A Few Words About A few words about...™ Back to the Future -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Nelson Au]

Xenia, I understand how you and many others find it hard to justify the cost of the Alien Anthology for the first 2 films only. I'm not a fan of 3 and 4 but I am curious enough to want this set to have them. After watching the first and second film, it's pretty amazing to see the quality of those blu rays. They look glorious!


Jari's impression the the BTTF discs does not sound good! I'll have a look soon enough and see how this compares to Alien.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben


By responding to an argument no one ever made.

What do you mean? Rob's "Casablanca" comparison is a perfectly suited response to Man's "not quite so bad considering the actual movies involved" remark. I don't see any way to interpret Man's comments except "some films are more deserving of a quality release than others," and that is exactly the sentiment that Rob adressed.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by cafink

I don't see any way to interpret Man's comments except . . .

I do, but Man can speak for himself.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I look at this release in a similar fashion to RAH:


Is this the best these films could have looked?


No.


Is it the same kind of abomination as Gladiator, Predator (2nd release), The Longest Day or Patton?


Again, no.


Are the director and the producer happy with the results?


Yes, given that they were heavily involved and signed off on the transfers.


Does any of this mean we shouldn't seek the best A/V, if at all possible?


No.


I fail to see the necessity of getting our knickers in a knot over this release, when other offenders are far more deserving. To reiterate my previous comments about this release, and these apply to any other release, be very careful when screaming "Edge Enhancement!" or "DNR!" Some things may look like edge enhancement when they actually are not, and DNR is a tool that can be used judiciously.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

Xenia, I understand how you and many others find it hard to justify the cost of the Alien Anthology for the first 2 films only. I'm not a fan of 3 and 4 but I am curious enough to want this set to have them. After watching the first and second film, it's pretty amazing to see the quality of those blu rays. They look glorious!


Jari's impression the the BTTF discs does not sound good! I'll have a look soon enough and see how this compares to Alien.

Nelson, youre right. Ive read nothing but good things, about the picture quality on the Alien Anthology. Keeping my fingers crossed that sometime next month, it will drop a little in price at amazon UK.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by cafink /forum/thread/305298/a-few-words-about-back-to-the-future-in-blu-ray/120#post_3746004

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbo73

But shouldn't a Blu-ray be solely judged on its quality/transfer? While I agree that BTTF is not a complex/artsy film, but a fun/campy one, should that matter in a review? I don't understand what you mean by "as entertainment value, and not art, it's fine", other than to say, that in a way, we should perhaps not be as critical of such films when they come to Blu-ray? If so, then I go back to my first question.

A Blu-ray should be judged on an individual basis in regard to transfer quality. On a personal basis, however, some films are far more important than others, and to my eye, BTTF has far, far less egregious problems than any of the poster films for horrible transfers. The majority of the public will notice no problems whatsoever. As noted elsewhere in this thread, Universal is aware of the their problems and I presume are working toward solving them. I have no need to nit-pick on a title like BTTF, which overall looks very acceptable, that presumably has the blessings of the filmmakers, and may have been prepared for release a year or more ago. There are no huge problems here, only minor ones apparent to a small audience.


And when I note that it's only BTTF, that isn't to denigrate the film in any way, as I enjoy the films. My point is that a point or two of density on BTTF will not affect the "art" or the overall experience as it would for a Citizen Kane, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Lawrence of Arabia, cinematographer Ted McCord's lighting and exposure of the gazebo at night in The Sound of Music, or yes, Casablanca. To my mind there is a huge difference between what is essentially a "popcorn" movie that's great fun to watch, and some of the consummate classics of the cinema. Just placing things in perspective.


RAH

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris Sometime in the next few years I can only pray!

 

[BethHarrison]

I don't differentiate between popcorn movies on the one hand, and serious 'classic' movies on the other. Movies are movies. Most people who went to see Citizen Kane in 1941 were going to be entertained too.

 

[benbess]

I like the mention of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. That's one of my favorite Westerns. I think it would like spectacular on blu...

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by cafink


I will reiterate though that I (along w/ many others here) am very disappointed w/ Universal's general approach to catalog BDs so far, and that would include this BTTF set. It's just that this particular case does not seem "quite so bad" near as I can tell. Then again, I also have not actually seen the BDs in actual action yet -- only seen the few screencaps along w/ all the various comments/reviews -- so I may still end up deciding they are really not worth owning at all as upgrades over the old DVDs (outside of getting them essentially for free perhaps).


