Looks like Bram Stoker's Dracula is coming to BD this fall...
10-01-07, 09:34 AM
#101
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Davy Mack
and so far 5 critics have chimed in and they have ALL given it mediocre to bad reviews for both PQ AND AQ. The best were Chad at hometheaterspot.com and Josh Z. who gave it a 3 out of 5 for PQ.
10-01-07, 10:14 AM
#102
Banned by request
No matter what you think of the colors, the lack of detail on this BD is just cruel. I know that the original film is soft, but this has so little improvement over the DVD that it's pretty damn difficult to tell the difference. I think there would still be disappointment about this title even if the colors were exactly the same as the superbit.
And by the way, I'd take anything beatboy says with a mountain, nay, a whole planet of salt.
And by the way, I'd take anything beatboy says with a mountain, nay, a whole planet of salt.
10-01-07, 12:21 PM
#103
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Davy Mack
and to show you how close in PQ detail the SBdvd is to the BD, (when the BD REALLY should have had ALOT more detail...
the SB dvd
the BD
the SB dvd
the BD
10-01-07, 01:35 PM
#104
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
I put my faith in Criterion more than Sony. Especially since they have been in damage control and issuing press releases that mislead the consumer as to Mr. Coppola's involvement in this disc.
Giles already commented twice on your posts and you seem to keep coming back claiming that it is SONY who are responsible for this release. This isn't the case! And what press releases are you referring to, there has been no official statement from SONY pertaining to the status of this disc. Let alone statements!! The explanation which is currently in circulation comes directly from a tech engineer at SONY which was prompted after initial reviews came out. So, your statement above is simply insinuative, as I already mentioned in an earlier post, claiming that SONY were at fault to begin with. They are not!
As to Criterion, their track record considering catalog-volume ratio is notably more inconsistent than that of SONY. Especially when it comes to color-correction, etc. (A quick look at Le Samourai, The Spirit of the Beehive, etc reveals plenty).
Back on topic...
Originally Posted by chanster
Endorsments can be just bought off.
Personally supervising is something completly different.
Personally supervising is something completly different.
Finally, I have no issues with your preference, assuming that would be the SDVD version of Dracula, but please discontinue your fabrications and misreadings of facts which have already been pointed out to you.
Pro-B
Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 10-01-07 at 01:38 PM.
10-01-07, 01:46 PM
#106
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 Davy Mack
Ok, first off. That's written by Josh. Beatboy as many know him. Nice guy and all and he does have some leads and gets discs early but he is NOT an officially declared "insider" like paidgeek is.
The main editor of Blu-Ray.com, whose name is Josh, isn't the person you refer to:BeatBoy. You simply have them confused due to unknown to me reason (perhaps name similarity).
Pro-B
10-01-07, 01:47 PM
#107
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you remember what you posted on P.3 of this thred, pro-bassoonist????? I mean cmon. You post things like this:
And it was bolded, BY YOU!!!
And then you call me out for saying Sony has not said anything officially.
Ridicoulous.
And yes, I would take Criterion quality over Sony quality anyday, especially since Criterion is often forced to dig far and wide for manageable film components. In the case of Dracula, FFC personally supervised it, so yes I will take FFC over something else overseen by someone who claims to know what FFC's intentions are.
Directly from the SONY lab (via Paidgeek):
And then you call me out for saying Sony has not said anything officially.
Ridicoulous.
And yes, I would take Criterion quality over Sony quality anyday, especially since Criterion is often forced to dig far and wide for manageable film components. In the case of Dracula, FFC personally supervised it, so yes I will take FFC over something else overseen by someone who claims to know what FFC's intentions are.
Last edited by chanster; 10-01-07 at 01:53 PM.
10-01-07, 01:52 PM
#108
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
Do you remember what you posted on P.3 of this thred, pro-bassoonist????? I mean cmon. You post things like this:
And it was bolded, BY YOU!!!
And then you call me out for saying Sony has not said anything officially.
Ridicoulous.
And it was bolded, BY YOU!!!
And then you call me out for saying Sony has not said anything officially.
Ridicoulous.
Pro-B
10-01-07, 01:56 PM
#109
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not going to argue with you, when you post things like "Directly from the SONY lab" and then turn around and bash people for taking it as word from Sony regarding the issue, I find it very disignenous and self-serving. Furthermore, the "via" indicates that Paidgeek is just a vehicle to get the message from SONY lab out to the public. And furthermore, I doubt somebody that works for Sony would go around and publish things directly related to his/her work without Sony approval.
