Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, Mar 23, 2013.
Arrow's Region B disc reviewed at DVD Beaver
Grain seems to be finer and generally more pleasing to the eye.
I have the disc; it's wonderful transfer, and a superb all round package.
Unless I missed something Eddie, the Beaver review is comparing Arrow's Blu-ray to the Fox DVD.
It certainly is. I was comparing the Arrow BD caps to the TT BD from memory. Would love some comparison caps though.
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.
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.
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 wrong
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?
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).
I hope that Beaver is reading this and make a proper BD comparison (TT vs Arrow). At least we get some idea about the possible differences.
Oh, you think I'm the only one who has been harsh about the Beaver's caps? Do a search and you'll find otherwise. They are rarely if ever representative of what's actually on the disc, so there's that.
But the caps I posted are not from the Beaver, so there's that.
Any reason that there is such a big difference between the file sizes of the TT images and the Arrow images?
Some very general info about the Arrow release:
Back in the days "painstakingly restored from the original camera negative" was a positive thing (or at least a very good starting point), but I guess times have changed.
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.)
Screen shots are an unreliable "science" and are misleading more often that not.
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.
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.
I still think that the screenshot comparisons can be important IF you also seek other sources and keep an open mind.
The major problem with The Fury is that this was a late-70s pushed-processed, very grainy film to begin with...exacerbated by its reliance on optical effects, including many superimpositions and dissolves which always bring to the mix their own processing baggage (sometimes lasting entire sequences here). So a considerable amount of what constitutes the "original negative" for this film - I'm still reluctant to use Arrow's promo term "original camera negative" because it's very misleading - consists of 35mm dupe FX elements*!
Although Arrow appears to have taken the time and effort (and considerable expense) to clean up any scratches or dust on the re-scanned negative, they were still limited by what is baked into that celluloid by the film stock and optical processing used. That's just the film De Palma made the way he chose to make it, which it seems some are only now finally discovering. The best video transfer in the world can't magically transform it into something that it never was.
* Unlike other FX-heavy pictures of the era which used large format for optical work (65mm for CE3K and VistaVision for Star Wars), The Fury went to the optical printer as straight 35mm film.
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".
Otherwise, Bruce, I completely agree.
How about "inflammable" vs "flammable"? Probably not quite the same thing, but...