum think about the release. I have passed on several titles but did pull the trigger on the Hitchcock collection when the price got right. I do not own the Spartacus Blu and have hopes that Universal will do it right.

 

[Kevin EK]

Josh and Allen, I hear you about the blind buys. I would add to your thought that I tend to only blind buy catalogue from Criterion. Occasionally, I'll do the same for Shout! and Twilight Time, but Criterion has earned it more than any other label.

For any major studio, I think skepticism is healthy. I just don't automatically assume the worst just because it's this studio or that one.

I completely agree with Steve's post.


Now to Malcolm. I'm going to give that last post the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're regretting the tone and the nature of it. It contains some pretty unfortunate statements, which are not completely accurate. Let me first dispense with your comment about my having asked in past reviews for feedback for anyone seeing issues. You neglected to mention that this was on reviews I wrote before 2011, using a 40" Sony HDTV. That note was intended to allow feedback from people with larger monitors or projection systems. Midway through 2011, I upgraded to a 65" Panasonic VT30 Plasma. You also neglected to mention that for significant reviews, I have brought the materials to the home theater of Joe Kane. My point is that you have just made an unfortunate generalization about my writing on this site.

You accuse me of having "consistently failed to spot obvious edge enhancement". Let's parse that. You mean to say that you have repeatedly spotted what you believe is "obvious edge enhancement" and have wound up in arguments on this site where other people did not agree with your position. You have posted screencaps with arrows to show where you believe the obvious enhancement is, only to get responses that weren't at your level of vehemence.

Malcolm, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this material. I appreciate your high personal standards. But neither you nor I are experts in this field. Neither of us makes a living preserving 35mm or 70mm film or arranging the transfers of same for home video. We both have good home theaters and enjoy seeing good presentations of these films, but we are not experts by any means. If anyone on this forum is an expert, it's RAH.

I don't have an issue with you disagreeing with me or with my reviews. But I don't think it's appropriate for you to make the statements you just did.

 

[FoxyMulder]

You accuse me of having "consistently failed to spot obvious edge enhancement". Let's parse that. You mean to say that you have repeatedly spotted what you believe is "obvious edge enhancement" and have wound up in arguments on this site where other people did not agree with your position. You have posted screencaps with arrows to show where you believe the obvious enhancement is, only to get responses that weren't at your level of vehemence.

Malcolm, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this material. I appreciate your high personal standards. But neither you nor I are experts in this field. Neither of us makes a living preserving 35mm or 70mm film or arranging the transfers of same for home video. We both have good home theaters and enjoy seeing good presentations of these films, but we are not experts by any means. If anyone on this forum is an expert, it's RAH.

I don't have an issue with you disagreeing with me or with my reviews. But I don't think it's appropriate for you to make the statements you just did.

I'm in the fortunate position of sometimes being able to bend the ear of people who work in the business, i can assure you when i spot edge enhancement it is actually there, i will ask people who work on these things if it is a fine line, the wording of my post was clear and to the point, that is the way i am, it was written so there could be no misunderstanding, i am constantly wondering why reviewers, not just you, fail to spot edge enhancement, the people who tend to get into "arguments" with me about edge enhancement are the same people who praise many a poor release, i am critical but i can also give praise when it is due.

I made no statements that were not true and i also don't feel i wrote anything inappropriate in my original post or indeed this post.

 

[Kevin EK]

Malcolm, this is not a matter of whether you sometimes talk to people who work in this business. I believe you when you say that you're seeing edge enhancement. But you are not an expert, and your opinions have been disputed here. I am not an expert either, and I don't present myself as one. As I said, RAH is the one expert who could make comments of that kind.

If you're standing by your wording, then you are essentially telling people to discount my reviews. I find that to be an unfortunate position, and I would ask that you really think about it. You made misleading statements about my prior work here, and I think it's only fair to note that to readers. If you believe that this was appropriate, then our standards are quite different for that sort of thing.

I think you're completely entitled to your opinions, as we've noted in the past. But there comes a point where the statements go over the line and become something a lot less congenial.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Malcolm, this is not a matter of whether you sometimes talk to people who work in this business. I believe you when you say that you're seeing edge enhancement. But you are not an expert, and your opinions have been disputed here. I am not an expert either, and I don't present myself as one. As I said, RAH is the one expert who could make comments of that kind.

If you're standing by your wording, then you are essentially telling people to discount my reviews. I find that to be an unfortunate position, and I would ask that you really think about it. You made misleading statements about my prior work here, and I think it's only fair to note that to readers. If you believe that this was appropriate, then our standards are quite different for that sort of thing.

I think you're completely entitled to your opinions, as we've noted in the past. But there comes a point where the statements go over the line and become something a lot less congenial.

The people i sometimes discuss these matters with ARE in the business, they can spot edge enhancement from excessive sharpening and other issues which go beyond my capabilities, so yes it is sometimes useful discussing these things with such people as it backs up what i can see myself, a second opinion from an expert is a good thing.

RAH is a film restoration expert, he himself would admit he got things wrong when he used to use a television set, i never meant to say people should discount your reviews, i just meant that i personally cannot rely on them to tell me about edge enhancement, for other things i do think your review can be informative, you do not have to be an expert to spot edge enhancement, i am not talking about chromatic abberation or opticals, they too can be spotted with viewing experience, i am specifically talking about excessive edge enhancement and the negative impact it has.

Let me make something clear, i set up my television, projector and laptop so they do not introduce unwanted sharpening issues or indeed noise reduction issues or issues from too high a brightness or contrast, when i see edge enhancement, it's really there.

 

[Dick]

Back to SPARTACUS, the topic of this thread. Mr. Harris has several times opined that it is unlikely anyone isgoing to spring for the needed restoration of this title. For whatever reason, Universal apparently does notdeem this a worthy subject for such an expenditure. Yet, it kicked ass at the box office when first released,and has from what I can see done very well through all of its myriad video releases. Perhaps a prior poster was correct when he said that is the very reason the studio hasn't put in the effort or money to make the titleright -- why should they, if the product they release continues to sell. Therefore, it is really our fault. The consumer's fault. Not enough copies of the Blu-ray were returned, and not enough complaints made directly toUniversal (as opposed to posts on forums such as this). It's like politics -- if you don't vote, you get theadministration you deserve.