Last edited by chanster; 10-01-07 at 01:59 PM.
10-01-07, 04:02 PM
#110
Banned by request
Alright guys, let's not keep bickering about this. Here are the facts:
Criterion released a laserdisc edition of Dracula whose transfer was personally supervised by Francis Ford Coppola.
Sony released Dracula on DVD with colors similar to the Criterion laserdisc, but not exactly the same (it seems a lot of the tints were pumped beyond what we get on the LD, and most of the film is brighter). This transfer was NOT approved by Coppola.
Sony has now released a Blu-ray version of Dracula with drastically different colors than either previous version. Not only are the tints a different intensity, but sometimes a different color altogether. This transfer was supervised by a representative of American Zoetrope, who was overseeing it according to Francis Ford Coppola's wishes while he's out making movies again. As much as people say "Well, it's not Coppola directly involved," I highly doubt a representative would do a complete overhaul of the colors without getting orders from Coppola to do so. So I can only imagine that this is fairly close to what Coppola would have done had he been able to supervise the transfer himself, as far as the colors go. However, as far as the lack of detail and drop to black go, well, that's inexcusable. Someone was asleep at the wheel when they "remastered" the elements. Even soft films should look somewhat better in HD. Dracula has virtually no added detail, period. The colors we can debate until the cows come home, but somebody somewhere (I don't care if it's Sony or Zoetrope) dropped the ball on these other aspects of the transfer. That's the real issue.
Edit: Also, it's not up for debate that these colors are new for this release. They may very well be in line with what Coppola wants the film to look like now, but they're not in line with how they looked originally. So to say that all the old versions have incorrect colors is just revisionist history. The Criterion and the BD both have correct colors, they just represent different desires from the same director in different time periods.
Criterion released a laserdisc edition of Dracula whose transfer was personally supervised by Francis Ford Coppola.
Sony released Dracula on DVD with colors similar to the Criterion laserdisc, but not exactly the same (it seems a lot of the tints were pumped beyond what we get on the LD, and most of the film is brighter). This transfer was NOT approved by Coppola.
Sony has now released a Blu-ray version of Dracula with drastically different colors than either previous version. Not only are the tints a different intensity, but sometimes a different color altogether. This transfer was supervised by a representative of American Zoetrope, who was overseeing it according to Francis Ford Coppola's wishes while he's out making movies again. As much as people say "Well, it's not Coppola directly involved," I highly doubt a representative would do a complete overhaul of the colors without getting orders from Coppola to do so. So I can only imagine that this is fairly close to what Coppola would have done had he been able to supervise the transfer himself, as far as the colors go. However, as far as the lack of detail and drop to black go, well, that's inexcusable. Someone was asleep at the wheel when they "remastered" the elements. Even soft films should look somewhat better in HD. Dracula has virtually no added detail, period. The colors we can debate until the cows come home, but somebody somewhere (I don't care if it's Sony or Zoetrope) dropped the ball on these other aspects of the transfer. That's the real issue.
Edit: Also, it's not up for debate that these colors are new for this release. They may very well be in line with what Coppola wants the film to look like now, but they're not in line with how they looked originally. So to say that all the old versions have incorrect colors is just revisionist history. The Criterion and the BD both have correct colors, they just represent different desires from the same director in different time periods.
Last edited by Supermallet; 10-01-07 at 04:05 PM.
10-01-07, 05:27 PM
#111
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Champaign, IL, USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, how testy this thread has gotten....
Let me interject a few comments and questions. First, amongst all the debate about the supervision of the transfer (or lack thereof), it doesn't sound like anyone has considered that it was done off of, presumably, a fifteen-year-old print that may be badly in need of restoration. When Lucas set about to do the special editions of the Star Wars flicks in the mid-to-late 90s, the first thing he had to do was restore the original Star Wars ("A New Hope"). The colors had faded badly--for example, Darth Vader was now navy blue instead of black. So it's possible that some of the difference in color between the BD and the SB DVD is due to the passage of time and degradation of the print--though probably not enough to turn Old Vlad's hair from white to puke-green, as in the one screen-cap.
