[QUOTE=Rusty James]What do you expect them to say? "Yeah, the disc is screwed-up. Sorry!"

Universal issued a statement after the BTTF 2 DVD problem was revealed. It was cleverly phrased but at least we got a fix and a line to get our discs exchanged.

Thats what Id like from Zoetrope at the very least if they don't want to talk about the problems. Maybe they'd even consider a recall.

:up: :D

That was only because Bob Gale saw the BTTF DVDs and flipped. I'm guessing the only way we'll see Sony do something is if Coppola himself sees the Blu-ray and demands something similar.

Has anyone seen side by side comparisons of the standard and Blu-ray yet? I'm waiting to see if the Blu-ray is better at all or if...gulp...the DVD version is actually BETTER.

YES. I think one of the key issues (and it's one which the Paidgeek quote tries desperately hard to dismiss) is that the BD image offers no apparent upgrade in terms of clarity and detail from the standard def release. Why, then, should there need to be a BD release, other than just to gouge people for an extra $10 or so at the register?

Okay, so here it is: I've just finished watching the Superbit DVD and the BluRay disc of "Bram Stoker's Dracula." I don't have any picture comparisons, but based on what has been previously posted in this thread, I can say that what you'll see in the pictures from previous posts is not far from the difference you'll see in front of your eyes.

The Superbit DVD, while being held back by the limits of standard definition, bests the BluRay release in a number of different categories, most notably the distinct differences in color. I'm not going to go into any other details about the color scheme, other than to say that 1) this is not the film I remember, and 2) it looks absolutely terrible, as if the life was drained from this motion picture inch by careful inch.

The overall image is surprisingly dark, too dark in a number of scenes. Remember the earlier post that featured a picture of Dracula's castle disappearing into the top of the image? That's not just a camera effect; shadow detail is so poorly mastered that a lot of detail is lost here, and in some scenes, it looks as if there's nothing behind the actors at all. Even in a completely dark room, this transfer will still underperform in this respect.

And then we come to what I feel is the most important aspect of any BluRay disc: clarity and sharpness. While I disliked the halos I noticed at various points in the Superbit release, I must say that I prefer them to this disc, which may lack halos, but also lacks depth, sharp edges, and small object detail. I've seen standard DVDs upconverted to 1080p that had more depth than this release.

It doesn't help that the print used for this release doesn't appear to have been touched up all that much, which is okay, considering that part of my enjoyment of this movie is how it looks, source print flaws and all. But the colors are indeed different, the black levels and shadow detail jacked up beyond repair, and if this disc were placed in a lineup with standard DVD, it would not pass for high definition in this viewer's opinion.

I got rid of the Superbit version when this disc was announced. Looks like I'll have to track it down again.

I never owned any of the SD versions of Dracula, but I did see it during its theatrical run. Without having anything to compare it with, I thought the BD looked fine. It's not a perfect transfer, but I'm satisfied with my purchase. I think that anyone who has never seen the film or has never seen the SD versions would be content with this BD release.

That's kind of like saying that anyone who has never had a steak will be satisfied with a Big Mac. Just because someone doesn't know any better doesn't mean there aren't problems with the transfer.

I understand that, but not everyone that buys the BD is going to realize that the transfer is poor/flawed. Yes, I'd like to see the film as it was intended to look, but my point was that the disc is not unwatchable for someone that doesn't know any better.

Most people who buy the BD will expect it to look somewhat in line with other HD movies, which would actually make it more disappointing than if they compared it against the DVD version.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=30820


not just me, folks...

another bad review. What is this 7 out of 9 so far...?!?!?

I got a less-than-cheery e-mail from Kim Aubry at American Zoetrope last night re: my less than enthusiastic review. Needless to say, he wasn't happy, but since it was a personal e-mail, I won't post his statements here.

However, I have offered the opportunity to respond and told him I'd even add an "Editor's Note" to my DVD Empire review if he would do so. I told him I'd also be happy to correct any FACTUAL statements in my review, but not any that were based on OPINION.

I've also asked that he allow me to post his statements on various forums, so if he gets back to me, I'll post those here...if he gets back with a statement but wants to keep it in my review alone, I'll let everyone know so they can check it out.

Beat me to it, Davy. I was just coming here to post it. :)

Let's face it, people, this is a bad transfer. Period. If all the colors were 100% exactly the same as on the Superbit DVD, it would still be a bad transfer. The problems here extend beyond the colors.

Edit: Shannon, I'd love to hear what a Zoetrope rep has to say about this, although I fear all we'll get is the party line.

Without getting into details, Kim seemed most upset about my statement that:
So perhaps he wasn't happy with the word "insisted" (which I can see his objection to, especially if it was a Sony request rather than something Zoetrope is contracted to handle on all Coppola's home video releases), or perhaps he's feeling the heat from higher-ups about the work that was done here and wants to defend his work. I don't want to speculate too much...let's just wait for his repsonse...if any.

I've seen Apoc. Redux on HDMovies, man it looks pretty good. It was actually the first movie I saw on Hi-Def and it blew me away.

this is somewhat on topic but I remember reading online that Zoetrope is doing a major restoration with 'The Godfather' films via 4K state of the art video processing/scan/transfer for the future HD-DVD editions

I believe we were told on this forum to expect those in 2008. The person who told us hasn't been posting much lately and I believe was told he can't post about Paramount releases anymore. understandable.

really? - poor guy...

my point though was that Zoetrope is purposefully trying to implement the latest in video transfer technology and make the Trilogy look great.

As far as I know, it's a matter of policy at Zoetrope that they oversee all their home video releases.

By the way, I've also been contacted by Kim, and if he allows me to publish any of his comments here or in my review, I will gladly do so.

Okay . . . so if it's supposed to look like this, why the need for a BD edition? Isn't DVD perfectly capable of looking dark, scary and blurry enough?

If thats the case, maybe Criterion Laserdisc owners can sue for a refund.

I don't think people that owned laserdisc players would not appreciate being lumped in with people who owned 15 inch TVs.

Furthermore, I point to Apocalypse Now..another Coppola film that I always thought was pretty soft. When I saw it in HD - WOWWWIIE!! I thought I was seeing another movie, I mean the movie that I remembered being really really soft was crystal clear and looked brand new! I mean the Valkryie scene - gosh darn that was awesome.

In other words, the BD is SUPPOSED to look like crap.

If that's the case, then they certainly succeeded.

I have also received a response from Mr. Aubrey that is similar to in tone and content to the one Shannon got. I've asked him how much of it is okay for me to reprint, and will do so once I get the go ahead. I did also send a reply and if I get a response to that, and the permission to replicate it, I will do so as well.

I find this comment particularly relevant:

"The transfers done for 'Apocalypse Now' were supervised by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro and approved by Mr. Coppola."

Apocalypse Now is a case study in revisionist cinematography. Storaro composed the movie for 2.40:1 originally but has dramatically cropped the picture to 2.0:1 to conform with his kooky "Univisium" theory that he came up with after Apocalypse Now was produced. The result looks cropped and awkward. He also significantly tinkered with the coloring in the digital realm because, well because he could. The result may be "filmmaker-approved", but it doesn't look anything like what the filmmakers originally created.

I would say that this is proabably exactly where the director stands on this matter. Alot of artist revisit their artwork - especially this guy ;)