A Few Words About A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

Most people saw this film in 1992. Then they owned various video incarnations which may or may not have matched the look and intent of the actual answer print. I don't know about everyone else, but I have a hard time remembering exactly how a film looked a year ago, let alone 15 years ago. Now these people, 99.9% of whom haven't seen the theatrical version in 15 years and probably 100% of whom have never seen the answer print complaining about the new version on Blu Ray. What is not up for debate is that the Blu Ray is different, that is a fact: observable, recordable, repeatable. However the screenshots Dave Mack (whom I respect) has posted here do not match what I see on my TV when I watch the BD.

On the other side of the coin, you've got people involved with the film claiming that the Blu Ray version matches the answer print.

Now I agree that directors and talent have lied before. I know all about "Greedo was always supposed to shoot first." But Coppola doesn't have a revisionist history, at least in terms of covering things up. When he does make changes (Apocalypse Now Redux, The Godfather Saga/Epic) he is very transparent about the changes.

In fact I wish he was more revisionist because I badly want the Godfather Epic on Blu Ray, but I bet he'll only give us the original films, just like DVD.

So for now, given these facts, and also that when I watched Dracula I didn't notice anything glaringly wrong, I'm going to have to put my faith in the hands of the people who made the disc. Sony has, after a brief period of sub-par releases, become the pre-eminent studio in terms of A/V quality for Blu Ray (and why shouldn't they, it's their freakin' platform!). The Coppola folks have been vouched for by RAH. And yes, I'm a bit old school I know, but I have met RAH at an HTF function and I respect him, and anyone he respects I will honor until it is proven otherwise. This is simply my choice, others will disagree.

Fokker out~!

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Dave, we all understand how you feel. We get that you don't like the new look. We've heard the evidence from both sides.

Look, I'm all for standing up for your beliefs, but the redundancy here is seriously bordering on obsession.

I don't want to have to usubscribe to the thread. People will say 'you don't have to read the thread if you don't like it'. That's not the issue here. I am interested in the thread. I do want to hear peoples opinions.

The problem is that you've added nothing new in the last 6 pages of posts. Every day my jaw drops in disbelief that you've posted the exact same set of images again. Please! You've stated your case! When I see a new post to the thread, I'm excited to read something new about peoples opinions, but am dissapointed to scroll down through yet another posting of the same pictures that are on the first 3 pages of the post.

We all get your position. I urge you to either contribute something fresh and new, or as so many others have stated, let it rest.

Happy holidays!

 

[Dave Mack]

Fine but that wasn't exactly the case. First I was told that my calibration was off, (read back in this thread or in the old one that was CLOSED) that the screenshots I took were incorrect and didn't represent the transfer although dozens of people seemed to be seeing the same thing.
Then I found corroborating evidence from a member of another forum that pretty much exactly matched what mine looked like. So I guess my PJ was ok? My calibration was fine.
Then his shots were accused of being inaccurate or perhaps manipulated (like we have some weird agenda as was suggested on BluRay.com)
Now recently I am accused of sufferering some psychological phenomena.
I have let it go several times but when people keep suggesting that the shots I posted are inaccurate, or I have an agenda, or I am suffering from some odd false memory, I feel compelled to say something.

I won't say another word. I just felt like I kept having to explain or defend my opinion time and time again. I'm sorry that this discussion had to be in Mr. Harris' thread. I had one before all this that was closed and when I asked if we could start another one just to discuss what we were perceiving, I was told, no, post all comments re: Dracula in this thread.

 

[Robert Harris]

I believe that one very interesting result of this thread is going to be a great wall of silence between those attempting to properly prepare home video releases for public distribution as well as those working in restoration, to not discuss the background of anything.

Yours truly will likely, for the most part, join in that wall of silence.

Things will be what they are, and that will be the end of the discussion.

RAH

 

[Chris S]

I deeply hope that that is not the outcome from this thread as I feel this community greatly benefits from that insight.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I understand the frustration from those in the business that feel it doesn't do them any good to explain the results of their work, when there are those that refuse to accept their explanation. It's a shame that such a result has come from this discussion which for some strange reason never ceases as the same things are stated over and over again.

I think such a mind set from all concern doesn't do much good and causes only bad feelings to remain long after a particular discussion finally dies out. I guess in the end we will see what happens in the future when such a discussion takes place again with some other title, but that thread will be fueled with nothing, but speculation because nobody in the know will say a word to enlighten us as to what we're seeing or hearing on any particular title. I really hope that doesn't come to fruition, but I've heard industry frustration first-hand so I think it's going to happen.






Crawdaddy

 

[FrankT]

I really doubt that there will be a "great wall of silence" because of this thread.

Since when has it been bad to have a public discourse about anything? Ideas flowing are always a good thing, even if we do not always agree.

Your leaving and silence is up to you. I like reading your comments but I feel like that may only be a one way street.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You're wrong as I've received similar comments from others in the business regarding other discussions that have taken place on this forum.





Crawdaddy

 

[Dave Mack]

If that does happen I will also be sorry. I thought as long as we were all polite and discussed this in an adult manner that this would be fine, even a learning experience for many, myself included.
Once again, I'm sorry that this was all in Mr. Harris' thread.