Second, a transfer supervised by someone other than the director, based on the director's perceived wishes while the director is off doing other things, may not result in a final product the director is pleased with. The 1992 so-called "Director's Cut" of BladeRunner was done in accordance with Ridley Scott's notes on how he'd revise the movie, given the chance, but he did not do the work himself and was less than satisfied with the result (hence the 2007 "Final Cut," which I await with drool dripping into my beard; ok, probably TMI).
Third, it's possible, though not necessarily all that likely, that Coppola didn't really care all that much about how this movie was redone for the new release. Based on what I've read about his experiences making the movie and that supposedly in the commentary track, he confesses to not having watched it in years, he may not have put much heart or thought into the new version. He may have just told someone from Zoetrope, probably someone he trusted, "Spiff it up, make it look current--use your best judgment, and I'll sign off on it." If you look at a lot of the more recent big movies, starting with "Saving Private Ryan" but also including "The Lord of the Rings" and "Flags of Our Fathers," bleeding the color out of the pictures is very popular right now, and so the Zoetrope rep may have opted for that. Or who knows, Coppola may have just said, "make it look like "Lord of the Rings'." And if that's the extent of Lucas-like revisionism that we have to contend with, we can consider ourselves lucky.
Finally, and this one is a question, does the new standard-def DVD have the same altered colors and darker look? I've heard people say that it does, and others say that it doesn't. Since I still have only a standard def player and won't be taking the hi def plunge until the format war ends (thanks for delaying that, Paramount!), I'm currently only concerned about what the standard def disc looks like.
Let me interject a few comments and questions. First, amongst all the debate about the supervision of the transfer (or lack thereof), it doesn't sound like anyone has considered that it was done off of, presumably, a fifteen-year-old print that may be badly in need of restoration. When Lucas set about to do the special editions of the Star Wars flicks in the mid-to-late 90s, the first thing he had to do was restore the original Star Wars ("A New Hope"). The colors had faded badly--for example, Darth Vader was now navy blue instead of black. So it's possible that some of the difference in color between the BD and the SB DVD is due to the passage of time and degradation of the print--though probably not enough to turn Old Vlad's hair from white to puke-green, as in the one screen-cap.
Second, a transfer supervised by someone other than the director, based on the director's perceived wishes while the director is off doing other things, may not result in a final product the director is pleased with. The 1992 so-called "Director's Cut" of BladeRunner was done in accordance with Ridley Scott's notes on how he'd revise the movie, given the chance, but he did not do the work himself and was less than satisfied with the result (hence the 2007 "Final Cut," which I await with drool dripping into my beard; ok, probably TMI).
Third, it's possible, though not necessarily all that likely, that Coppola didn't really care all that much about how this movie was redone for the new release. Based on what I've read about his experiences making the movie and that supposedly in the commentary track, he confesses to not having watched it in years, he may not have put much heart or thought into the new version. He may have just told someone from Zoetrope, probably someone he trusted, "Spiff it up, make it look current--use your best judgment, and I'll sign off on it." If you look at a lot of the more recent big movies, starting with "Saving Private Ryan" but also including "The Lord of the Rings" and "Flags of Our Fathers," bleeding the color out of the pictures is very popular right now, and so the Zoetrope rep may have opted for that. Or who knows, Coppola may have just said, "make it look like "Lord of the Rings'." And if that's the extent of Lucas-like revisionism that we have to contend with, we can consider ourselves lucky.
Finally, and this one is a question, does the new standard-def DVD have the same altered colors and darker look? I've heard people say that it does, and others say that it doesn't. Since I still have only a standard def player and won't be taking the hi def plunge until the format war ends (thanks for delaying that, Paramount!), I'm currently only concerned about what the standard def disc looks like.
10-01-07, 06:06 PM
#112
Banned by request
Originally Posted by Olorin
Let me interject a few comments and questions. First, amongst all the debate about the supervision of the transfer (or lack thereof), it doesn't sound like anyone has considered that it was done off of, presumably, a fifteen-year-old print that may be badly in need of restoration. When Lucas set about to do the special editions of the Star Wars flicks in the mid-to-late 90s, the first thing he had to do was restore the original Star Wars ("A New Hope"). The colors had faded badly--for example, Darth Vader was now navy blue instead of black. So it's possible that some of the difference in color between the BD and the SB DVD is due to the passage of time and degradation of the print--though probably not enough to turn Old Vlad's hair from white to puke-green, as in the one screen-cap.
