Looks like Bram Stoker's Dracula is coming to BD this fall...
09-25-07, 07:47 PM
#51
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
I guess I'll have to dig out the laserdisc. It's been a while since I last looked at it, but I remember quite clearly that the writing in this shot was plainly visible, not crushed like the screen shot here.
So even if they did reuse the old Copolla-supervised Criterion color transfer, it's been changed in other ways.
So even if they did reuse the old Copolla-supervised Criterion color transfer, it's been changed in other ways.
Look, all I'm saying is that everyone who has gotten the disc and seen it says the same thing, look at the avs thread, the Hdd thread.
It's too dark, dull, flat and looks like an SDdvd. And don't give me that, "but the master is soft!" Well the HD master on cable last year wasn't. The scenes in the docs on the same BD disc here aren't.
09-27-07, 02:09 AM
#52
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Directly from the SONY lab (via Paidgeek):
"There are a few things that those critical of the latest Dracula transfer should know.
1. The new transfer was supervised. This means that a representative from Zoetrope was charged we checking the color correction to make sure it met with the intentions of Mr. Coppola.
2. The new transfer and color correction were not done hastily. This title was carefully planned for BD and we were given the full cooperation of Zoetrope to get it done right.
3. The masters used for the DVD versions of this title were not endorsed by Mr. Coppola, the BD version is. The color correction on the DVD releases was not what Mr. Coppola wanted, regardless of the fact that the elevated brightness in some scenes on the DVD can reveal something not seen on the BD.
4. The answer print of the film is darker than the Blu-ray (answer prints are the approved color timed result that release prints are supposed to match).
5. Mr. Coppola intentionally shunned digital special effects techniques on this film in order to get a result that had the look of the classic horror films. The optical effects lead to some dirt and softening of the master.
A great deal of time and effort went into the remastering of this film, so it is more than a little disappointing that fans would not just second guess the wishes of the person that made the film, but would judge some of the work as careless or incorrect From what I have read on the forum, the issue seems to stem from the darkening or color adjustment of a few scenes that leaves the viewer with less discernable picture information than was visible on the earlier unapproved release. If your display is properly calibrated, then rest assured that there is information in the video on most titles that you are not seeing. It is your choice if you want to turn up brightness to reveal some dark detail that is not necessarily supposed to be revealed.
I suspect that if we originally released a Dracula with a darker image, then released the Blu-ray with a brighter one, then perhaps these issues would not have been raised. Just remember that the film is supposed to set a mood and tell a story, not dazzle you with the picture details in the shots with a darkened room."
Ciao,
Pro-B
"There are a few things that those critical of the latest Dracula transfer should know.
1. The new transfer was supervised. This means that a representative from Zoetrope was charged we checking the color correction to make sure it met with the intentions of Mr. Coppola.
2. The new transfer and color correction were not done hastily. This title was carefully planned for BD and we were given the full cooperation of Zoetrope to get it done right.
3. The masters used for the DVD versions of this title were not endorsed by Mr. Coppola, the BD version is. The color correction on the DVD releases was not what Mr. Coppola wanted, regardless of the fact that the elevated brightness in some scenes on the DVD can reveal something not seen on the BD.
4. The answer print of the film is darker than the Blu-ray (answer prints are the approved color timed result that release prints are supposed to match).
5. Mr. Coppola intentionally shunned digital special effects techniques on this film in order to get a result that had the look of the classic horror films. The optical effects lead to some dirt and softening of the master.
A great deal of time and effort went into the remastering of this film, so it is more than a little disappointing that fans would not just second guess the wishes of the person that made the film, but would judge some of the work as careless or incorrect From what I have read on the forum, the issue seems to stem from the darkening or color adjustment of a few scenes that leaves the viewer with less discernable picture information than was visible on the earlier unapproved release. If your display is properly calibrated, then rest assured that there is information in the video on most titles that you are not seeing. It is your choice if you want to turn up brightness to reveal some dark detail that is not necessarily supposed to be revealed.
I suspect that if we originally released a Dracula with a darker image, then released the Blu-ray with a brighter one, then perhaps these issues would not have been raised. Just remember that the film is supposed to set a mood and tell a story, not dazzle you with the picture details in the shots with a darkened room."
