Bram Stoker's Dracula (Coppola) SE --> 10/2/07
10-04-07 | 08:30 PM
#176
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter Pan fracas? Anyways, what he said:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
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 agree. 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 agree. 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
10-04-07 | 08:49 PM
#177
Suspended
Thanks, but I found it myself. Here's the link: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=262992 Dr. Harris is gaga. And by reading between the lines I reconstructed what happened on HTF recently.
A very courageous guy named Dave Mack, who also posted his screen caps (photographs, really) on the DVDTalk - HD forum, called attention to the fact that this transfer was rather muddy and was immediately savaged by the usual HTF mob of sycophants - most of which had never seen the new transfer, just as I was for pointing out that the Platinum Edition of Peter Pan was also a piece of caca. He was banned as I was and the discussion forum was locked. This is HTF's usual circle-the-wagons reaction to any behaviour that might distract the consumer from the act of consuming and cause him to actually think and use his eyes
After Dr. Harris' rather disquieting but pious platitudes about the impossibility of transferring a film into the digital domain ("Let me say it loud and clear. THE STUDIOS ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRODUCING FILM ON VIDEO!") and the reaffirmation that no one can argue with an authority such as he, Mr. Mack was politely reinstated into the ranks of that august assembly with a stern warning to behave himself. The sycophants then put down their tea and crumpets, took out the lubricant and proceeded to organize a conciliatory circle jerk.
Nothing is revealed. Harris just confirmed that the DVD authors tried to follow the fabled answer print, which, for all we know, may have been half rotten or covered in bat guano. Mr. Harris didn't even deign to venture an opinion as to why all the colour values - except the flesh tones - were totally altered or why the shadow details he claims to see are only visible on his beautifully-appointed state-of-the-art system. Big friggin' deal!
A very courageous guy named Dave Mack, who also posted his screen caps (photographs, really) on the DVDTalk - HD forum, called attention to the fact that this transfer was rather muddy and was immediately savaged by the usual HTF mob of sycophants - most of which had never seen the new transfer, just as I was for pointing out that the Platinum Edition of Peter Pan was also a piece of caca. He was banned as I was and the discussion forum was locked. This is HTF's usual circle-the-wagons reaction to any behaviour that might distract the consumer from the act of consuming and cause him to actually think and use his eyes
After Dr. Harris' rather disquieting but pious platitudes about the impossibility of transferring a film into the digital domain ("Let me say it loud and clear. THE STUDIOS ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRODUCING FILM ON VIDEO!") and the reaffirmation that no one can argue with an authority such as he, Mr. Mack was politely reinstated into the ranks of that august assembly with a stern warning to behave himself. The sycophants then put down their tea and crumpets, took out the lubricant and proceeded to organize a conciliatory circle jerk.
Nothing is revealed. Harris just confirmed that the DVD authors tried to follow the fabled answer print, which, for all we know, may have been half rotten or covered in bat guano. Mr. Harris didn't even deign to venture an opinion as to why all the colour values - except the flesh tones - were totally altered or why the shadow details he claims to see are only visible on his beautifully-appointed state-of-the-art system. Big friggin' deal!
Last edited by baracine; 10-04-07 at 09:17 PM.
10-04-07 | 09:18 PM
#178
Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SD Dracula freezes at ch.17?
Originally Posted by bloomcounty
Hi,
I'm hoping someone here can help me out with this --
...
Does anybody else see this on theirs? Or is it possible I have a defective copy?
I'm hoping someone here can help me out with this --
...
Does anybody else see this on theirs? Or is it possible I have a defective copy?
I had a problem with my SD disc last night, as well. Everything was going great until I got to chapter 17, and then my player (I was using CinePlayer on my Dell PC) locked up, and the screen became pixelated. I could hear the drive churning away, and every 30-60 seconds or so, the film would advance a couple of frames, then freeze again.