Originally Posted by Olorin
Second, a transfer supervised by someone other than the director, based on the director's perceived wishes while the director is off doing other things, may not result in a final product the director is pleased with. The 1992 so-called "Director's Cut" of BladeRunner was done in accordance with Ridley Scott's notes on how he'd revise the movie, given the chance, but he did not do the work himself and was less than satisfied with the result (hence the 2007 "Final Cut," which I await with drool dripping into my beard; ok, probably TMI).
Originally Posted by Olorin
Third, it's possible, though not necessarily all that likely, that Coppola didn't really care all that much about how this movie was redone for the new release. Based on what I've read about his experiences making the movie and that supposedly in the commentary track, he confesses to not having watched it in years, he may not have put much heart or thought into the new version.
Originally Posted by Olorin
He may have just told someone from Zoetrope, probably someone he trusted, "Spiff it up, make it look current--use your best judgment, and I'll sign off on it." If you look at a lot of the more recent big movies, starting with "Saving Private Ryan" but also including "The Lord of the Rings" and "Flags of Our Fathers," bleeding the color out of the pictures is very popular right now, and so the Zoetrope rep may have opted for that. Or who knows, Coppola may have just said, "make it look like "Lord of the Rings'." And if that's the extent of Lucas-like revisionism that we have to contend with, we can consider ourselves lucky.
10-01-07, 06:35 PM
#113
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Olorin
Let me interject a few comments and questions. First, amongst all the debate about the supervision of the transfer (or lack thereof), it doesn't sound like anyone has considered that it was done off of, presumably, a fifteen-year-old print that may be badly in need of restoration. When Lucas set about to do the special editions of the Star Wars flicks in the mid-to-late 90s, the first thing he had to do was restore the original Star Wars ("A New Hope"). The colors had faded badly--for example, Darth Vader was now navy blue instead of black. So it's possible that some of the difference in color between the BD and the SB DVD is due to the passage of time and degradation of the print--though probably not enough to turn Old Vlad's hair from white to puke-green, as in the one screen-cap.
The film stock that Dracula was shot on should be much more stable, however, and the studios are more careful about their storage conditions now. I seriously doubt that the issues with this transfer have anything to do with the age of the movie or the condition of its film elements.
10-01-07, 07:21 PM
#114
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
I have not seen or reviewed the Blu-ray. The High-Def Digest review was written by Peter Bracke.
10-02-07, 12:01 AM
#115
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our own Shannon T. Nutt isn't too happy with this puppy.
http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...or=1#topoftabs
http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...or=1#topoftabs
I'm not kidding, folks - of all the hi-def movies I own on both formats, Bram Stoker's Dracula is far and away the worst looking of the lot.
10-02-07, 09:22 AM
#116
Professional film preservationist Robert Harris calls the Dracula BD a "perfect restoration."
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=262992
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=262992
A few words about...™ Bram Stoker's Dracula -- in BD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I've received a BD copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula, and have spent quality time with it, my immediate reaction is that finally I have a high definition (BD) version of a film that I've always enjoyed.
This is somewhat tempered, however, by the public reaction which has been coming from any number of directions. And these reactions, commentaries and reviews have virtually all been wrong.
Nothing that we're discussing here is opinion. Something either correctly brings a film to video, or it does not. This is the first time that I've been totally happy with Dracula on video.
My happiness is however, not the point.
Sony's mastering staff is happy. Zoetrope's people are happy. And they should be. They have jointly worked to see that this release is as perfect as possible in recreating the look of the film as it was seen in it's original release, and that effort has been successful.
They have not accomplished this by some seat-of-the-pants, I've got a curtain in the attic, "Let's put on a show" ethic.
Nor have they guessed.
They've screened the original approved answer print and have meticulously matched the HD master to that print.
This is done in the same way that one would restore a film.
Earlier versions of FFC's Dracula were properly tuned for earlier video systems, that among other problems turned black into video noise. For that reason they were never what they should have been, as electronic goals needed to be met. To put it simply, the ability of the reproducing medium was not yet in tune with the art to be reproduced. They always came as closely as they could. And understanding the limitations of the medium, were approved. There was no way around this.