Ciao,
Pro-B
Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 09-27-07 at 02:11 AM.
09-27-07, 06:21 AM
#53
DVD Talk Hero
And George Lucas decided that Greedo should shoot first.
Doesn't mean its an improvement.
Doesn't mean its an improvement.
09-27-07, 07:43 AM
#54
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The new transfer was supervised. This means that a representative from Zoetrope was charged we checking the color correction to make sure it met with the intentions of Mr. Coppola.
3. The masters used for the DVD versions of this title were not endorsed by Mr. Coppola, the BD version is. The color correction on the DVD releases was not what Mr. Coppola wanted, regardless of the fact that the elevated brightness in some scenes on the DVD can reveal something not seen on the BD.
I remember seeing this movie in theaters - the funky color scheme was a big part of this movie. The movie has been, like Halloween drained of its distinctive colors to get clarity. And that sucks.
And secondly, this movie always had distinctive subtitles - so why were those stripped for the BD version?
Last edited by chanster; 09-27-07 at 07:51 AM.
09-27-07, 08:53 AM
#56
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Davy Mack
I look forward to your observations, Josh!
09-27-07, 10:29 AM
#57
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist
Directly from the SONY lab (via Paidgeek):
Just remember that the film is supposed to set a mood and tell a story, not dazzle you with the picture details in the shots with a darkened room."
Just remember that the film is supposed to set a mood and tell a story, not dazzle you with the picture details in the shots with a darkened room."
09-27-07, 10:34 AM
#58
DVD Talk Legend
While this is one of my most anticipated releases on BD, I'm hesitant to get this right away. I'll wait a bit and hopefully this will be part of one of Fry's Sony DVD sales that pop up occassionally.
09-27-07, 12:56 PM
#59
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
Sorry SONY, but Blu-ray IS supposed to dazzle us with picture details...
Pro-B
09-27-07, 01:09 PM
#60
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can a Sony flack defend a transfer that it hardly any anything to do with?
All this PR garbage about a person from Zoetrope authorized to impart Coppola's intentions is quite ridicolous and lame on its face.
All this PR garbage about a person from Zoetrope authorized to impart Coppola's intentions is quite ridicolous and lame on its face.
09-27-07, 01:14 PM
#61
Moderator
Originally Posted by chanster
How can a Sony flack defend a transfer that it hardly any anything to do with?
09-27-07, 01:24 PM
#62
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, in that case, they should just say, we didn't do it. Their defense of the transfer (see pro-b's statement) indicates they were involved with, since they seem to have so many answers.
Its funny that those answers are geared in the "its the filmmaker's intention" etc. etc. Its the same argument Lucasfilm made when they obviously screwed up the sound of ANH in the DVD's. That seems to be the fall back excuse when the evidence is damming. Except Lucasfilm is Lucas, whereas the ownership for this release is being shuttled off like hot potatoes.
Furthermore, its interesting to note that this transfer was not approved by Coppola, if you read behind the lines of the post of the five defenses.
They had someone charged with preserving Coppola' intentions (whatever that means) and they used a master that was endorsed by Coppola. What does that mean? You can have a good master and a bad transfer of that master, right???
Its funny that those answers are geared in the "its the filmmaker's intention" etc. etc. Its the same argument Lucasfilm made when they obviously screwed up the sound of ANH in the DVD's. That seems to be the fall back excuse when the evidence is damming. Except Lucasfilm is Lucas, whereas the ownership for this release is being shuttled off like hot potatoes.
Furthermore, its interesting to note that this transfer was not approved by Coppola, if you read behind the lines of the post of the five defenses.
They had someone charged with preserving Coppola' intentions (whatever that means) and they used a master that was endorsed by Coppola. What does that mean? You can have a good master and a bad transfer of that master, right???
Last edited by chanster; 09-27-07 at 01:29 PM.
09-27-07, 01:31 PM
#63
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone at AVS who has seen it has basically said the same thing. 3 reviews so far. 3 out of 5 stars is the best the PQ has received. Someone at HTF said that, yes, on a THX properly calibrated display it looks too dark and flat BUT if you play with your brightness and contrast it looks better and all the details are there. Even when I adjusted my PJ and craked the brightness WAY, WAY up to the MAX, all the details are NOT there.
