American Graffiti Blu-ray DNR issues? (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Luisito34
It amazes me that people are willing to forgive (or put up with) lackluster Blu-ray transfers if "the price is right". The whole point of upgrading to hi-def is to enjoy better picture quality. I'm even willing to overlook some extras not porting over when something is re-released but it's never going to be acceptable to slap an old transfer onto a blu and call it a day, regardless of how "nice" the price is. We, as consumers, must demand excellence and vote with our wallets.

What people do with their own money is their own personal business.






Crawdaddy

 

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg
In my experience, writing by actual letter (as opposed to email, or website feedback forms) always has a better long-term result. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but in my experience it is. And don't just write to the home video department; chances are, if the releases aren't all they could be, it's not the fault of the people in home video (usually they're the lowest in the food chain in terms of pull) - they're probably just not being given the budgets they need to do the work to the standard they'd like. Look up the CEO of the company, not just the division, and write to them, politely of course. State specific evidence of your complaint - for instance, that you've been disappointed with the following catalog titles. Make sure to note that your issue isn't the quality of the film itself, and that as an educated consumer, you understand that not all movies are going to look like they were shot yesterday. Give an example or two of what you think the gold standard is in terms of presentation so that they have something to go on. Mention that you appreciate that they're releasing these titles in the first place, and maybe work in something like, "You put a lot of effort into creating all of these interactive bonus features and I appreciate that you're putting that kind of effort in; but that it's all for nothing if the quality of the film itself isn't there." The reason I say all of that as I did is because the people at the top are generally not film experts the way we might be, so to their eyes, a DNRed, ultra-smooth transfer might genuinely look better to their sensibilities - so I think it helps to explain that you just want the film to look as it did the day it came out, and to look like film and not video. If you feel it's appropriate, direct them to the HTF and other reputable sites (although I'm sure they're still aware of these places) and mention that X studio has a presence on there, and that their presence has inspired you to purchase more from that company than you might have otherwise, because you know they're listening and that they prove time and again that they listen to what people are saying. If there's a title the studio did do right, throw in a line praising that, that little bit of diplomacy can go a long way. One letter in and of itself isn't going to tip the scales, but if in general, if people started doing that, there's a better chance of the issue being resolved long-term.

This is some of the best advice EVER written in these forums. It may be old school to a lot of us, but for whatever reason, an actual posted letter in the U.S. mail commands the attention of those in the corporate world who are able to make a difference. So In addition to posting your rants and raves on message boards, why not also collect your thoughts and aim them where they might actually serve to resolve the problem? Public criticism and complaining is fine and can be useful if enough people engage it, but often all it does is secure you a few allies, and doesn't address the issue in a productive way. Make your voice heard here and there. Don't just not buy something and hope the message gets through.

 

[cafink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford /forum/thread/311374/american-graffiti-looks-terrible-lucasfilm-and-universal-please-quit-releasing-garbage/60#post_3812262

What people do with their own money is their own personal business.








What an asinine observation. Of course people are permitted to spend their money on whatever they like. So what? That doesn't mean one can't opine that some things (like Blu-rays with poor image quality) aren't worth buying. Lusito's not calling for the purchase of poor quality Blu-rays to be criminalized, he's just exhorting his fellow enthusiasts to spend their money on quality Blu-rays, which seems like a perfectly reasonable position to take on the Home Theater Forum.

 

[cineMANIAC]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
What people do with their own money is their own personal business.






Crawdaddy

I agree. But is it OK to just accept a lousy Blu-ray transfer because it's $7.99? Sure, spend your money any way you like. I'm not going to waste mine on "it's better than nothing" product.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Also depends on what one considers "lousy".

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Luisito34
I agree. But is it OK to just accept a lousy Blu-ray transfer because it's $7.99? Sure, spend your money any way you like. I'm not going to waste mine on "it's better than nothing" product.

Again, it's still a personal decision either way.






Crawdaddy

 

[Kevin EK]

I'm just going to take a moment to agree with Ron's assessment of the situation.

Some titles at various studios get really deluxe treatment, and others get a simpler treatment.

The Spartacus release was clearly driven by a desire to capitalize on the 50th Anniversary, but without licensing the title out to Criterion. Had Criterion been allowed to do the Blu-ray (as I still hope they will), you would have seen a much stronger release. But this would have meant that Universal would not have been able to release a 50th Anniversary DVD under their own label. (I suppose there could have been a co-production like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but that was for a current title.)

With several of the Universal titles, it's been clear that older transfers have been used. Out of Africa was a notorious case of this. We were actually able to show that even the DVD sides of those flipper discs were the previously released DVDs.

Back to the Future was a different matter. The release was supervised by Bob Gale, who's been the one keeping an eye on the video releases of that title for some time. I was quite happy with his work on this set, including the new interviews and extras. For some reason, people are continuing to act on the belief that this was a poor release, when this was not the case.

