Hunt For Red October (1 Viewer)

[Seth T]

Yeah well...I never said "friend" now, did I? Heh

I don't feel bad about it, considering they're running their DVD player directly into a 27" TV...they don't even have Dolby Mono.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I thought the initial dvd was a trainwreck.

I'm guessing you haven't been involved in this hobby as long as I have. I've seen transfers that could be described as "train wrecks", and this ain't one of 'em.

M.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Friends dont let friends buy non 16x9!

exactly why I boycotted the first DVD version...

 

[Matt Pasant]

I'm guessing you haven't been involved in this hobby as long as I have. I've seen transfers that could be described as "train wrecks", and this ain't one of 'em

March of 97 was when I got into DVD having been in LD for 10 years prior to that. So that is not the case.

I firmly believe that the previous release of HFRO was and is perhaps one of the worst transfers Paramount released to DVD. Red October is one of my favorite movies and watched the dvd at least 15-20 times since it came out at Thanksgiving in 1998.

I regret not holding on to it just so I could have done a screen cap comparision. But watching it last night was like a new film.


- Matt

 

[Michael Reuben]

March of 97 was when I got into DVD having been in LD for 10 years prior to that.

Going by the birth date listed in your HTF bio, that means you started with LD at age 10. I'm impressed.

M.

 

[MichaelO]

Man, we are sure spoiled these days. While the old DVD wasn't reference, I sure wouldn't call it a train wreck either. Now if you want to see a "train wreck" of a DVD, check out the initial Highlander release, it hurt the eyes!

 

[Matt Pasant]

Michael,
I literally did start buying laserdiscs at that age. My first LD was Top Gun.

The Pasants are technophile's and due to my dad buying every new technology under the sun, I guess I got an earlier start than most.


-- Matt

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Michael,

with all due respect, I owned both the LD and original dvd of this film and I must agree that they were repugnant. I know it's just my opinion but, man, they were aweful.

Now having said that, i'd gladly watch either one of those before i'd ever watch Backdraft again on dvd, now THAT'S one terr eee blle dvd! As MichealO said, it hurts the eyes...and burns the throat! Yep, if it's at all possible to actually have an allergic reaction to a dvd, it's that one.

 

[Aaron Cohen]

I picked up the boxed set of the 4 movies and love it. I didn't really want Sum Of All Fears but just decided to get the boxed set anyway because the price difference between buying the three films separately or buying all four together was only about 5 bucks. And I decided Sum Of All Fears was worth 5 bucks to me.

And I'll add my opinion of the original Hunt For Red October dvd to the pot. I thought it looked horrible. However, I have never seen a laserdisc movie. Ever. I got into dvd in 98 and am judging the transfer quality of that dvd up against other dvd's. So I don't know how bad some laserdiscs looked. But I thought the Red October dvd looked pitiful.

 

[Michael Reuben]

One of the many things that my participation in HTF has taught me is how utterly subjective these assessments are, even when they're supposedly based on purely "technical" merits. The kind of hyperbole that's on display in this thread is something I just don't take seriously anymore. I've seen too many discs pronounced awful by some and reference by others.

I stand by my assessment of the first Hunt DVD (which I still have), and I'm looking forward to watching the new disc when my copy arrives.

M.

 

[Carlo_M]

It would also be interesting to hear people's setups. I thought the first HFRO was a "train wreck" when I had my old Toshiba 2006 hooked up to a 4:3 Sony 32" TV via S-Video. Shimmeries and jaggies all over the place. Well years passed and now I have a Panny RP91 -> ISF'd 47" widescreen HDTV, and to be honest, it ain't that bad! I think my RP91 does a good job of zooming it to the TV, and I had my set's EE disconnected, etc. etc. Did it look "good" on my new setup? Heck no. But it wasn't as bad as I remembered it on my old setup (which is long gone now so I can't A/B).

Do look forward to getting the new disc after work today, though. Thirty minutes and counting!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

One of the many things that my participation in HTF has taught me is how utterly subjective these assessments are, even when they're supposedly based on purely "technical" merits.

Yup. Even if I think a DVD looks great and someone else thinks it looks like death, we can both be right. There are so many variations that occur due to equipment, viewer experience and bias, etc., that there's really no such thing as an objectively accurate judgment. I mean, I can honestly state exactly what I saw, but that doesn't mean you'll interpret it the same way. All I and others can do is represent our findings as accurately as possible and hope it does someone some good...

 

[Dan Lindley]

Hi there,

I've got the old box set, and the new SOAF. So, technically, I don't need to get any of the new ones. But can anyone convince me which of the new ones is most improved with either sound or picture quality. So far, I'm not dying for a new HFRO at the rate this thread is going, but I haven't checked the online reviews yet (like the cited DVD file review).

Dan

 

[Dave H]

There are so many variations that occur due to equipment, viewer experience and bias, etc., that there's really no such thing as an objectively accurate judgment.

I agree to an extent. But, I mean who in their right mind would objectively judge or think Scarface looks better than Gladiator, for example? There must be *something* objective, therefore, some judgement must be objective. (Of course, one could get scientific with it all, but you really don't have to). I guess the key is identifying objective criteria (artifacts, colors, etc.)

Obviously, some things are debatable --- not as clear and cut as the Scarface example --- but just trying to make a point.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

When people yell 'fire', you have to look for smoke. Likewise if the majority is of the opinon that a transfer is bad, one has to wonder if there is something to worry about.

It seems to me that nobody is saying that the original transfer of this film is really good, it seems that we all agree that it's not the greatest transfer, what we seem to be disagreeing about is to the extent of how bad we think it is. Some think it's worse off than others.

 

[Dave Mack]

Gettin' it tom'w... $12.99? SWEET!! MAN, remember the days of the $29.99 list Paramount DVD's?? Even 'til recently, "The odd couple", bare bones, was still listing for that. Thank HEAVENS they lowered it to $19.99 list.

Just gettin' "October"... I LOVE Ford, but felt that Baldwin nailed it and I couldn't make the jump...

D

 

[Michael Reuben]

isn't an excellent presentation of the film needs to have their equipment adjusted, their eyesight checked or to get out to the theater more to see what films really look like.

But that would be wrong.

M.

 

[CraigF]

So are we saying the new version is better than the original DVD version...I'm a bit confused now? Just picked it up today, and before I open it... Thanks.

[FWIW, for those in Canada, Future shop has it at a good price, the other "common" places I went to didn't have it.]

 

[Benjamin.D]

A few comments:

In a brilliant stroke of laziness, the original 13 chapter stops used on the old disc have carried over to the new disc. The number of stops, IMHO, should have been at least doubled. The menu is classy and conveys a nice sense of urgency. I have gotten to see quite a bit of the featurette, and I like it. I don't think it's fluffy. I don't have DTS equipment, so I can't comment on the new soundtrack. But I'm happy that Paramount chose to innaugurate it's DTS membership with this movie as one of it's first recipients. The picture (of the actual movie) looks nice enough, but the movie is a truly grainy affair (Was this on purpose by the filmmakers?). Didn't hear enough of the commentary to comment on it. One question for you all though, is the picture of this new disc a 2:25 in stead of 2:35? If so, does that mean it's misframed?

Ben

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

quote...
"2:25 in stead of 2:35?"

The OAR is 2.35:1, or 2.40:1 if you want to get technical, this dvd had better be either or, or no sale.