 

[FrankT]

Maybe until the next generation. Remember it is all about selling product in the end.

To tell you the truth I am not sure if I really want to hear from people who cannot stand up to the polite discussion that has happened in this tread.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Are you kidding me? We're in the middle of a format war and we don't have anybody knocking down our door to sell their product and swing the war into their favor by discussing issues about their presentations. What makes you believe it's going to happen for the next generation of home video?

Furthermore, being dogmatic in discussing an issue is not polite discussion in my book.

 

[FrankT]

I guess we have different "books" then and see this thread differently.

Why are we in a format war? To sell product and make money, not for the love of film. Someone will always have the inside scoop, be it from them personally or on a DVD behind the scenes, commentary, book, or whatever. The information will flow even after this thread is long gone. People like to talk and companies like to make money. I have no doubt about that.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

I would just like to clarify that I am certianly not taking an "Anti-Mack" stance here. Just an "Anti-Redundancy" stance.

In fact, Dave, I would say that it is entirely due to you and this discussion that I felt compelled to go out and buy this title on Blu-Ray. If it weren't for this discussion I doubt I ever would have purchased the title. With all the excitment over the title, I wanted to check it out for myself.

I never saw the film in the theater, but I did at one time own the superbit DVD a while ago. I don't recall the exact colors in the DVD edition, and had I seen the Blu-Ray without reading any of this discussion, I doubt that any bells would have gone off in my head saying "hey it's different!" That can purely be attributed to my memory and not due to any calibration issues.

FWIW, I thought the Blu-Ray transfer was beautiful, and I didn't see any issues with over-crushed blacks. The words on the wall were very faint, but definately there.

My system is a PS3 connected to a Denon AVR-2807 reciever connected to an Optoma HD70 780p DLP front projector completely through an HDMI connection. My screen is a 106" in a completely light controlled room. My projector is calibrated using HD-Digital Video Essentials via a Toshiba HD-XA2 on the same HDMI path (HD-XA2 -> Denon -> Optoma).

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I think I know what your saying...
just that "dogmatic" refers to papal (as in: infallibility or supremacy) as what would be considered here: "The Powers That Be".
Isn't it your intent to dissuade 'us' (the non-professionals) from discussing (because its "not polite") such issues?
Thanks.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Ed,
I don't know what you're trying to imply with your comments. My intent is that sometimes it's best to just let it go, even if you don't accept a line of reasoning. At times, we're just going to disagree and that's about it.






Crawdaddy

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Got u!
Not trying to imply anything.
Just wasn't sure how you were trying to use "dogmatic", in reference to non-professionals posting on this matter.

EDitEDbyED:
Thanks RAH, for yesterdays "update"!

 

[Robert Harris]

Dave,

This isn't "my" thread, and there is nothing wrong with discussion, but when those responsible for the final product are willing to discuss how it came to be, and are then told ad nauseam that they are wrong, they are likely to steer clear of discussion in the future.

Wouldn't you?

I viewed the BD disc, saw the handwritten overlay, and am willing to spend a few moments re-checking it if you'll post -- once again -- the time code, so that I don't have to search. I have no way of posting an image on line, but am open to taking one last look to confirm my earlier findings.

As I've noted previously, nothing on the production end of home video is simple. There are layers of color and density built one upon the next based upon scanning. In a project that I've just completed there are literally dozens of modifications, one upon the next, that have been set in place to make something appear correct.

In the final analysis anything can go wrong at any level, which doesn't help, but those responsible for Dracula are happy with and have signed off on the results.

RAH

 

[Jack Johnson]

What's the Answer Print for, if no-one's in a position to actually check it against the video...especially in a case where there's such widespread dismay over a video transfer?

Wouldn't that end this (not that I'm not thoroughly enjoying this discussion. Why it's a source of consternation to anyone interested enough to still be reading at this point is beyond me)? But it won't happen, for a variety of reasons. Political, monetary.

I get the feeling the very idea of a double-check of this transfer would be an affront, an insult to some on this board.

So, again, what use the Answer Print? It's an Answer for nothing, arbiter for none.




--Jack

 

[Carlo_M]

But the people involved with the creation of the transfer have already said it more closely matches the answer print. And people here don't believe them [which is their right and prerogative].

But what are you proposing now, that studios are supposed to open their vaults to let some internet forum guys do a comparison for themselves because they don't believe the word of the people involved?

Can you name any other large, legitimate business/industry that allows this?

 

[Jack Johnson]

I allowed that a check of the AP isn't going to happen, for a variety of reasons...which include what you cite. There are more. I couldn't rationally demand one.

I was making an ironic point that--apart from any Deus Ex Machina in the form of a surprise "second look" at the AP, we'll go right on having people confirm this transfer is correct by way of hearsay from the people that did the work, and video enthusiasts decrying it as a betrayal of the original, intended look...based on several previous video releases--and memories of theatrical experiences--with a decidedly different appearance.

And until someone on this board with a really good set of peepers can lay 'em on that AP, he or she won't be able to say--with any real authority--that what we have in the latest edition of Bram Stoker's Dracula is any way accurate.




--Jack