"Ray" - no reviews yet! (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

Nobody is shooting anybody, but what we do have here is a difference of opinion which is normal when it comes to dvd presentations because of differences in HT setups and other variables. In the end, many of us will makeup our own minds about this dvd transfer once we viewed it for ourselves. I always appreciate the efforts by dvd reviewers because reviewing is a difficult and time consuming task and there will be times when others will disagree with a particular dvd review.






Crawdaddy

 

[Michael Reuben]

You're new here, but anyone who thinks that this is the approach taken by our reviewers, our staff or our membership needs to do some reading.

I don't know anything about you or your qualifications. I only know that, after watching Ray in the theater and on DVD, I don't share your assessment of the disc. As for our readers, the one thing I'm sure of after almost seven years at HTF is that they're more than capable of watching and deciding for themselves.

M.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

This is what I'm picking at. Every single film has deliberate artistic manipulation of the colour, by film stock selection, filters, and printing. You don't just shoot a film and have it come out "normal", because there's no such thing as "normal".

Sometimes a black is not supposed to be rock solid dead black. Sometimes a red is not supposed to be fire engine red. Sometimes a blue sky is supposed to be pale. Sometimes a highlight is supposed to be blown out.

Like I said before, Ray goes to a lot of trouble to look like old album covers. Here's what that means: the strongest colours are yellows. Blue is rarely, if ever, electric. Black is more like a dark, leathery brown. These are the things one thinks of with Ray Charles: old record album covers.

You may not like the look, but that does not make it a mistake.

 

[Peter Schorn]

It's obvious that many are assuming that this is simply a matter of taste, experience, equipment and my presumed lack of all of three. Sorry if I seem offended, but the repeated inferences that I'm missing the point of the film's look indicate that some have decided it's easier to assume that Universal did a fine job and the "new guy" is smoking rope.

I've seen many of the aforementioned films both theatrically and on DVD and know darn well what happens in the DI process. I frequently skim thru American Cinematographer to glean information on the hows and whys of movie shooting and have bought DVDs of merely adequate movies to get the making-of extras. (Heck, I've got the best available versions of nearly every David Fincher film though I'm always getting into it with his fanboys over the not-all-thatness of his movies.) But, ultimately, this is as relevant as my preference in pizza toppings with regards to evaluating AV quality.

I love movies (duh) and think DVD is the greatest thing since indoor plumbing, but since I've started having to look at them critically, it's become readily apparent that mileage WILL vary between discs. To blithely dismiss deficiencies in a transfer as "the intent of the filmmakers" ignores reality. Reviews between regular and Superbit discs routinely tout the improved detail and clarity of the image.

If Sony decided to pooch the original "Spiderman 2" transfer because they intended to get it right with the Superbit dip down the line, would that be a poor transfer or "the filmmakers wanted it to look like a comic book and old comics don't have a lot of background detail"? I would've enjoyed being able to give an unqualified recommendation to the "Ray" DVD, but it wasn't to be and that's too bad, not for Universal, but for film lovers.

In the end, I stand behind my criticisms and have the support of my editor in this matter. I thank you for this opportunity to clarify my views.



Note: When posting critiques of this DVD, it would be helpful to include whether you have the flipper or 2-disc versions for that may be a factor as well. I had the 2-disc version.

 

[Ron Reda]

FWIW/IMHO, I checked out about 45 minutes of my "flipper" WS version last night and, knowing that some of the colors were artistic decisions and intended by the director, I thought it looked great. Nice and detailed especially in the fabrics that the clothes were made out of.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Well, first of all it's not "many", just me and Michael Reuben, really. So don't panic, you're not in the minority.

I'm not trying to say you have no taste or experience, I'm just trying to say that something very very specific that you describe is what the film is supposed to look like. That's all. I've had my own work described as "bad" for similar reasons, and it bugs the bejesus out of me, so I'm touchy about it.