That is the reason why earlier video releases don't matter.
One of the extraordinary points of the high definition medium is that finally we can reproduce films to look as they did on film.
The new transfer of Dracula is a magnificent work, which along with the audio with it's heavy lows, delicate highs and aural details -- the sound of mice walking quickly across a beam -- is miraculous to behold on home video.
Dracula is a dark film. It has always been a dark film.
It is also a film created not by digital pyrotechnics, but rather by analogue effects and cinematic slight of hand. This is an old fashioned horror film. Print it too bright and the magic is revealed; the horror disappears; the story vanishes, and one sees through the magic.
The color in this release finally matches that of the original prints -- controlled, colorful when necessary -- but dark. The blacks on this release work well, and shadow detail, when needed is at hand.
Resolution is beautiful. Flesh tones, for both the living as well as the dead, replicate the original tones of the first 35mm prints. Dupe generations are less finely resolved, but work as they did originally.
So here's the bottom line.
Not only is there nothing wrong with this release, it is one of the most perfect to come from the Sony vaults. Those of you who know of me, are aware that Sony and I don't always mix well. But when they do something correctly, they are to be honored for their efforts. And this time, they are to be honored.
Everything here is correct, handled with precision, professionalism and a obvious love for the art that is our cinema.
Bram Stoker's Dracula, from FFC and Sony is Extremely Highly Recommended.
RAH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that I've received a BD copy of Bram Stoker's Dracula, and have spent quality time with it, my immediate reaction is that finally I have a high definition (BD) version of a film that I've always enjoyed.
This is somewhat tempered, however, by the public reaction which has been coming from any number of directions. And these reactions, commentaries and reviews have virtually all been wrong.
Nothing that we're discussing here is opinion. Something either correctly brings a film to video, or it does not. This is the first time that I've been totally happy with Dracula on video.
My happiness is however, not the point.
Sony's mastering staff is happy. Zoetrope's people are happy. And they should be. They have jointly worked to see that this release is as perfect as possible in recreating the look of the film as it was seen in it's original release, and that effort has been successful.
They have not accomplished this by some seat-of-the-pants, I've got a curtain in the attic, "Let's put on a show" ethic.
Nor have they guessed.
They've screened the original approved answer print and have meticulously matched the HD master to that print.
This is done in the same way that one would restore a film.
Earlier versions of FFC's Dracula were properly tuned for earlier video systems, that among other problems turned black into video noise. For that reason they were never what they should have been, as electronic goals needed to be met. To put it simply, the ability of the reproducing medium was not yet in tune with the art to be reproduced. They always came as closely as they could. And understanding the limitations of the medium, were approved. There was no way around this.
That is the reason why earlier video releases don't matter.
One of the extraordinary points of the high definition medium is that finally we can reproduce films to look as they did on film.
The new transfer of Dracula is a magnificent work, which along with the audio with it's heavy lows, delicate highs and aural details -- the sound of mice walking quickly across a beam -- is miraculous to behold on home video.
Dracula is a dark film. It has always been a dark film.
It is also a film created not by digital pyrotechnics, but rather by analogue effects and cinematic slight of hand. This is an old fashioned horror film. Print it too bright and the magic is revealed; the horror disappears; the story vanishes, and one sees through the magic.
The color in this release finally matches that of the original prints -- controlled, colorful when necessary -- but dark. The blacks on this release work well, and shadow detail, when needed is at hand.
Resolution is beautiful. Flesh tones, for both the living as well as the dead, replicate the original tones of the first 35mm prints. Dupe generations are less finely resolved, but work as they did originally.
So here's the bottom line.
Not only is there nothing wrong with this release, it is one of the most perfect to come from the Sony vaults. Those of you who know of me, are aware that Sony and I don't always mix well. But when they do something correctly, they are to be honored for their efforts. And this time, they are to be honored.
Everything here is correct, handled with precision, professionalism and a obvious love for the art that is our cinema.
Bram Stoker's Dracula, from FFC and Sony is Extremely Highly Recommended.
RAH
10-02-07, 09:35 AM
#117
DVD Talk Legend
I of course respect Robert Harris' film restoration work, but there are times when he's way off the mark, and this appears to be one of them. His comments about tuning the picture so that black doesn't turn into video noise have absolutely nothing to do with why the colors are so far different from every previous edition of the movie, including the Coppola-approved Criterion laserdisc. Also, it's one thing to say that the movie is supposed to be dark, but it's quite another when all shadow detail is crushed beyond visibility.
