Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Jun 28, 2010.
Sigh. Parts 2 & 3 screenshots do look more like traditional Universal catalog titles, I'm afraid.
I don't think "finess" is quite the right word for what was done.
Look what I found on amazon uk !! Tin edition of the blu ray, it even has sports almanac from part 2 included !!! Ordered it.
Euphemism for another "F" word...
This seems odd. I remember reading that the digital bits, had a sneak preview and they thought it looked fantastic. No dnr or ee was mentioned. Remember, sometimes screenshots can look diffrent than something in motion. I hope im right.
I am trying to cling to the hope that these are better in motion as well. It is easier to do if the screen shots don't look that bad, and these are not on the same level as the original Gladiator. Then when you see that the process is removing sparks, you know other deficiencies are a result of digital tinkering when creating the disc, not in the process used to capture and compress the screen shots. I don't know how much of the Gladiator "recall" (for lack of a better word) was Paramount and how much was Universal, but I will assume Universal was enough of a factor to make what I say apply to them. For Gladiator, getting a proper copy of that meant waiting a lot longer, having to miss release week sales, and hoping you get the right one if you order online. Because Gladiator went down to $19.99 on Amazon, I ordered. Worse comes to worse, I'll suck up $3.00 and some time for a tracked media mail shipment to Paramount, and consider the price $22.99. Is this Universal's marketing strategy these days, release the "clean" version to appeal to the the grain haters, then have a trade in later for the people who want the product that should have been released in the first place? Since the fixed Gladiator release seemed like goodwill, I'll jump through a couple of hoops on that. I am not going to make a habit of this. By now, Universal as a company should understand the value of proper mastering. Any "recall" of this had better be available for the price I would have paid on release day (or cheaper), be widely available, and be easily differentiated when ordering online. Hopefully, this will all be moot, but that is looking unlikely.
I remember this too, but I don't remember if they explicitly said that they thought the sequels looked good or if they might have only seen the original.
That site that put the screenshots from the blu ray up, has now taken them down. This is odd.
It's not really odd, given what they look like....
Just looked up the comparison screenshots (HDTV vs Blu-ray) at the AVS forum and I'm soooooooooooo disappointed! Universal does Gladiator again! HDTV version looks so much better! Someone really needs to stop these studios "enhancing" or "remastering" if this is the best they can do! Lame Universal! You should be ashamed for presenting such a classic in this way! Now we need to have a same kind of campaign like with Gladiator!
I never trust screenshots, especially avs forums. They made out that the excoricist blu was terrible, but when it came out, the blu was nothing like the screenshots they posted.
One of the chief complaints about the Back to the Future Blu-ray is that excessive DNR has erased elements--sparks from the time-travelling Delorean--from the picture completely. I don't think there's any way that kind of artifact could be introduced by a screen-capture technique. I'm willing to concede that screenshots aren't always a perfect representation of the disc they're taken from, but when whole elements of the picture are simply erased, I think its safe to say that something is seriously amiss.
Erased.... from existence!!
Some comments by Bob Gale... http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5083 During an interview on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of Back to the Future,, Bob Gale, BTTF creator, producer and co-writer, said he had seen the movie projected days ago and he thought "it looks so good, so much better than it did in 1985", when it opened in theaters. He further explained: "When they did the remastering for the Blu-ray they spent over 400 hours doing dirt cleanup, and almost another 200 hours doing color correction, so the movie looks better than it ever did." When a film is shown at the theater, "you have the print going through the projector, it picks up dirt, gets scratched and with the digital technology these guys fixed almost all of that stuff, and it just looks breathtaking." http://www.blurayfreak.com/2010/07/back-to-the-future-bluray-trilogy-release-roundup.html In an interview with back-to-the-future.net , producer Bob Gale talked about the transfers. “The HD transfers for all three films are simply breath-taking,” he explained. “They actually look better than they did in the theater because of the incredible job that was done on dirt clean-up. (And the film grain is preserved, so they still look like movies should look.)” So they used a print copy that had been running through a projetor in a theater as a master for the blu-rays??
Screenshots are not the ultimate determinant of picture quality, but they're a pretty good indication of the level of DNR used. Patton is an example. Screenshots showed an obvious and heavy level of DNR, and that's exactly what people saw when they watched it. It doesn't look promising at all for the BTTF movies.
It's hardly much to get too excited over, but there's a brief video up at CNN.com that includes a few brief clips of the Eric Stoltz footage. 10 Seconds worth of Stoltz in Back to the Future While I'm sure it was right to recast the role, I would love to see more of the footage that was shot - just out of curiosity.
Based on the early reports of possible NR issues, I have canceled my pre-order with Amazon. Since the price is not very attractive right now anyway, I can afford to wait for more reviews and the price to drop. The first film may be a rental just to check it out myself (I did this with Gladiator, and decided to not buy that travesty).
Thanks for that CNN link. That was very cool to see. I didn't realize they filmed that much with Stoltz. With such an anticipated release, I am surprised to see so much uprising of pitchforks and clubs for this release's use of DNR based on screengrabs. I guess I have some faith that the people involved in this release know they have a large fanbase who will put everything under a microscope and not accept anything less then great. If it is a bad release, then I'll join you by not buying it too. But I'm hopeful this will be a great release.
I also appreciate that CNN link. That's highly coveted footage and it's cool to at least get a glimpse of what BTTF would have been like with Stoltz in the starring role. Count me in as someone else who is very concerned about the DNR that might have been used in this release. I don't generally put my faith in screengrabs and encourage people not to put theirs in it either. We have been duped before by sites that post screengrabs that show errors when upon actual release, there was nothing to be concerned about. That being said, it is my hope that Universal did not apply a large amount of DNR to this release. They are going to really upset the fanbase if it turns out that they did.