A Room With A View- Thumbs Up!
10-27-07, 05:06 AM
#1
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
A Room With A View- Thumbs Up!
Earlier last night I had read the DVDtalk review for this which gave the audio and video each 1 1/2 stars.
I was worried until I got the chance to spin the disc. I should have known by now not to put much credence in reviews...especially when it comes to HDMs.
The absolute outrage! Stereo!?! No whiz-bang 360 soudnfield effects sequences!?!
Are you fucking kidding me? the reviewer doesn't even bother to mention if the PAL pitch problem had been corrected for this release...which was one of the more obvious areas of discontent for fans of the film from the otherwise very nice SE DVD.
It has.
That alone, imo, is enough to recommend the disc as an upgrade for owners of the DVD. In addition though, you get a more refined and stable (though not perfect, as slight ringing is discernible in some situations...most notably around superimposed text) image, consistent in color and contrast with the SE DVD (yes...sorry Daniel, the film in this transfer appears to be natural and low key, like most 80s product was produced to be- not over pumped and hyper stylized in contrast and color for for the MySpace generation).
The finer level of detail is not of such a degree that it will hit you over the head silly- but it is better.
Bottom line-This is simply the finest presentation of the film ever available to the public for home viewing. That, plus the fact that it is simply a great movie in and of itself, should be cause for celebrating.
Instead, we have one more review warning the Joe six pack cinestes out there to stay away.
I was worried until I got the chance to spin the disc. I should have known by now not to put much credence in reviews...especially when it comes to HDMs.
The Audio:
The BBC has generously given us a DTS-HD (otherwise known as standard lossy DTS) 5.1 mix for this release, but it doesn't amount to much. Aside from the score and a few environmental effects (rainfall and such), the surrounds are almost never used. This is about as stereo of a mix as you can get. Also, it's showing its age and badly. Dialogue is harsh, and it's very easy to tell when they've used ADR. Like the picture, this does no justice to the work that was put into the film.
The BBC has generously given us a DTS-HD (otherwise known as standard lossy DTS) 5.1 mix for this release, but it doesn't amount to much. Aside from the score and a few environmental effects (rainfall and such), the surrounds are almost never used. This is about as stereo of a mix as you can get. Also, it's showing its age and badly. Dialogue is harsh, and it's very easy to tell when they've used ADR. Like the picture, this does no justice to the work that was put into the film.
Are you fucking kidding me? the reviewer doesn't even bother to mention if the PAL pitch problem had been corrected for this release...which was one of the more obvious areas of discontent for fans of the film from the otherwise very nice SE DVD.
It has.
That alone, imo, is enough to recommend the disc as an upgrade for owners of the DVD. In addition though, you get a more refined and stable (though not perfect, as slight ringing is discernible in some situations...most notably around superimposed text) image, consistent in color and contrast with the SE DVD (yes...sorry Daniel, the film in this transfer appears to be natural and low key, like most 80s product was produced to be- not over pumped and hyper stylized in contrast and color for for the MySpace generation).
The finer level of detail is not of such a degree that it will hit you over the head silly- but it is better.
Bottom line-This is simply the finest presentation of the film ever available to the public for home viewing. That, plus the fact that it is simply a great movie in and of itself, should be cause for celebrating.
Instead, we have one more review warning the Joe six pack cinestes out there to stay away.
Last edited by Paul_SD; 10-27-07 at 05:14 AM.
10-27-07, 05:32 AM
#2
Banned by request
Sorry you didn't like the review, Paul. On the other hand, I'm very glad you enjoyed the disc, as that's what this is really about.
I was not aware of any PAL pitch problem that had plagued earlier releases. Thank you for letting me know about that. However, if you notice, my real reason for docking stars on the audio is that the actual quality of the recording is low. The fact that it's in stereo is just a warning to people who see "DTS 5.1" and think it's going to sound like a more modern mix.
As for the picture, I agree that many films in the 80's were shot soft with low contrast. At the same time, even if you disregard the fact that the transfer looks like someone attempted to drain out all the colors, there's still a load of other problems, such as dirt on the print, jitter, and very low detail (even lower detail than the film's shooting style would have warranted).
In other words, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You see this as the best presentation to date on home video, I see it as presentation that still isn't good enough. I'm one of the biggest supporters of older films on DVD (not that I consider 1985 to be very old) and films that aren't just big action flicks, but as such, I've seen how great those films can look. This is nowhere in that league.
