Since DVD Talk now has a response, I'm pulling the one I posted...most have had a chance to look at it.

Not to get off topic, but that same thing has happened with the upcoming The Last Emperor Criterion.

Why must all these directors pull a "greedo shot first"??

FWIW, the BD looked better to me than I expected it to look. I have a BDP-S1 via HDMI to a Sammy 1080p 61" DLP calibrated by Eliab/Avical.

Now, I am not an astute follower of the film, and I have only watched the Superbit disc a couple times in the past few years. I still have the SB disc, and popped it in my Oppo and A/B'd the two. The BD is a step up, but just not a big one. The movie is soft for sure. I'm OK with the colors.

Regarding Dave Mack's castle screenshot, this shot appears several times throughout the movie. On my display the first time you see this shot when the carriage is approaching the castle, it is not as dark as the pics posted earlier, but that could be due to the conditions under which the picture was taken. Now later in the film, there is an occurrence where it looks as dark as in the pic posted.

Overall I am happy with the $18 I spent on this, and I do feel it is an upgrade of the SB disc. Please note I am in no way trying to invalidate what others have experienced, or trying to justify any missteps that may have occurred during the creation of this disc.

I think anyone interested should at least rent this to see what they think for themselves.

If I was rating the PQ I'd probably go 3/5.

FYI - the standard def DVD release of this collector's edition looks just as bad as the Blu-Ray disc. In fact, when doing direct comparisons between the Superbit and this new release (and in some instances, even the very first DVD), there are some scenes that just look absolutely terrible. Blues seem to fall apart in a number of instances (the image of Dracula's castle as Harker is making his escape into the river is a real beast), and shadow detail is fair to below average in a number of shots, as confirmed by a number of people on this board. I just don't understand... what the heck happened with this release? This is, by far, the most disappointing release in years.

Agreed. I too think that everyone should judge for themselves.

:)

Wow, all this for Dracula.

Kinda sucks the fun out of watching this movie...don't it.

pun definitely intended...

:)

I've seen enough to be convinced that the new BR transfer is an utter piece of misguided, revisionist, delusional crap. The only evidence missing is a screen cap of the setting sun making it look like... a blue disc. I'm just happy someone noticed this time, unlike the Platinum Edition of Peter Pan.

Before we all rush to have Coppola declared mentally incompetent, however, I just want to stress the fact that my personal theory is that, as usual, the colour-timing of the new transfer was done by a new breed of computer geeks who have spent so much time indoors fiddling with the dials of their consoles and living in the virtual reality of their video games, that they have lost all touch with what the real world looks like and have no clue as to the look of the different times of day, real sunshine and natural lighting. The fact that they chose a computer generated font for the burned-in subtitles - as opposed to the original Gothic-Victorian matching Mina's typewriter - is just another clue as to their complete lack of culture and information about the film itself.

I can just see new career opportunities opening up in Hollywood and Silicon Valley:

Now, how about a few comments on the extras since a lot of us suckers are going to be buying the new SD or even Blu-Ray just for those? Do they compare with the Criterion laserdisc extras? Is there any reference to the previous film versions of Dracula?

For those that missed Aubrey's comments, the gist of what he said is now posted at the end of the DVD Empire Blu-ray review. I'm assuming his comments to DVD Talk will be posted here soon, but I wanted to give everyone the opportuntity to read what he said, if they missed it last night.

The mods aren't crazy about people posting links to their own review, but if anyone has trouble finding it, just throw me an e-mail and I'll send you a link.:)

BTW, as someone who saw Dracula many times during its theatrical run (and even in theaters notorious for "dimming" the light on their projector, giving a "darker" look than even the director intended), I stand by my opinion that this transfer does not reflect the original look of the film. And no, I'm not "remembering" wrong. :)

Whomever posted those Dracula photos from the book...bravo! That's great reference evidence for those that claim the new release matches the theatrical version.

Do you mean this note? :)

(http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...or=1#topoftabs)

This sounds like just more obfuscation. Where was that precious controversial answer print when they did the Superbit edition in 2001? Or did they use it?

I watched this film yesterday and in no way did it detour away from this feature. I would reccommend that you dont base this particular #160+ post for this transfer being a piece of garbage.

I own all 3 versions of this film and would have to say this invisionment would have to be my favorite.

then again - thats my two cents worth.

Let's put it this way: If the original theatrical release had looked ANYTHING like this transfer, I would NEVER have put this film among my all-time favourites.

The whole idea of this transfer is so repulsive to me I think the FDA should look into the packaging to see whether it contains made-in-China lead paint and can therefore justify a recall.:D

I think you need to take a breath. ;)

Well, watched my BD last night and I'll agree with this as well. I have no issues with the color scheme and I own all the previous incarnations including the Criterion LD. The BD is the one that will spinning when I watch this from now on.

to those who's seen the Bluray and hooked up to a 5.1 setup - how's the sound??