The main thing I've tended to notice with the catalogue Blus is that most of the time we're looking at a repackaging of the earlier DVD materials, coupled with a new HD transfer, but with the advertising trumpeting the "HOURS" of extra features. In some cases, this doesn't bother me - particularly if new materials have also been created. And I'd rather have the extras ported over, rather than just getting a movie-only release when there are those materials available. But I've seen a big part of my job here to be my monitoring of what the extras are, and whether they've been included on the prior DVD and laserdisc releases.

 

[JohnMor]

To me, if you're going to release a hi-def version, it should be the best, visually. It would be nice to have at least the same supplements as the dvd (if applicable), but that's not a deal breaker for me. But why go to the trouble of releasing a blu-ray that's essentially the dvd with a slightly higher bit rate? What's the point? If the studio can't/won't spend money to ensure the best visual quality, then they should just stick with the existing dvd or a new and improved dvd, but don't waste time, effort and (some) money on a hi-def release that does not take full advantage of the format. There's nothing wrong with dvd, so stick with that format if you're not going to take FULL advantage of blu-ray.

 

[Douglas Monce]

To me, if you're going to release a hi-def version, it should be the best, visually. It would be nice to have at least the same supplements as the dvd (if applicable), but that's not a deal breaker for me. But why go to the trouble of releasing a blu-ray that's essentially the dvd with a slightly higher bit rate? ;

I think this is a bit of a stretch. Yes there have been a handful of titles that haven't looked much better than the DVD of the same title, but most of what we are talking about here are transfers that maybe older, but are in fact HD transfers. Does it mean that they look state of the art? Maybe not. Does it mean that they look like pig dung? Absolutely not. If it is a choice of getting an older, but serviceable transfer on blu-ray, or no blu-ray at all....I'll take the older transfer.
Doug

 

[Josh Steinberg]

member inquiries.

I can understand that. I've mentioned a couple times that I previously worked for a very small home video label, and I tried a couple times to get them to allow me to come here in an "official" capacity, and it just wasn't their thing - not that most of the titles would probably have appealed to the vast majority of posters here, but you never know. Still, there were a few contributions I'm particularly proud of having made at that company in my time there, and there were times where I'd cite posts by people on HTF to back up my argument, or to help explain the technology trends to some people there that just didn't get it. So as a source of market research, and a way of keeping up with the trends, I think HTF can definitely be useful even to studios that choose not to have an official presence. Anyway, my point was that I get that Universal doesn't want to have to do the back-and-forth with us, it's a tricky spot to put oneself in.

While I hope Warner comes back for a chat, I'd similarly understand why they didn't. I have to confess at one of the last chats, I was really surprised at some of the questions, which seemed to be.. inappropriate doesn't seem the right word, but more, not as well thought out as I would have thought. For instance, if someone asks if a catalog title that came out a year ago was going to be redone in the immediate future, that kinda seems like a waste of a question. The more interesting parts of those chats for me, as an audience member, weren't so much the revelations of upcoming titles (although I have no problems with that!) but the window into how they went about doing their work. As a lover of film and a lover of home video/DVD/Blu-ray, it's always great to be able to put a "face" to the product. Afterall, these things aren't coming off some random assembly line - real people work on this stuff every day. Sounds like an awesome job, if you ask me.

 

[Bradley-E]

Originally Posted by Worth
I don't think he owns it outright, no. The copyright on the film itself belongs to Universal, but I think the studio defers to Lucasfilm on home video releases.

I'm pretty sure you are correct. "Graffiti" was financed by Universal and was made before Lucas was a name. Ditto with Spielberg with Jaws, Duel, Sugarland Express. It is a shame about this title, other reviews have confirmed this. Not sure what is with Universal and Blu ray, they started out with the format quite strong. I'll hold off on getting this for now.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Bradley-E
I'm pretty sure you are correct. "Graffiti" was financed by Universal and was made before Lucas was a name. Ditto with Spielberg with Jaws, Duel, Sugarland Express. It is a shame about this title, other reviews have confirmed this. Not sure what is with Universal and Blu ray, they started out with the format quite strong. I'll hold off on getting this for now.

Where are the other reviews? The only other legitimate review I have seen is on Blu-ray.com where they say that the edge enhancement is the only fault in a spectacular Blu-ray. I don't put a lot of faith in screen shots, but theirs looks pretty good. They gave it above average marks on picture, audio and extras. I think this, as said before, is all in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by ahollis

Where are the other reviews? The only other legitimate review I have seen is on Blu-ray.com where they say that the edge enhancement is the only fault in a spectacular Blu-ray. I don't put a lot of faith in screen shots, but theirs looks pretty good. They gave it above average marks on picture, audio and extras. I think this, as said before, is all in the eyes of the beholder.

Definitely in the eyes of the beholder, especially since you thought The Greatest Story Ever Told looked excellent.

