John Hodson
Senior HTF Member
Arrow's Region B disc reviewed at DVD Beaver
Unless I missed something Eddie, the Beaver review is comparing Arrow's Blu-ray to the Fox DVD.EddieLarkin said:Grain seems to be finer and generally more pleasing to the eye.
Irregardless of how much better this transfer may be, do you really suppose it's fair or even kosher to compare a Blu-ray you haven't even seen (I'll say nothing about the Beaver's caps, since I think we all know how accurate they normally are) to your memory of one you have? Honestly.EddieLarkin said:It certainly is. I was comparing the Arrow BD caps to the TT BD from memory. Would love some comparison caps though.
I always thought what was directly off the negative was different than what was in Theatres. I'm more of a what was in Theatres kind of guy for I always thought that was what the director and cinematographer wanted. Somebody correct me if I am wronghaineshisway said:I don't think it's much of a secret now that Arrow arranged for Fox to do a new scan off the camera negative - what that arrangement entailed is anyone's guess, but I can't imagine Fox paid for it, but who knows? That will obviously yield different and most likely better results than the scan used for the Twilight Time release - which was off an IP or internegative or whatever - that transfer resembled what the film looked like in theaters, i.e. the release prints. This new one is giving us what's on the negative - and I'm very interested to see it and will hopefully have it soon for comparison.
While I agree that people should always take these image comparisons with the grain of salt (they weren't called "MOVING pictures" for nothing... ) I have to say that Beaver has done these comparisons for a quite long time. So your comment is a bit harsh (if you feel that they don't mean anything).haineshisway said:These were just posted elsewhere - I don't put any stock in them at all, but since others do here they are.
Any reason that there is such a big difference between the file sizes of the TT images and the Arrow images?haineshisway said:[background=rgb(242,242,242)]
These were just posted elsewhere - I don't put any stock in them at all, but since others do here they are. Put aside the carefully chosen frames to show one-frame damage marks on the TT disc, and put aside the color differences, which I will have to see for myself - then look at the final comparison, look at detail in the TT cap and then look at the new transfer - now, if this were any other company I think there would be many, many people crying DNR holy hell here - but there isn't. All we get is "a picture is worth a thousand words." Again, I'll have to see for myself, but for those who do the caps game, you tell me where the detail in skin textures is in that final comparison. Same with cap three. The other two look better for the new transfer, but who knows?[/font]
[background=rgb(242,242,242)]
http://screenshotcom...omparison/45601
http://screenshotcom...omparison/45603
http://screenshotcom...omparison/45602
http://screenshotcom...omparison/45604[/font]
Another review site that famously relies heavily on screen shots to make its arguments recently posted captures that showed that the new 10th Anniversary Edition of Love Actually is slightly sharper and contrastier than the Blu-ray release of that movie from 2009. These two discs in fact contain the exact same video transfer with no changes whatsover. (The only differences between the two discs are in the movie's soundtrack.)haineshisway said:But the caps I posted are not from the Beaver, so there's that.
Because whoever compiled this "comparison" used Beaver's caps of the Arrow edition, and tried to match up frames as closely as possible from their TT disc. The result is that the Arrow caps are compressed JPGs, while the TT is represented by uncompressed PNG files. So, if anything, the comparison is unfairly weighted in favor of the Twilight Time disc.Yami said:Any reason that there is such a big difference between the file sizes of the TT images and the Arrow images?
For the most parts this is true. You can't make some kind of ultimate decision by looking one or two sceenshot comparisons. You have to read the reviews, read what the forums are saying, know some history of the film/original look/earlier DVD&BD releases, and ultimately: See the disc yourself.JoshZ said:Screen shots are an unreliable "science" and are misleading more often that not.
Grammar police here, but only because this word is a pet peeve. "Irregardless" is not a word; it's a double negative, and I am committed to eradicating it. The word is regardless, as in, "without regard".haineshisway said:Irregardless