Posted by me on the SD thread:
What we have here are technicians making transfers who don't give a hoot about the final product, the way the film looked in the theatres or even telling details like "a race against the setting sun" actually reflecting the colours of the setting sun or the font used in the burned-in subtitles reflecting the font on Mina's typewriter. We are in fact dealing with sub-contractor idiots or uncultured Yahoos who probably don't even know what the film is about...

The only other explanation I see is that what the French call "nostalgie de la boue" (mud nostalgia) - which affects civilized people who dream back to a more primitive state - has also affected directors nowadays so that even if their masterpieces are in brilliant colour, they have "nostalgie du noir et blanc" (B&W nostalgia) that makes them want to erase all the beautiful colours from their films. But this is much less likely than my first hypothesis which is that nobody takes charge, everyone delegates, and no one assumes responsibility when things go horribly wrong.

They should add a sticker to the packaging: "Now in BatVision". As in "blind as a bat".

It's pretty darn good.

I'm sure my screenshots are not exact in regards to perfectly capturing the color and brightness as I'm indeed aiming a digital camera at a projector screen. All I can say is that in the comparison shots, the differences are valid as I'm in full manual mode. Most people seem to think it's good for a rough "idea" of what the differences are. I am far from the only one seeing radical color differences in only select scenes and a much flatter, washed out look on the BD. Now also, many of these were taken on my first night ever even attempting screenshots. By that 3rd night, I feel I had gotten much better, (but that's beside the point) :)
An analogy, I am mixing my record at the moment. Now I have excellent, PERFECT flat studio monitors, big ones. I also have perfectly flat, studio level headphones. But when I mix, I also listen to the same tracks through good home speakers as well as other peoples (I often make cds and take them to different people's houses. I listen in the car and I even listen on a couple of boomboxes. Most people when they do professional mixdowns do as well. (You will ofteh see a cheap boombox sitting on the mixing desk as well as sometimes a few speakers aside from the monitors)
I do this so I can hear how the same mix will sound on all these different types os speakers.
Often if a mix sounds great on just the monitors, it will sound muddy as hell on other settups.
I would assume a similar thing should happen when a new transfer is made.
If the new transfer comes out so flat and dark that you would need only the best possible display to see even a remotely satisfactory image then that's odd. How many people have a settup like RAH's...? (And believe me, I am jealous!)
One percent? Maybe less?
I have watched dozens of BDs and now some Hddvds, have had HD for 2 and a 1/2 years as well as having an Oppo player, have watched numerous PAL discs upscaled. I have never seen a disc that so radically looks different than what either a previous media version looked like or what my memory (albeit not totally trustworthy) of a film looked like before this.
Now last thought, if all the theatrical prints were off, the official book of the film's photos were off, the previous video versions including an LD set that some paid $100 for was off, (thinking they were getting an accurate representation of the film) what really is the "accurate theatrical presentation" suppossed to be?
If you bought a new version of a beloved old album but the new mix was radically different in many songs, sounded muddier, the instruments were much less clear and now buried and even some were flipped from left to right, (the color on Dracula turning from blue to green is a nice comparison)
and in your opinion the earlier album, even if not in what's considered the hihest fidelity possible, sounded better to you than might you not be a tad disappointed? (Actually it happens all the time with "remastered albums") Especially if basically you were being told something like, "this is the correct way the album SHOULD have sounded. You just can't appreciate it." Or "Your stereo isn't good enough to make this sound great." and "unless you have $5,000 speakers, don't expect to hear everthing in the mix."

jeesh talk about a 'grab a cup of joe, and let me tell you something' ;)

haven't even had the "joe" yet...!

;)

I'm just waiting for Kim to reply back to me on one or two points before I post our discussions here or amend my review. Hopefully he will do so soon.

This is just a thought but do you think maybe Sony outsourced the production of the actual film's disc to some Hong Kong bootlegger known for its quick and dirty work?:D

This is like Star Wars we can bitch and moan but the director will never admit fault.

And I do believe that FFC has EVERY right to do whatever he wants with it. I do.
I just don't think telling all of us who don't really like the way that it looks now that we are wrong to think so. That the new BD is "correct" and every single version before, from theatrical prints to the book, to the Coppolla approved LD to the VHS to the DVDs, (both PAL and NTSC versions) to the HD broadcast that was on cable was "wrong"
Well, then BOY didn't ALOT of people screw this film up then?

Many fans were happy as a clam with the old, "incorrect" look and that's what we thought we were getting.