I eventually managed to eject the disc, and when started at chapter 18, everything was fine. However, when I put the player into reverse so that I backed into ch.17 from the beginning of ch.18, it froze almost immediately. So, it looks like my copy may be defective, as well? I'm going to try it on another player, just to make sure.
Hope this helps,
BP
10-04-07 | 10:05 PM
#180
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to veer too off-topic, but does anyone know why the soundtrack left off the music cue where, near the end of the movie, Harker and Co. chase down Dracula? It always ticked me off, seeing as how that and the prologue music are my favorite cues in the film. If there was a way to mix out the dialogue and effects, I'd rip the DVD audio, but I don't know if there's any software capable of doing that (or at least any that's dumbed down enough for someone like me). 
10-04-07 | 10:59 PM
#181
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Simi Valley, CA
Originally Posted by baracine
Thanks, but I found it myself. Here's the link: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=262992 Dr. Harris is gaga. And by reading between the lines I reconstructed what happened on HTF recently.
A very courageous guy named Dave Mack, who also posted his screen caps (photographs, really) on the DVDTalk - HD forum, called attention to the fact that this transfer was rather muddy and was immediately savaged by the usual HTF mob of sycophants - most of which had never seen the new transfer, just as I was for pointing out that the Platinum Edition of Peter Pan was also a piece of caca. He was banned as I was and the discussion forum was locked. This is HTF's usual circle-the-wagons reaction to any behaviour that might distract the consumer from the act of consuming and cause him to actually think and use his eyes
After Dr. Harris' rather disquieting but pious platitudes about the impossibility of transferring a film into the digital domain ("Let me say it loud and clear. THE STUDIOS ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRODUCING FILM ON VIDEO!") and the reaffirmation that no one can argue with an authority such as he, Mr. Mack was politely reinstated into the ranks of that august assembly with a stern warning to behave himself. The sycophants then put down their tea and crumpets, took out the lubricant and proceeded to organize a conciliatory circle jerk.
Nothing is revealed. Harris just confirmed that the DVD authors tried to follow the fabled answer print, which, for all we know, may have been half rotten or covered in bat guano. Mr. Harris didn't even deign to venture an opinion as to why all the colour values - except the flesh tones - were totally altered or why the shadow details he claims to see are only visible on his beautifully-appointed state-of-the-art system. Big friggin' deal!
A very courageous guy named Dave Mack, who also posted his screen caps (photographs, really) on the DVDTalk - HD forum, called attention to the fact that this transfer was rather muddy and was immediately savaged by the usual HTF mob of sycophants - most of which had never seen the new transfer, just as I was for pointing out that the Platinum Edition of Peter Pan was also a piece of caca. He was banned as I was and the discussion forum was locked. This is HTF's usual circle-the-wagons reaction to any behaviour that might distract the consumer from the act of consuming and cause him to actually think and use his eyes
After Dr. Harris' rather disquieting but pious platitudes about the impossibility of transferring a film into the digital domain ("Let me say it loud and clear. THE STUDIOS ARE INCAPABLE OF REPRODUCING FILM ON VIDEO!") and the reaffirmation that no one can argue with an authority such as he, Mr. Mack was politely reinstated into the ranks of that august assembly with a stern warning to behave himself. The sycophants then put down their tea and crumpets, took out the lubricant and proceeded to organize a conciliatory circle jerk.
Nothing is revealed. Harris just confirmed that the DVD authors tried to follow the fabled answer print, which, for all we know, may have been half rotten or covered in bat guano. Mr. Harris didn't even deign to venture an opinion as to why all the colour values - except the flesh tones - were totally altered or why the shadow details he claims to see are only visible on his beautifully-appointed state-of-the-art system. Big friggin' deal!
This doesn't seem very complicated....everyone involved in this new special edition seems to think they have created a faithful rendering of the original presentation AND Coppola's intended presentation. You are painting them as either incompetent or conspiratorial liars. Or both.
