Now no laughing....I like this movie but what I want is a dvd review. Mainly the audio. Anybody?

I used to have this DVD. The video is HORRIBLE! A lot of people complain that it is too dark, but I don't agree with that. This movie appeared quite underlit even in the theaters. The darkness is intentional. However, the picture on the DVD is WAY TOO SOFT. It looks fuzzy and out of focus. Completely ruins the picture. It's anamorphic, but makes absolutely no difference to the sharpness. Avoid.

The audio is nice, but it does not outweigh the crap picture. I was very disappointed in this DVD.

Very pathetic DVD!! It's only got a trailer and that it!Unless you count scene selection ! The movie was OK,I'd see if you can find it for free at local library before you buy it!At least at the library, DVD's and videos are free(as long as you being everything back before the due date of course!)

Whew! I thought I was the only one who thought this transfer sucked. It's WAY too blurry of a picture.The trailer looks great, however.

Well I got it anyways. This is sort of a guilty pleasure movie and I'm only concerned about the sound. I don't have a 16x9 so I wasn't too worried about the picture. Thanks for the input though everybody........

chili

The picture looks terrible on any set, anamorphic or not. It is truly exceptionally bad, not merely bad for nitpickers, man.

Jesus! Looks like a bad choice. Well I'll find out........

Wow, you guys just don't get it, do you?
Director Peter Hyams, also the film's DP,
intentionally shot the film underexposed.
In theatres, as mentioned in this thread,
THE RELIC displayed cutting-edge high-contrast
cinematography. Depending on the print you've
seen in theatres, the light to dark ratios
varied greatly.

The DVD, on the other hand, accurately captures
the visual dynamic that Peter Hyams was looking for.
When displayed on an HD set, the image looks exacty
as I remember it in theatres. Based on the overall
look of studio pictures in general, Hyams went out
of his way to produce visuals that went against the
Hollywood norm. The DVD's 16:9 enhancement was terrific. My only gripe is the DVD's lack of DTS, but that's a Paramount thing. Hopefully releases in the coming year
will sport DTS playback.

I liked the movie when played as originally intended.... just the DVD player ON & playing the movie....

TV & Surround Receiver OFF!

Chili Palmer:

...this is what 'The Big Picture' (where they watch their DVDs projected onto a 100" screen!) has to say about this particular transfer to DVD:

"IMAGE
Considering just how hazy and dark most of this film is, Paramount has done an amazing job on this transfer. The fact that it's an anamorphic AND RSDL disc, no doubt has a great deal to do with this. We're thankful that the folks on the 'mount decided to get back with the program and start pressing 16x9 enhanced discs again.

The most important note to make here, and those who've seen THE RELIC know what I mean, is that the blacks are deep and solid, and the image is sharp and detailed - no matter the lighting key. This film would be completely unwatchable if this wasn't the case. Contrast and brightness levels are good and consistent throughout. If you've not seen THE RELIC before, you may hastily surmise that the transfer has low brightness levels and an image that's simply too dark to sit through. Well, in a way I agree with you, it does seem too dark, and often you wonder just what the heck you're looking at. But believe me, this is exactly what director/cinematographer Hyams had in mind. That's right, the man lights and shoots his own films. He's just about the only guy in Tinsel Town doing that.

Colors are very well rendered, vivid, and fully saturated - when present. Usually what we're looking at is grays, deep blues, and black - shrouded in haze, mist, and water from overhead sprinklers. These duller colors also look good. We noted no image break up or 'tiling' - even when the party goers are hip deep in black water, in a narrow, dimly-lit passageway beneath the museum. The greatest bursts of color come in the last reel, when Dr. Green has a showdown with the beast in the lab. There are some great balls of fire, as various flammables are lit by the good doctor to toast the big brain-eater before it does her in. The reds, oranges, and yellows are bright and vivid, and the flames look natural, with no 'blooming' or 'bleeding.'

Flesh tones, when visible in the dim lighting, look natural. The image is very clean, and free of distracting nics, scars, and scratches. This is a very good transfer from the folks at Paramount. High marks."

...and here's what 'DVD Verdict' has to say:

"The Relic is presented in 2.35:1 widescreen, and looks generally good. This is a very dark film, and some shots seemed a tad bit soft, but overall the transfer is very nice. I detected no artifacting, no color bleeding...a decent transfer overall. Audio was equally done well, the Dolby 5.1 mix being smooth with no drowning out of music, dialogue or sound effects. Paramount does a nice job with both the transfer and the audio mix."

...however, and yet... look at what 'Films On Disc' has to say:

http://www.filmsondisc.com/DVDpages/relic.htm

. . .



[Edited by Hendrik on 06-16-01 at 08:10 AM]

Thanks Hendrik!!

Does shooting film underexposed also result in the blurriness? I don't see anyone complaining about the darkness in this thread, but I also don't recall it being so soft looking in the the theatre.

As for the blurriness that you described,
again when viewing THE RELIC on an a TOSHIBA
HD set along with a Panasonic H1000 Progressive-
Scan DVD player, the image really looks terrific.
The darkness, or deep blacks, are simply wonderful,
and as I explained earlier, this IS THE WAY that
director Peter Hyams intended his cinematography
to look. Any softness in the image WAS INTENDED
and WAS NOT a flaw of the authoring or transfer.

When all is said and done, THE RELIC looks even
better on DVD as compared to its theatrical run.
The transfer to DVD actually brightened the image
slightly, although it created a nominal degree
of film grain throughout.

You're entitled to your opinion, but it may be
the system that you are playing THE RELIC over
that is amplifying the softness and darkness issues.

This Paramount disc really benefits from a
Progressive-Scan DVD player and upconverted
playback over a Widescreen HD set.

[Edited by highdef on 06-17-01 at 06:38 AM]

Originally posted by ipkevin:
Does shooting film underexposed also result in the blurriness?

It very well can. Understand, I don't have the DVD of THE RELIC (yet) so I can't vouch for the accuracy of the transfer, but looking at the science of filmmaking/photography, there is a concept referred to as "depth of field". It is a complicated issue, but the (very) basic breakdown is that the lower the light levels, the thinner the "layer" of things that the camera's lens can keep in sharp focus. Another example of the blurriness that can result from low-lit objects falling outside of the depth of field is BARRY LYNDON, which was filmed at extremely low light levels (though the look of the film is markedly different from THE RELIC's). Conversely, when a scene is brightly and evenly lit, usually everything in the scene, from details close to the lens to objects well off in the distance, is in sharp focus. From what I remember of THE RELIC's look, I'm sure this depth of field effect contributes more than a little to the movie's blurry look, so don't blame the filmmakers--it's just science.

[Edited by Filmmaker on 06-18-01 at 12:46 PM]

Filmmaker, I’m not sure your explanation is entirely accurate; depth of field and underexposure are quite different. Depth of field is a function of the aperture setting and the focal length of the lens. Underexposure results from too little light reaching the film. It’s possible to underexpose film even in fairly bright light or even overexpose in dim settings due incorrect aperture settings.

I'm not proceeding from the theory that THE RELIC was underexposed (taking the T-stop on the aperture down a notch or two under the recommended setting for a given light level) during production so much as filmed at extreme low-light levels. The simple fact is, the less light you use to film a scene, the more limited your depth of field. It is a first-week lesson in film school that if you want a greater depth of field, you need to add more light.

The picture quality was weak and lacks extras. The sound was OK. Overall, it is a mediocre bare-bones DVD.