 

[JohnMor]

I think this is a bit of a stretch. Yes there have been a handful of titles that haven't looked much better than the DVD of the same title, but most of what we are talking about here are transfers that maybe older, but are in fact HD transfers. Does it mean that they look state of the art? Maybe not. Does it mean that they look like pig dung? Absolutely not. If it is a choice of getting an older, but serviceable transfer on blu-ray, or no blu-ray at all....I'll take the older transfer.
Doug

Now THAT is a real stretch. Since when is a good, decent-looking dvd now rated as "pig dung??!" My point was simply that dvd is perfectly satisfactory visually, so if you're not going to fully utilize high-def, why waste the time and money; just stick with releasing the "serviceable" dvd. That does not make dvd "pig dung."

But blu-ray should be more than just "serviceable."

 

[Douglas Monce]

Now THAT is a real stretch.  Since when is a good, decent-looking dvd now rated as "pig dung??!"  My point was simply that dvd is perfectly satisfactory visually, so if you're not going to fully utilize high-def, why waste the time and money; just stick with releasing the "serviceable" dvd.  That does not make dvd "pig dung."  But blu-ray should be more than just "serviceable."  

Pig Dung is relative. If my blu-ray looks like a DVD, then its pig dung. I'm talking about releasing a serviceable blu-ray, which should be and more often than not is leaps and bounds above a DVD. Case in point, The Last Starfighter, which while being an older transfer, looks WAY better on blu-ray than it does on DVD. Is it state of the art? Probably not. Is it a good watchable HD picture? Yes.Doug

 

[Scott Calvert]

American Gaffiti should have been a new scanity 4K transfer. What would the cost have been for the scan and subsequent digital color work after shopping around? $10,000? $40,000? $400,000? At least then they would have archival preservation data they could use in perpetuity. Hell for all I know Universal owns one.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

Definitely in the eyes of the beholder, especially since you thought The Greatest Story Ever Told looked excellent.

I think I used the word stunning, but I was talking about how the blu-ray looked against the previous DVD, not the Blu-ray transfer and I was looking at the Blu-ray not just screen caps. I honsetly do not judge from screen caps since there can be to many oudtside factors involved. An example is the recent FIDDLER ON THE ROOF poor screen captures due to wrong set up.

I am not trying to get into any type of argument and I am willing to listen to your thoughts, but you said other reviews agreed with you and I just wanted to read them. Which by the way you did not answer, but just singled me out.

As far as the eye of the beholder, haven't you said that THE HORSE SOLDIERS is a fantastic transfer, while most people on the thread thinks it's just ok.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
American Gaffiti should have been a new scanity 4K transfer. What would the cost have been for the scan and subsequent digital color work after shopping around? $10,000? $40,000? $400,000? At least then they would have archival preservation data they could use in perpetuity. Hell for all I know Universal owns one.

Even if Universal wouldn't want to spend any money on it, I'd expect Lucas to step up and pay for it.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by ahollis
I am not trying to get into any type of argument and I am willing to listen to your thoughts, but you said other reviews agreed with you and I just wanted to read them. Which by the way you did not answer, but just singled me out.

As far as the eye of the beholder, haven't you said that THE HORSE SOLDIERS is a fantastic transfer, while most people on the thread thinks it's just ok.

Regarding other reviews, someone else said that, not me. The only review I know if is the one on bluray.com which is generally positive, as per usual.

And The Horse Soldiers is a fantastic transfer. A transfer is simply that, a transfer. What people have issues with are the source elements. They are several generations removed from the original elements. But the transfer is completely transparent and sharp as a tack. MGM could'v'e chosen to drastically denoise it and they didn't. Maybe they should've transferred on a decade old telecine and added artificial sharpening and noise reduction. I can just see all the "stunning!", "great transfer!" comments that would follow.

 

[Kevin EK]

I watched the Blu of American Grafitti last night, going back and forth with Lucas' new video commentary.
I'll have a review up by this weekend.
I'm always amazed by how moving this film is - there are moments of deep emotion that go pretty far beyond anything Lucas did anywhere else in his career.

This is not a bad transfer. I'm seeing plenty of grain here, and a wide range of color. I noticed some edge enhancement but nothing that took me out of the movie.
In his commentary, Lucas mentions the use of Techniscope and acknowledges that this was a low budget way of getting the widescreen look he wanted, similar to the way that Sergio Leone shot his spaghetti westerns. Lucas also mentions that he was having major focus issues and that he had Haskell Wexler trying to get the light levels up to allow a better depth of field.

Lucas also makes clear that he and his company were involved with this new transfer for Blu-ray. At the very end, he discusses watching the movie again "when we were doing the upgrade and the new color timing for the DVD, the Blu-ray" and says he still finds the movie fun to watch.

Occasionally, he even tells happy stories about the filming, like the serendipidity of getting an airplane from Magic Carpet Airlines to end the film. Usually, his stories are about everything that went wrong and how bad things went.

I'll recommend the title, both for the transfer and for Lucas' new commentary. And they've included the great documentary that goes back to the Signature laserdisc. If anything, seeing Lucas in that documentary after seeing him in the video commentary makes clear how long the 15 years in between have been...