This seems like a bunch of shit to me. It defies logic.
10-05-07 | 12:40 AM
#182
New Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The people complaining about this new transfer need to stop using the Superbit as their master print. What matters is what appeared in theaters, and what's on the Superbit is not what I remember. The film I saw was much darker, much more baroque. The Superbit is too bright with too many blues and oranges. It looks like a cartoonish facsimile.
This reminds me a little of The Double Life of Veronique, which Criterion released with a dramatically different transfer than what people were accustomed to from VHS and broadcast TV sources. Instead of saying, "Oh my god! This transfer sucks!" they said, "Oh. Now we can appreciate the film as it was originally intended." Why can't the people in this thread do the same?
This reminds me a little of The Double Life of Veronique, which Criterion released with a dramatically different transfer than what people were accustomed to from VHS and broadcast TV sources. Instead of saying, "Oh my god! This transfer sucks!" they said, "Oh. Now we can appreciate the film as it was originally intended." Why can't the people in this thread do the same?
10-05-07 | 01:30 AM
#183
Banned
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like when I saw ANIMAL HOUSE back in 1978 and that looked low-budget.
And it kept that look in all it's video releases except the last one.
Where the dvd tranfser looks great, but that's not the way it looked in the theater in 1978. Another example is the 2 WARRIORS dvd releases.
And it kept that look in all it's video releases except the last one.
Where the dvd tranfser looks great, but that's not the way it looked in the theater in 1978. Another example is the 2 WARRIORS dvd releases.
10-05-07 | 04:58 AM
#184
Suspended
Originally Posted by StealMeWinona
The people complaining about this new transfer need to stop using the Superbit as their master print. What matters is what appeared in theaters, and what's on the Superbit is not what I remember. The film I saw was much darker, much more baroque. The Superbit is too bright with too many blues and oranges. It looks like a cartoonish facsimile.
This reminds me a little of The Double Life of Veronique, which Criterion released with a dramatically different transfer than what people were accustomed to from VHS and broadcast TV sources. Instead of saying, "Oh my god! This transfer sucks!" they said, "Oh. Now we can appreciate the film as it was originally intended." Why can't the people in this thread do the same?
This reminds me a little of The Double Life of Veronique, which Criterion released with a dramatically different transfer than what people were accustomed to from VHS and broadcast TV sources. Instead of saying, "Oh my god! This transfer sucks!" they said, "Oh. Now we can appreciate the film as it was originally intended." Why can't the people in this thread do the same?
Last edited by baracine; 10-05-07 at 05:47 AM.
10-05-07 | 04:59 AM
#185
Suspended
Originally Posted by JarJarBinks
I'll take Mr. Harris' knowledege over some self-appointed film fanboy's opinion.
10-05-07 | 05:18 AM
#186
Suspended
Originally Posted by GreenVulture
Peter Pan fracas?
10-05-07 | 09:10 AM
#187
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: SC
I just finished watching this Collector's Edition on my Philips DVP642 DVD Player
I noticed no pixelization or frame skips/freezing at all on my copy...it played perfectly from start to finish and had none of the issues that have been reported by different people who have purchased this. I can make no comparison to the original DVD because I never purchased it, but in my opinion the film looks great, a bit dark in some places (but not too dark as to not see what is going on).
My opinion probably won't help anyone, but I just wanted to give it
I noticed no pixelization or frame skips/freezing at all on my copy...it played perfectly from start to finish and had none of the issues that have been reported by different people who have purchased this. I can make no comparison to the original DVD because I never purchased it, but in my opinion the film looks great, a bit dark in some places (but not too dark as to not see what is going on).
My opinion probably won't help anyone, but I just wanted to give it
10-05-07 | 09:26 AM
#188
Suspended
Gossip....gossip...