And if they DID transfer so a normal calibrated monitor, or PJ makes it look VERY bad and you MUST adust your display to view it sort of correctly, isn't that like a bad mastering job on say, an audio CD where you would have to crank your bass on your amp all the way up for it to sound "normal"...? I would just call it a bad mastering job or a bad transfer.
I completely understand what paidgeek said. So, this is the way they want it to look. Ok.
Too bad. The amazingly colorful and wonderful costumes that EIKO did, (which look FAB in her book) look like hell. The wondeful earth tones of the vampire hunters clothes? Dull, Everything almost looks grey.
SB dvd
and the BD, color severely reduced EXCEPT for the faces.
And if they DID transfer so a normal calibrated monitor, or PJ makes it look VERY bad and you MUST adust your display to view it sort of correctly, isn't that like a bad mastering job on say, an audio CD where you would have to crank your bass on your amp all the way up for it to sound "normal"...? I would just call it a bad mastering job or a bad transfer.
I completely understand what paidgeek said. So, this is the way they want it to look. Ok.
Too bad. The amazingly colorful and wonderful costumes that EIKO did, (which look FAB in her book) look like hell. The wondeful earth tones of the vampire hunters clothes? Dull, Everything almost looks grey.
SB dvd
and the BD, color severely reduced EXCEPT for the faces.
Last edited by Davy Mack; 09-27-07 at 01:34 PM.
09-27-07, 01:44 PM
#64
Moderator
Originally Posted by chanster
Well, in that case, they should just say, we didn't do it. Their defense of the transfer (see pro-b's statement) indicates they were involved with, since they seem to have so many answers.
Its funny that those answers are geared in the "its the filmmaker's intention" etc. etc. Its the same argument Lucasfilm made when they obviously screwed up the sound of ANH in the DVD's. That seems to be the fall back excuse when the evidence is damming. Except Lucasfilm is Lucas, whereas the ownership for this release is being shuttled off like hot potatoes.
Furthermore, its interesting to note that this transfer was not approved by Coppola, if you read behind the lines of the post of the five defenses.
They had someone charged with preserving Coppola' intentions (whatever that means) and they used a master that was endorsed by Coppola. What does that mean? You can have a good master and a bad transfer of that master, right???
Its funny that those answers are geared in the "its the filmmaker's intention" etc. etc. Its the same argument Lucasfilm made when they obviously screwed up the sound of ANH in the DVD's. That seems to be the fall back excuse when the evidence is damming. Except Lucasfilm is Lucas, whereas the ownership for this release is being shuttled off like hot potatoes.
Furthermore, its interesting to note that this transfer was not approved by Coppola, if you read behind the lines of the post of the five defenses.
They had someone charged with preserving Coppola' intentions (whatever that means) and they used a master that was endorsed by Coppola. What does that mean? You can have a good master and a bad transfer of that master, right???
so in terms of the BluRay edition are the following flaws:
1) colour adjustments
2) darkening issues
3) changed subtitles
4) possible recalibration of sound, notably in the surround sound channels and lack of bass.
anything else?
09-27-07, 02:27 PM
#65
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chanster
Well, in that case, they should just say, we didn't do it.
Giles' explanation is precisely the case here: SONY simply put the approved transfer on a BR, packaged it, and put it on the market. Period.
The statement clearly explains that Coppola opted for a certain look and feel that (too bad for some of us with strong opinions) appear not to match certain quality expectations.
Furthermore, I don't think that Coppola should come up and explain his reasoning behind this approved transfer since essentially this is what you ask for given it was Zoetrope not SONY that did the mastering. He has got far more credibility than all of us on this forum, and elsewhere.
If this is what he felt his work should look like then I am fine with it. After all SDVD and now BR/HDDVD's mission was/is, or so I assumed, to present the creator's vision in the best possible form and format to the viewer. Reading the above statement provided by Paidgeek I think the process is in tact as far as Coppola's Dracula is concerned.
Point: I am not defending or criticizing this new transfer! Just stating the obvious which is that when a direct statement is highlighting that this is what the creator of the film approved...all else is simply speculations.
As to clean look, details, etc...clearly a non-sense of paramount proportions rivaling that which Blu-Ray.com unleashed when 300 was released where "knowledgeable" fans criticized the "overwhelming amount of grain".