And at least in this instance, I sorta agree w/ some others (including RAH) that this may not be the best battle to pick in terms of getting the best transfers possible from the studios (for a myriad of reasons)...


_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by BethHarrison


_Man_

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Quote:


My point is that a point or two of density on BTTF will not affect the "art" or the overall experience as it would for a Citizen Kane, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Lawrence of Arabia, cinematographer Ted McCord's lighting and exposure of the gazebo at night in The Sound of Music, or yes, Casablanca. To my mind there is a huge difference between what is essentially a "popcorn" movie that's great fun to watch, and some of the consummate classics of the cinema. Just placing things in perspective.
RAH

I beg to differ.


If you are saying that some information may not be lost because the BTTF films are brightly lit and colorful, I would agree, however that doesn't make it any less wrong if the density is not where Dean Cundey intended it to be. Yes it maybe less obvious, for MOST of the running time of the film, but wrong none the less. Wouldn't the scene where Marty is introduced to his younger mom be less effective or possibly ruined if the image was presented incorrectly? Being a film with optical effects, having the density set wrong could allow things that were not intended to be seen, like garbage mattes, to be visible.


Having said that, I have not seen this set yet, and it may very well be that the processing done to the film is very much in keeping with the spirit of the original photography. If the filmmakers are happy, who am I to question it.


Doug

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Ugh!!! I may need to take back my agreement that maybe this set is "not quite so bad", if the large number of screen caps in the reviews for this other site are truly indicative of the PQ for the entire set:


EDIT: My apologies for the original knee-jerk post. Please see my subsequent followup post a bit further below for the rationale on this edit. Thanks.


_Man_

 

[BethHarrison]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool


Much of the "best" "art" can work at multiple levels to entertain/enthrall/etc. the average person as well as express beyond that in layers that not everyone (consciously) notices or cares about.


I suppose one can argue that the "best art" would be the kind that can do all that (for the widest audience), but that's certainly something that's up for debate.


And in the case of movies, not every entertaining one will make the same uses of images. And the impact of certain aspects of PQ will vary accordingly...

Movies are a form of visual art, whether you are taking about Back to the Future or Citizen Kane, they both tell stories using images. I don't mean "art" in the sense that one film should go in an art gallery, I mean that film is a particular art form and Citizen Kane and Back to the Future are both examples of it.


As soon as someone says that there are some types of films that are inherently better than other types of films, then they are no longer judging the art form itself. Instead they are just setting out particular criteria about what constitutes a good film. As soon as that is the topic of conversation then the person isn't actually analysing what makes particular films interesting examples of the medium. The conversation turns into a debate about fitting films into arbitrary categories to determine their merit, rather than examining the films themselves.


I prefer concentrating on film itself as a medium with certain qualities that are different to other art forms. Distinctions between "pop corn" and "classic" film are just arbitrary because they seem to be aimed at dividing examples of the same medium into 'low' and 'high' categories. Well, I don't see the point in chopping up the history of film production in that way, it certainly isn't how filmmakers think when making films, so why should critics evaluate films in that way?

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

I beg to differ.


If you are saying that some information may not be lost because the BTTF films are brightly lit and colorful, I would agree, however that doesn't make it any less wrong if the density is not where Dean Cundey intended it to be. Yes it maybe less obvious, for MOST of the running time of the film, but wrong none the less. Wouldn't the scene where Marty is introduced to his younger mom be less effective or possibly ruined if the image was presented incorrectly? Being a film with optical effects, having the density set wrong could allow things that were not intended to be seen, like garbage mattes, to be visible.


Having said that, I have not seen this set yet, and it may very well be that the processing done to the film is very much in keeping with the spirit of the original photography. If the filmmakers are happy, who am I to question it.


Doug

We're using phrases here that can have multiple meanings, especially when it comes to signing off. If the HD masters for this set were created more than a year or two ago, they may have

been "signed off" on 30" monitors, which may not have allowed what some are finding at fault to show through. As to Mr. Cundey's cinematography, it's beautiful, and perfect for the film. I'm not suggesting that it's anything less. What I'm saying is that a couple of points less density will expose people sitting in the background of the screening room sequence of Kane, thereby damaging the sequence, but those same couple of points, with few exceptions in the generally bright and beautiful BTTF, will have a far lessor affect. There are perfect lites for every shot in every film, but some have a far wider range of acceptability before damage is done.