This undated gossip item - probably from August 2007 - states that Robert A. Harris has been involved in the multi-million dollar photo-chemical restoration of Coppola's Godfather trilogy for some time, which would be as good a reason as any to not rock the boat, close ranks with the Zoetrope people and toe the company line on a little matter like a flubbed transfer of a Dracula DVD/BD:
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/a...ther_resto.php
Always ask yourself: Which trough is the guy drinking from?
This undated gossip item - probably from August 2007 - states that Robert A. Harris has been involved in the multi-million dollar photo-chemical restoration of Coppola's Godfather trilogy for some time, which would be as good a reason as any to not rock the boat, close ranks with the Zoetrope people and toe the company line on a little matter like a flubbed transfer of a Dracula DVD/BD:
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/a...ther_resto.php
Blue-chip restoration guru Robert Harris has been working on a photo-chemical restoration of all three Godfather films for the last few months, and the results may be digitally viewable as soon as December (a Danish DVD site is stating that restored DVDs of the first two Godfather pics are due for release on 12.6.07). Harris declined comment, but Francis Coppola said after an 8.6 Godfather III screening at the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn theatre that Steven Spielberg is the restoration project's financial savior.
Coppola said that Paramount was initially not interested in funding the restoration (deemed necessary due to the original negative having been "purposefuly damaged by idiots...misued, cut up") but all that changed when Spielberg stepped into the breach and said, "This is going to happen."
According to an 8.18 posting by "Adam S." on a Godfather restoration discussion at Home Theatre Forum, "Coppola showed up on Monday August 6th, after a screening of Godfather III at the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn theater. He didn't arrive until about an hour into a six person q & a with a variety of people in or attached to the film. He said it was a bit surreal to be there after we've been watching Godfather III because he had just come from the first viewing of the new restoration of the original Godfather, which he said 'it looks 'incredible.'
"Coppola also mentioned that the negative was basically going to dissolve, or very close to complete loss and it would have cost millions of dollars to restore. Paramount was not going to foot the bill for it, he said, but that after Paramount became Dreamamount Spielberg himself made sure they knew they had to restore The Godfather, and the restoration went forward. [But] there was absolutely no mention of a DVD release."
I called Paramount Home Video's Brenda Ciccone on Friday afternoon to learn what I could learn, but the whole lot is taking Friday afternoons off during the summer -- a Brad Grey idea.
Paramount management was probably taking the view that the film was fine as long as it existed in good digital form, but any responsible archivist will tell you that photo-chemical film elements have to be restored and preserved because they comprise the core elements in their original state -- the actual "film" in its pure and most pristine form -- and that these elements will enable home-video technicians to deliver top-grade transfers in the decades to come as well as ensure the film's general future survival.
I for one would love to one day see a mint-condition chronological Godfather Saga with all those deleted scenes that were shown on broadcast TV in the late '70s. But with the remastering of both films, this seems like a perfect opportunity to also remaster all the deleted scenes and put the big saga on DVD as a stand-alone separate release.
Coppola said that Paramount was initially not interested in funding the restoration (deemed necessary due to the original negative having been "purposefuly damaged by idiots...misued, cut up") but all that changed when Spielberg stepped into the breach and said, "This is going to happen."
According to an 8.18 posting by "Adam S." on a Godfather restoration discussion at Home Theatre Forum, "Coppola showed up on Monday August 6th, after a screening of Godfather III at the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn theater. He didn't arrive until about an hour into a six person q & a with a variety of people in or attached to the film. He said it was a bit surreal to be there after we've been watching Godfather III because he had just come from the first viewing of the new restoration of the original Godfather, which he said 'it looks 'incredible.'
"Coppola also mentioned that the negative was basically going to dissolve, or very close to complete loss and it would have cost millions of dollars to restore. Paramount was not going to foot the bill for it, he said, but that after Paramount became Dreamamount Spielberg himself made sure they knew they had to restore The Godfather, and the restoration went forward. [But] there was absolutely no mention of a DVD release."