BR isn't meant to dazzle anyone with picture details! Just like HDDVD, it is meant to offer the truest possible presentation of the creator's vision.
Pro-B
Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 09-27-07 at 02:33 PM.
09-27-07, 02:39 PM
#66
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statement clearly explains that Coppola opted for a certain look and feel that (too bad for some of us with strong opinions) appear not to match certain quality expectations
Last edited by chanster; 09-27-07 at 02:42 PM.
09-27-07, 02:43 PM
#67
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chanster
Please tell me where it says Coppola opted for this look.
The masters used for the DVD versions of this title were not endorsed by Mr. Coppola, the BD version is.
Mr. Coppola intentionally shunned digital special effects techniques on this film in order to get a result that had the look of the classic horror films.
Mr. Coppola intentionally shunned digital special effects techniques on this film in order to get a result that had the look of the classic horror films.
09-27-07, 02:53 PM
#68
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what does endorsing mean exactly? I mean in this context, given that the person already stated that "rep from Zoetrope" was the person who was involved with the process. Not Coppola.
And what does endorsing masters have to do with the actual transfer seen on the disc.?
And special effects have nothing to do with the issue.
And what does endorsing masters have to do with the actual transfer seen on the disc.?
And special effects have nothing to do with the issue.
09-27-07, 03:05 PM
#69
Moderator
Originally Posted by chanster
And what does endorsing mean exactly? I mean in this context, given that the person already stated that "rep from Zoetrope" was the person who was involved with the process. Not Coppola.
And what does endorsing masters have to do with the actual transfer seen on the disc.?
And special effects have nothing to do with the issue.
And what does endorsing masters have to do with the actual transfer seen on the disc.?
And special effects have nothing to do with the issue.
09-27-07, 03:09 PM
#70
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I figured this whole mess out!
Sony got the Dracula master from the thieves that stole his computer!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/entert...32279120070927
Sony got the Dracula master from the thieves that stole his computer!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/entert...32279120070927
09-27-07, 03:14 PM
#71
Moderator
Originally Posted by chanster
I figured this whole mess out!
Sony got the Dracula master from the thieves that stole his computer!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/entert...32279120070927
Sony got the Dracula master from the thieves that stole his computer!
http://uk.reuters.com/article/entert...32279120070927
09-27-07, 03:33 PM
#73
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point, I've just said "F" it. I'm getting the standard DVD edition that is being released day-and-date with the Blu-Ray, and that's just for the special features. I'm also keeping my Superbit edition. I wash my hands of this whole stupid mess. They can say that they are trying to remain true to the intentions of the director, but I remember how this movie looked in theaters, DVD, and hell, even VHS. This new Blu-Ray is not it.
09-27-07, 06:05 PM
#75
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.digitalaudiovideo.com/blu...iews_14772.htm
another poor PQ review
For a film of such visual beauty, it is a disappointment that it looks so dated. One would hope more could have been done for the visual quality. With a direct comparison to dvd, there aren't too many marketable difference. Presented in 1.85:1 widescreen and encoded at 1080p, grain is often a consistent problem. Many of the foggy nighttime scenes are difficult to see.(!!!! my point exactly!) I suppose that's the point of a foggy scene, but I do believe more could have been done. On the plus sides, the colors are quite strong, especially the red of Count Dracula's robe. Overall detail is often lacking, however- with a general softness to the frame.
Well, I did get the new disc. Am about as big a fan of the film as they come (I actually went to the winery to see some of the costumes on display) and I agree fully with what Bracke and almost every other person here who actually owns the disc has said.
from avs
At this point, I too was trying to defend a disc that I didn't actually own and hadn't watched yet as well.
People at other sites actually watching it said similar.
from hdd
Someone at Hometheaterforum said that initially with his monitor set to THX levels, yes it seemed too dark, but after playing with his contrast, brightness and gamma, it looked "ok" and all the details were there.
Even when I adjusted my PJ and cranked the brightness WAY, WAY up, all the details though seen in the SB dvd's shadowy scenes were NOT there.
And if they DID transfer it so on a normal calibrated monitor, or PJ it looks VERY bad and you MUST adjust your display , contrast, brightness AND gamma to view it sort of correctly, isn't that like a bad mastering job on say, an audio CD where you would have to crank your bass on your amp all the way up and kill all the treble for it to sound "normal"...? I would just call it a bad mastering job or a bad transfer.