 

[Michael Reuben]

No, I'm not making any assumptions about Mr. Schorn. His review and his posts speak for themselves, as do mine, and I'm comfortable with that.

M.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I wasn't trying to say that we were making assumptions, I was trying to say that we were the dissenters.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

I have seen horrible reviews for the movie MacArthur because the colors were washed out and the film grainy. That was the way it was intended because the movie uses splices of actual era combat and archival footage. They wanted the overall effect to be seamless so rather than clean up the old footage they toned down the new to match for a more historical feeling.

I haven't seen Ray in any format yet but also reluctant to believe one-sided reviews when the reviewer hasn't seen the original to judge by. Maybe Ray was supposed to be muted in color... remember we are dealing with a blind man here and color pallets were not at the top of his list Then being period pieces too... well, until we hear from the director we may not know? But if some say that the DVD is representative of what was seen in the theater, that's good enough for me!

 

[Ira Siegel]

Wow, Peter Schorn, one day at HTF and you hit on one of my favorite topics.

I'll be back in Hawaii this summer to research that issue.

I'll also be watching RAY tonight, the first time I'll be seeing it in any format.

 

[Chris]

I will say this about it forgetting the color issuess.. if they wanted the special features, they should have just issued a 2 disc version instead of the flipper..

However.. the film is 100% worth the watch.. flicked through about 4/5 times already.. Jamie Foxx is -incredible- in his role, so dead on as a performance that it's just shocking.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

I still am waiting on someone to tell me if there are quality issues between the flipper version versus the 2-disc version? Also, if the features are the same between the two?

 

[Ira Siegel]

I watched the theatrical length version of RAY last night. Good movie. Very good performances by the supporting cast. Wonderful casting of Curtis Armstrong (REVENGE OF THE NERDS and TV's MOONLIGHTING) as Ahmet Ertegun. Great performance by Jamie Foxx. GREAT use of Ray Charles' music throughout. A biography and a concert movie all in one!
The "color transfer issue" appears to relate only to flashback scenes and seemed appropriate to me. (Ray Charles may very well have remembered colors vividly.)
RAY reminds me of RAGING BULL in that both dwelled long and hard on the negative aspects of the subjects of the movies (Ray Charles and Jake Lamotta, respectively), and both with the cooperation of the subjects!
Now I'm looking forward to the making of the movies based on the lives of Ertegun and Jerry Wexler. Those would be fantastic concert movies.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Bad example since Sony put out the Spidey 2 Superbit on the same day as the regular version!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The director discusses the color in his commentary, and he states that he made the palette in the adult Ray scenes muted EXACTLY because of his blindness. The film also exaggerates the colors in the childhood Ray shots to emphasize the fact he could see at the time...

 

[JonZ]

I thought this film looked fine.

I do have a problem with the branching though. Theres was a big difference between the anamorphic parts and extended cuts. If youre going to do that why not make the extended scenes 16x9? Did they rush the disc? They should have released complete extended and theatrical versions instead. I'd rather not watch mutiple/outtakes takes of the same scene when watching a film - thats what extended/deleted scenes sections are for.

This is why I never deal with seemless branching. There were also some glitches(I have a region free Pioneer 363K).

A good movie, GREAT performance by Foxx, but a shitty job on the extended version of the film IMHO, which is a shame because some of the added scenes were really good.

 

[RandyMathis]

Patric C...

I too left CC and BB empty handed.

I got a widescreen copy at Target today. They had three copies remaining.

A stocker was standing next to me with two complete cases of Full Frame copies but no widescreen.

 

[RAF]

Adding my two cents here on this discussion...

I just finished watching the "Limited" Edition of the movie. My package had two discs. Disc #1 is a "flipper" with the movie on one side and a couple of extras on the other side including two extended musical numbers and a much-too-often-omitted Cast Biographies and Filmographies which was very detailed. (I personally miss this feature which used to be quite common on early DVDs and often have to resort to the IMDB to answer the "where have I seen him/her before" questions that come up). Disc #2 has some Previews of other titles, a couple of documentaries about Ray, about the making of the movie and many additional extended musical scenes. A lot of interesting stuff, but, to some extent, a bit repetitious. (They must have mentioned that RAY was "15 years in the making" about a dozen times.) The Limited edition also contains a 28 page booklet of glossy photos, etc. that complement the movie.