I called Paramount Home Video's Brenda Ciccone on Friday afternoon to learn what I could learn, but the whole lot is taking Friday afternoons off during the summer -- a Brad Grey idea.
Paramount management was probably taking the view that the film was fine as long as it existed in good digital form, but any responsible archivist will tell you that photo-chemical film elements have to be restored and preserved because they comprise the core elements in their original state -- the actual "film" in its pure and most pristine form -- and that these elements will enable home-video technicians to deliver top-grade transfers in the decades to come as well as ensure the film's general future survival.
I for one would love to one day see a mint-condition chronological Godfather Saga with all those deleted scenes that were shown on broadcast TV in the late '70s. But with the remastering of both films, this seems like a perfect opportunity to also remaster all the deleted scenes and put the big saga on DVD as a stand-alone separate release.
Last edited by baracine; 10-05-07 at 10:16 AM.
10-05-07 | 02:49 PM
#189
Senior Member
I had to go to all three Wal-Marts in my area to finally find this at the last one I went to. I hate the people that work there, they are all people who obviously do not want to be there and don't give two shits about the customers, that is why I was SHOCKED when an employee in the last one I went to actually came up to me and asked if I needed help.
10-05-07 | 04:01 PM
#190
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Simi Valley, CA
Originally Posted by baracine
Gossip....gossip...
This undated gossip item - probably from August 2007 - states that Robert A. Harris has been involved in the multi-million dollar photo-chemical restoration of Coppola's Godfather trilogy for some time, which would be as good a reason as any to not rock the boat, close ranks with the Zoetrope people and toe the company line on a little matter like a flubbed transfer of a Dracula DVD/BD:
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/a...ther_resto.php
Always ask yourself: Which trough is the guy drinking from?
This undated gossip item - probably from August 2007 - states that Robert A. Harris has been involved in the multi-million dollar photo-chemical restoration of Coppola's Godfather trilogy for some time, which would be as good a reason as any to not rock the boat, close ranks with the Zoetrope people and toe the company line on a little matter like a flubbed transfer of a Dracula DVD/BD:
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/a...ther_resto.php
Always ask yourself: Which trough is the guy drinking from?
This fever pitch tone is bordering on insanity. Seems to be a LOT of "wink, wink, nudge nudge " read-between-the-lines kind of stuff that is the basis of your...theory. I GUESS it really doesn't matter what is said by all involved. THIS is the REAL story, right?
If you don't like the tranfer, fine. I may not like it either (haven't seen it yet)but I'm sure willing to accept the statements by those involved that its they way THEY wanted it to be...and not accuse them of incompetence and/or dishonesty.
10-05-07 | 04:37 PM
#191
Suspended
I asked DVDSavant (GLenn Erickson)'s advice. He wrote bacK:
Benoit ... I saw that picture exactly once and disliked it so much I more or less forgot about it. Coppola has his own transfer company and completely re-colored APOCALYPSE NOW from its original look, he also re-framed it and re-edited it in ways I don't like.
So he's drastically changed the look of DRACULA ... it's clear that he has to get out the fingerpaints every time he releases a movie.
HTF sounds like a pretty drastic place -- either one agrees with the studio-aligned bent of the place, or one gets into trouble. I have other observations about the experts that regularly chime in on these subjects, that I wouldn't want to put in print.
Glenn
So he's drastically changed the look of DRACULA ... it's clear that he has to get out the fingerpaints every time he releases a movie.
HTF sounds like a pretty drastic place -- either one agrees with the studio-aligned bent of the place, or one gets into trouble. I have other observations about the experts that regularly chime in on these subjects, that I wouldn't want to put in print.