One shouldn't HAVE to fully recalibrate their display to watch one title. Isn't there some guide, some standard to use...?
Many similarities from all. Drab, washed out, desaturated, dark, couldn't make out what I was looking at, nighttime scenes are difficult to see, looked just like an sd-dvd....
The best review it's gotten from hometheaterspot STILL just gave it a 3 out of 5 for PQ. If this REALLY is the best they could do, I'm sending my resume over there!
another poor PQ review
For a film of such visual beauty, it is a disappointment that it looks so dated. One would hope more could have been done for the visual quality. With a direct comparison to dvd, there aren't too many marketable difference. Presented in 1.85:1 widescreen and encoded at 1080p, grain is often a consistent problem. Many of the foggy nighttime scenes are difficult to see.(!!!! my point exactly!) I suppose that's the point of a foggy scene, but I do believe more could have been done. On the plus sides, the colors are quite strong, especially the red of Count Dracula's robe. Overall detail is often lacking, however- with a general softness to the frame.
Well, I did get the new disc. Am about as big a fan of the film as they come (I actually went to the winery to see some of the costumes on display) and I agree fully with what Bracke and almost every other person here who actually owns the disc has said.
from avs
I just sat through most of it. I actually hooked up my Superbit version for a side-to-side comparison and noticed something very odd -- there seemed to be some digitally "enhanced" and/or muted colors in a few sequences in the Blu Ray version, especially when you see Winona Ryder in the courtyard and Sadie Frost comes in for the first time. Looks to me like Francis digitally "drained" some of the color out, as what colors are in the sequence look "enhanced" -- the backdrop looks unnaturally drab, while Frost's red hair looks virtually colorized in comparison to the rest of the image. I'm probably not doing a great job of explaining this but it does not look natural and seems to have been more than "cleaned up."
I noticed several other sequences and saw the same thing at various points -- and I don't think it's just that the contrast level is inherently higher in the Superbit version. A number of times the colors just looked like they had been tinkered with on the BD version, intentionally I would imagine on Coppola's end.
Overall, the BD transfer definitely is not spectacular. There's lots of noise, very little 3D "pop" and IMO not all of the grain is a result of the cinematographic process. I recall seeing the film in theaters and it wasn't as grainy as this disc is.
I agree with Beatboy that it's still worth upgrading from, but I would hold your expectations down because the movie just doesn't look as vibrant as I hoped it would.
I noticed several other sequences and saw the same thing at various points -- and I don't think it's just that the contrast level is inherently higher in the Superbit version. A number of times the colors just looked like they had been tinkered with on the BD version, intentionally I would imagine on Coppola's end.
Overall, the BD transfer definitely is not spectacular. There's lots of noise, very little 3D "pop" and IMO not all of the grain is a result of the cinematographic process. I recall seeing the film in theaters and it wasn't as grainy as this disc is.
I agree with Beatboy that it's still worth upgrading from, but I would hold your expectations down because the movie just doesn't look as vibrant as I hoped it would.
I too have seen an advance copy and confirm what is being said.
I was hoping for a great transfer but alas its underwhelming. Considering the effort gone into the overall package, which is impressive, I was hoping for more. To me this looks like 1 step up from the Superbit. Its very soft, has a tonne of grain and no pop. Colous seem desaturated too.
Still since there's probably no way in the forseeable future they'll double dip on this one its probably a decent upgrade over DVD, just a real shame they couldnt make the PQ really work.
I was hoping for a great transfer but alas its underwhelming. Considering the effort gone into the overall package, which is impressive, I was hoping for more. To me this looks like 1 step up from the Superbit. Its very soft, has a tonne of grain and no pop. Colous seem desaturated too.
Still since there's probably no way in the forseeable future they'll double dip on this one its probably a decent upgrade over DVD, just a real shame they couldnt make the PQ really work.
At this point, I too was trying to defend a disc that I didn't actually own and hadn't watched yet as well.
But the film itself WAS soft, had ALOT of grain, (the colors thing doesn't make sense as it was VERY colorful and even Bracke gave THAT part compliments)
The only way to make it sharper AND less grainy would be to DVNR the HELL out of it, THEN add artficial sharpening. Would probably look like a mess.