10-02-07, 10:31 AM
#118
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by chanster
Our own Shannon T. Nutt isn't too happy with this puppy.
All this chat about WHO is responsible for the transfer is ultimately irrelevant. The fact is that this is an awful transfer, no matter whose doorstep we place it on.
10-02-07, 10:43 AM
#119
Banned by request
Originally Posted by Josh Z
I of course respect Robert Harris' film restoration work, but there are times when he's way off the mark, and this appears to be one of them. His comments about tuning the picture so that black doesn't turn into video noise have absolutely nothing to do with why the colors are so far different from every previous edition of the movie, including the Coppola-approved Criterion laserdisc. Also, it's one thing to say that the movie is supposed to be dark, but it's quite another when all shadow detail is crushed beyond visibility.
10-02-07, 10:53 AM
#120
Well, I personally like the newer colors but it does seem dark, although I could live with it. This is a big YMMV on your own personal tastes. And I don't have a Blu-ray player, damn it, so I can't see it for myself!
10-02-07, 10:53 AM
#121
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
I of course respect Robert Harris' film restoration work, but there are times when he's way off the mark, and this appears to be one of them. His comments about tuning the picture so that black doesn't turn into video noise have absolutely nothing to do with why the colors are so far different from every previous edition of the movie, including the Coppola-approved Criterion laserdisc. Also, it's one thing to say that the movie is supposed to be dark, but it's quite another when all shadow detail is crushed beyond visibility.
10-02-07, 11:34 AM
#122
DVD Talk Legend
My copy is on its way so I'll wait to form my own opinion.
Question:
If the answer print does indeed look exactly like the BD in terms of color, black level and detail, would you still be dissatisfied?
Question:
If the answer print does indeed look exactly like the BD in terms of color, black level and detail, would you still be dissatisfied?
10-02-07, 01:31 PM
#123
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesn't someone call up American Zoetrope and ask them if they can maybe release a statement on this issue?
If they are aware of it, they must also be aware that sales are gonna take a hit bigtime unless they release a formal explanation about why the print is allegedly too dark, the colors are so different, the sharpness so lacking, etc.
Just my .02. I know I'd rather have a formal explanation than other people's opinions- even if it is from restoration expert Robert Harris.
If they are aware of it, they must also be aware that sales are gonna take a hit bigtime unless they release a formal explanation about why the print is allegedly too dark, the colors are so different, the sharpness so lacking, etc.
Just my .02. I know I'd rather have a formal explanation than other people's opinions- even if it is from restoration expert Robert Harris.
10-02-07, 02:22 PM
#124
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NY NY
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by indiansbsa
Why doesn't someone call up American Zoetrope and ask them if they can maybe release a statement on this issue?
If they are aware of it, they must also be aware that sales are gonna take a hit bigtime unless they release a formal explanation about why the print is allegedly too dark, the colors are so different, the sharpness so lacking, etc.
Just my .02. I know I'd rather have a formal explanation than other people's opinions- even if it is from restoration expert Robert Harris.
If they are aware of it, they must also be aware that sales are gonna take a hit bigtime unless they release a formal explanation about why the print is allegedly too dark, the colors are so different, the sharpness so lacking, etc.
Just my .02. I know I'd rather have a formal explanation than other people's opinions- even if it is from restoration expert Robert Harris.
Sony never exactly admitted they royally screwed the first BD pressing of FIFTH ELEMENT. They sheepishly remastered and reissued it and offered a free trade-in program for people who bought the first ones.
BUT they never pulled the first batch of discs from store shelves and have never admitted on the record that there was anything technically "wrong" with the initial transfer. I can go to Best Buy right now and pick up a bad FE. Unless the discs don't play, no studio is ever going to recall a release due to a lousy transfer.
I have the utmost respect for Robert Harris, but he's way off on this one. I saw BSD during its opening weekend in the theater, owned the Criterion LD and can say without hesitation that this transfer is NOT what it should have and could have been.
Last edited by Rusty James; 10-02-07 at 02:25 PM.
10-02-07, 02:23 PM
#125
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Jim
You should go to the HTF thread and ask him about that.