Glenn
10-05-07 | 06:21 PM
#192
DVD Talk Special Edition
Originally Posted by LKirven517
I just finished watching this Collector's Edition on my Philips DVP642 DVD Player
I noticed no pixelization or frame skips/freezing at all on my copy...it played perfectly from start to finish and had none of the issues that have been reported by different people who have purchased this. I can make no comparison to the original DVD because I never purchased it, but in my opinion the film looks great, a bit dark in some places (but not too dark as to not see what is going on).
My opinion probably won't help anyone, but I just wanted to give it
I noticed no pixelization or frame skips/freezing at all on my copy...it played perfectly from start to finish and had none of the issues that have been reported by different people who have purchased this. I can make no comparison to the original DVD because I never purchased it, but in my opinion the film looks great, a bit dark in some places (but not too dark as to not see what is going on).
My opinion probably won't help anyone, but I just wanted to give it
10-06-07 | 08:49 AM
#193
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Simi Valley, CA
Originally Posted by Ringmaster
My copy pixelates and freezes in my X-box at the point of the film when Harker escapes Count Dracula. When I play the same copy in my 2001 Magnavox dvd player, with a dvd tray that is breaking down, it works perfectly. I guess it depends on the DVD player but in 2007, a poorly made DVD like this one should not be made.
There is the chance its your player....
10-06-07 | 08:58 AM
#194
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Simi Valley, CA
Originally Posted by baracine
I asked DVDSavant (GLenn Erickson)'s advice. He wrote bacK:
DVD SAVANT states he's only seen the movie once, presumably in the theatre 15 years ago (so his opinion on this has no weight that I can see) and proceeds to answer what appears to be a LOADED question by you..."So he's drastically changed the look of DRACULA ... it's clear that he has to get out the fingerpaints every time he releases a movie" in response to APOCOLYPSE NOW, a film I don't believe anyone involved claimed to be a rendering of the original presentation.
10-06-07 | 09:11 AM
#195
Suspended
Originally Posted by Carcosa
This fever pitch tone is bordering on insanity. Seems to be a LOT of "wink, wink, nudge nudge " read-between-the-lines kind of stuff that is the basis of your...theory. I GUESS it really doesn't matter what is said by all involved. THIS is the REAL story, right?
If you don't like the tranfer, fine. I may not like it either (haven't seen it yet)but I'm sure willing to accept the statements by those involved that its they way THEY wanted it to be...and not accuse them of incompetence and/or dishonesty.
If you don't like the tranfer, fine. I may not like it either (haven't seen it yet)but I'm sure willing to accept the statements by those involved that its they way THEY wanted it to be...and not accuse them of incompetence and/or dishonesty.
I am not questioning Harris' achievements. And I find nothing more natural than that he should go to bat for the people he has been working with for some time, on a contract that he has been lobbying for during at least the past 7 years (since the last digital "restoration" of The Godfather). But when everything is said and done, all Harris said on HTF was that the DVD authors followed the answer print. He didn't explain the colour changes or propose any logic why the new darkness of some scenes make some very expensive and very well thought-out special effects like Harker's journal superimposed on his foraging through Dracula castle simply evaporate in the lack of shadow detail or how firelit faces have been transformed magically into normally-lit faces or even why the subtitles were changed. Harris was simply defending his profession and his turf and telling us poor mortals to butt out and to refrain from having an opinion.
10-06-07 | 10:15 AM
#197
Member
Originally Posted by cardaway
In this middle of all this bickering did anybody post whether or not the color changes are present on the new standard DVD reelase?
and
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=123
10-06-07 | 10:43 AM
#198
DVD Talk Hero
I'm torn as to whether to buy the new DVD, the SuperBit or both.
10-06-07 | 12:56 PM
#199
Suspended
Originally Posted by TomOpus
I'm torn as to whether to buy the new DVD, the SuperBit or both.
http://lady_deathtouch.tripod.com/ga...pid/index.html
10-06-07 | 01:32 PM
#200
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TomOpus
I'm torn as to whether to buy the new DVD, the SuperBit or both.
The pictures shown online are not a true representation of the great looking film.