If it looks the way the film has always looked, that would work for me. I saw it in HD last year and even on cable, it looked good.
The only way to make it sharper AND less grainy would be to DVNR the HELL out of it, THEN add artficial sharpening. Would probably look like a mess.
If it looks the way the film has always looked, that would work for me. I saw it in HD last year and even on cable, it looked good.
It's not just the grain Dave. There's almost no HD-like detail in the picture at all. It's flat. It's drab. Of all the BD and HD-DVD discs out there this ranks near the bottom of all of them in terms of enhanced detail.
I realize you guys are trying to defend something you haven't seen (and are hoping for the best, as I would), but the reality is this almost feels like one of those not-that-far-removed-from-standard-def first round of BD discs from the very beginning of the format.
The colors, again, do seem to have been newly tinkered with in SOME sequences -- most notably when you see Winona Ryder and Sadie Frost for the first time. The whole backdrop appears to be completely black-and-white, the flowers and Ryder's dress almost appear to have been "colorized" unnaturally the way they stand out -- which I'm guessing is the result of Coppola dialing down some colors for this new remaster. There are numerous other sequences where I felt the same thing.
It's nothing like John Badham's "tweaking" of his DRACULA, thank god, but it's certainly noticeable at times...and strange. I look forward to you guys checking it out when you get it and seeing if you don't agree. Of course it could just be me
I realize you guys are trying to defend something you haven't seen (and are hoping for the best, as I would), but the reality is this almost feels like one of those not-that-far-removed-from-standard-def first round of BD discs from the very beginning of the format.
The colors, again, do seem to have been newly tinkered with in SOME sequences -- most notably when you see Winona Ryder and Sadie Frost for the first time. The whole backdrop appears to be completely black-and-white, the flowers and Ryder's dress almost appear to have been "colorized" unnaturally the way they stand out -- which I'm guessing is the result of Coppola dialing down some colors for this new remaster. There are numerous other sequences where I felt the same thing.
It's nothing like John Badham's "tweaking" of his DRACULA, thank god, but it's certainly noticeable at times...and strange. I look forward to you guys checking it out when you get it and seeing if you don't agree. Of course it could just be me
I got this title more than a week ago but unfortunately haven't had a chance to view it. I got that small chance just the other day. Now let me start off with I only watched the intro and if the rest of the film is like that, it's horrible. I think my SD DVDs look better upscaled than this. I'll go thru some of the chapters tonight but my outlook is not too positive.
And for all you out there that said the first Fifth Element was atrocious, I'd have to say it wasn't that bad. Especially after viewing this intro. If it doesn't get any better, it's going on ebay to get some money back for other purchases.
And for all you out there that said the first Fifth Element was atrocious, I'd have to say it wasn't that bad. Especially after viewing this intro. If it doesn't get any better, it's going on ebay to get some money back for other purchases.
from hdd
Thankfully, I was able to watch this before purchasing, and I have to concur that the PQ is terrible. I had to remind myself that this was an HD disc and not a SD DVD as the picture was flat, lacked any kind of color range, and was generally so dark in parts that I couldn't make out what I was looking at (e.g. exterior of the castle at night)...
Even when I adjusted my PJ and cranked the brightness WAY, WAY up, all the details though seen in the SB dvd's shadowy scenes were NOT there.
And if they DID transfer it so on a normal calibrated monitor, or PJ it looks VERY bad and you MUST adjust your display , contrast, brightness AND gamma to view it sort of correctly, isn't that like a bad mastering job on say, an audio CD where you would have to crank your bass on your amp all the way up and kill all the treble for it to sound "normal"...? I would just call it a bad mastering job or a bad transfer.
One shouldn't HAVE to fully recalibrate their display to watch one title. Isn't there some guide, some standard to use...?
Many similarities from all. Drab, washed out, desaturated, dark, couldn't make out what I was looking at, nighttime scenes are difficult to see, looked just like an sd-dvd....
The best review it's gotten from hometheaterspot STILL just gave it a 3 out of 5 for PQ. If this REALLY is the best they could do, I'm sending my resume over there!
Last edited by Davy Mack; 09-27-07 at 06:14 PM.