Now to the main question - what about the video and audio presentation? To my eyes and ears this movie is just fine. To call the transfer "bad" is just plain misleading. Is it the finest transfer ever made? Of course not, but I would give it at least a 4 out of 5. And the 5.1 audio is very clear and presents Ray Charles' music very favorably. In fact I could sit and listen to the audio (which I did with the extended musical scenes to enjoy the songs). There is clearly (no pun intended) an attempt made to purposely present the film to indicate the times - i.e. colors are washed out a bit to represent the 50's and 60's and are interspersed with a lot of newsreel type footage. My friends who saw this theatrically back me up on this. So the transfer is accurate and fully intentional. My viewing equipment (which can be seen in detail on my HT link in my signature) includes a fully calibrated Runco CL-710 DLP projector displayed on a 110" diameter Stewart Studiotek 130 screen and using a Lexicon pre/pro, Outlaw amps, M&K speakers and an SVS Ultra subwoofer so if there was something lacking in the transfer (either visually or aurally) it would be evident.

I equate what was done with Ray to what has been done to great effect with other movies. As others have noted, there are just enough vibrant scenes in this movie and on this disc (especially as Ray Charles becomes more famous) to prove that the transfer is good. The subdued and soft tones are done on purpose and not a transfer error. In fact, they are quite accurate. Barring a faulty disc, to call Ray a bad transfer would be like criticizing The Matrix for being "too green" or Dark City for being too "dark" or battle scenes from Saving Private Ryan for being "too grainy" etc. etc. etc. To judge the quality of the transfer based on artistic decisions (especially in the early scenes) is to completely miss the point.

One other observation - There is, in my estimation, one glaring flaw in this title and it comes in the "Extended Version" of the movie - the same thing that others have correctly pointed out. The branching is not really seamless (since the movie pauses a bit) and, more importantly, the extended scenes are not anamorphic! This is a big mistake because while I chose to watch the extended cut (by manually switching my projector's aspect ratio when the scenes were inserted) I can see where others would be annoyed by this presentation. Add to this the fact that for the extended sequences the "aged film" process was not employed and you have a rare case where the added material actually looks more vibrant than the original movie that it supplements! While I can understand a studio not paying to add special effects to additional footage the lack of anamorphic presentation here is inexcusable. Maybe all those people who create non-anamorphic menus on discs with anamorphic film content have "graduated" to film editing?


Luckily, the problem with the "extended" edition is easily solved by sticking with the "theatrical presentation" which is the one that the academy is looking at for February 27th. It's a shame that more care wasn't taken with this, but it's certainly not a deal killer.

While I prefer 2 discs to a flipper it's not really an issue here since the movie doesn't span to two sides, just the extras. And I would venture to guess that the visual and audio quality of the two disc offering is at least the equal of the flipper since two discs potentially offer more real estate.

So anyone who's been sitting on the fence regarding Ray because of some of the comments made here - not to worry. Aside from the non-anamorphic extensions, this, to me, is a must buy if you like the genre.

 

[Ron Reda]

Finally watched the entire film last night. Both my wife and I thought it was excellent, especially the performance by Jamie Foxx. While I watched the film on a 32" non-HDTV (instead of my 51" HDTV), I thought the film looked very good.

Again, one problem that I do have is the flipper disc. Is there a particular SKU number or UPC code that I can look for in Best Buy so that I can return my copy and get the 2-disc widescreen version?

 

[Patrick Sun]

Can't wait for the complaints for "The Aviator" DVD's video presentation since the color palette used through the film mimicked the film technology consistent with look of films during the time periods being covered by the film's story, same as "Ray".