RAH

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by BethHarrison

I prefer concentrating on film itself as a medium with certain qualities that are different to other art forms. Distinctions between "pop corn" and "classic" film are just arbitrary because they seem to be aimed at dividing examples of the same medium into 'low' and 'high' categories. Well, I don't see the point in chopping up the history of film production in that way, it certainly isn't how filmmakers think when making films, so why should critics evaluate films in that way?

While I understand what you mean, I'm not at all convinced about this last part of your thesis that filmmakers themselves do not draw any distinctions at all -- forget for the moment what "popcorn" or "classic" connotes. That may be true of many filmmakers, but I serious doubt that's true of all of them, particularly many of those who are considered great and/or art-house filmmakers or those who are strictly doing it for pure entertainment and $$$ (w/ no ego about "art" at all) -- or the many who might take on different projects to satisfy these differences. Surely, you would not, for instance, lump all the porn movies in the world (regardless of actual quality -- and putting aside any moral values for the moment) in w/ the rest of these movies?


If filmmakers really don't feel that way at all, surely, we would've seen more Oscars and other awards (and their nominations) go to "popcorn flicks", etc., instead of "serious" films. Afterall, many of these awards are voted upon by the filmmakers themselves.


Sure, the labels are probably not the best way to evaluate, grade and/or classify each particular movie/film, especially since the best ones usually do transcend whatever simplistic labels one may choose to use, but that's a bit different than suggesting there are no differences at all. Also, again, I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that these movies do not *deserve* better, but rather, that the (albeit seemingly compromised) quality look may not be as far out of line for this kind of movie as for certain other kinds (and certainly, that seems to be what the filmmakers indicated) -- and the use of particular labels is really more for shorthand than to say there are very sharp distinctions regardless of the actual quality of each movie.


Sure, in an ideal world, every movie should just get the best transfer possible. But we don't live in an ideal world, so compromises have to be made (and shorthand labeling gets used to facilitate discussion, etc)...


_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Upon closer examination, I think the screencaps in the DoBlu reviews may be a bit too compromised by JPEG compression (and possibly other) issues to be all that good of indicators of actual PQ. I checked out DVDBeaver's better screencaps (of the first movie) as a point of comparison and then also noticed that the file sizes at the DoBlu site are probably too small (mostly in the 200-250KB region w/ very few exceeding 300KB) for accurate representation (at least for the first movie, if not for all 3) -- it's possible even the larger 600KB-plus file sizes used by DVDBeaver may be a tad small for very close scrutiny (though the 1MB-plus sizes used by blu-ray.com didn't show any noticeable improvements).

So definitely take those screencaps (if at all) w/ huge grains of salt...


_Man_

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool

/forum/thread/305298/a-few-words-about-back-to-the-future-in-blu-ray/120#post_3746203

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Looks like the limited edition Uk blu ray tin, is no longer available at amazon UK. Only through private sellers now, Im glad I got mine when I did.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Quote:


We're using phrases here that can have multiple meanings, especially when it comes to signing off. If the HD masters for this set were created more than a year or two ago, they may have

been "signed off" on 30" monitors, which may not have allowed what some are finding at fault to show through. As to Mr. Cundey's cinematography, it's beautiful, and perfect for the film. I'm not suggesting that it's anything less. What I'm saying is that a couple of points less density will expose people sitting in the background of the screening room sequence of Kane, thereby damaging the sequence, but those same couple of points, with few exceptions in the generally bright and beautiful BTTF, will have a far lessor affect. There are perfect lites for every shot in every film, but some have a far wider range of acceptability before damage is done.


RAH

Agreed, that some films could be ruined if the density is off by just a few points. What I'm suggesting is that there MIGHT be some shots in BTTF that could be just as critical. As I said the shot of Lea Thompson silhouetted when Marty wakes up in her bedroom. If too bright could show that it is the young Lorraine and not the mother that he knows in 1985, ruining the joke and the surprise. After all comedy is all about timing.


Again optical effects shots could reveal flaws that would not be seen if other wise correctly presented.


I’m not saying that these problems exist in this set of BTTF, just that it is possible. The correct presentation of this film might possibly be just as critical as that of Kane.


Doug