I was not aware of any PAL pitch problem that had plagued earlier releases. Thank you for letting me know about that. However, if you notice, my real reason for docking stars on the audio is that the actual quality of the recording is low. The fact that it's in stereo is just a warning to people who see "DTS 5.1" and think it's going to sound like a more modern mix.
As for the picture, I agree that many films in the 80's were shot soft with low contrast. At the same time, even if you disregard the fact that the transfer looks like someone attempted to drain out all the colors, there's still a load of other problems, such as dirt on the print, jitter, and very low detail (even lower detail than the film's shooting style would have warranted).
In other words, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You see this as the best presentation to date on home video, I see it as presentation that still isn't good enough. I'm one of the biggest supporters of older films on DVD (not that I consider 1985 to be very old) and films that aren't just big action flicks, but as such, I've seen how great those films can look. This is nowhere in that league.
10-27-07, 04:04 PM
#3
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
I was not aware of any PAL pitch problem that had plagued earlier releases. Thank you for letting me know about that. However, if you notice, my real reason for docking stars on the audio is that the actual quality of the recording is low. The fact that it's in stereo is just a warning to people who see "DTS 5.1" and think it's going to sound like a more modern mix.
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
In other words, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You see this as the best presentation to date on home video, I see it as presentation that still isn't good enough. I'm one of the biggest supporters of older films on DVD (not that I consider 1985 to be very old) and films that aren't just big action flicks, but as such, I've seen how great those films can look. This is nowhere in that league.
Say...high contrast, bright, colorful, low grain, deep inky blacks...is that about right? Good to know that as a reviewer (which is in essence another potential consumer data point prior to a purchase decision) that is all you seem to be disposed to appreciate.
If only all your reviews in the future would carry this disclaimer, it would be a big help in parsing their usefulness.
10-27-07, 04:47 PM
#4
Banned by request
Actually, Paul, no. You're putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it. I don't expect all HDM to look the same. At the same time, I refuse to give any disc high marks when it has the kind of technical issues I have pointed out not just once, but twice. If you insist on continuing to reduce all my arguments to "HD must look shiny and new!" then I will not be continuing this conversation, because it's clear that you're not actually reading what I'm typing.
10-27-07, 05:10 PM
#6
Banned by request
I have not seen the SE DVD, but according to Paul, that release has a pitch issue that is not present on the HD DVD or Blu-ray. If you have an issue with the sound on the current release, than this will be useful to you.
10-27-07, 10:23 PM
#7
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
yes, the pitch issue on the SE DVD has been corrected, and the helium voices are gone. For that reason alone the release has value- which is why I take exception to Daniels review.
As for the video- depending upon your display, size, etc- the two look very similar.
As in all cases I have seen where an HD release gets slammed as 'worthless' or as something you should pass on- the HD version still reveals a higher fidelity image in regards to very fine detail, as well as in the overal stability of the image.
These tend to be (in these disputed discs) subtle things that are best appreciated by owners with large screens, and owners that are willing to spend money for that 'extra 5%' of performance.
It is not a night and day demo disc.
It is however (especially when you take into account the audio issue) a bigger difference over the previous SE DVD than any Superbit I ever saw was over its general release counterpoint. But again, whether someones particular system will reveal these difference is for them to determine.
As for the video- depending upon your display, size, etc- the two look very similar.
As in all cases I have seen where an HD release gets slammed as 'worthless' or as something you should pass on- the HD version still reveals a higher fidelity image in regards to very fine detail, as well as in the overal stability of the image.
These tend to be (in these disputed discs) subtle things that are best appreciated by owners with large screens, and owners that are willing to spend money for that 'extra 5%' of performance.
It is not a night and day demo disc.
It is however (especially when you take into account the audio issue) a bigger difference over the previous SE DVD than any Superbit I ever saw was over its general release counterpoint. But again, whether someones particular system will reveal these difference is for them to determine.
10-27-07, 11:05 PM
#8
Paul, are you saying the sound is much better than the SE DVD? Now take it a step further. Would the HD DVD need to have been mixed in 5.1? Could it have sounded just as good in 2.1 and the DTS-HD 5.1 mix was not necessary? Just curious. I've been holding off on this title myself.
10-28-07, 12:45 AM
#9
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
apart from the pitch issue, I've never really taken particular note of the audio on this or previous version. It is predominantly a dialouge driven film (with as Daniel points out, plenty of ADR). The dialouge, music, and subtle ambient effects have always come thru clearly for me.
I'm sure the 5.1 re-jiggering (such as it is) is primarily done for marketing purposes rather than asethetic ones. I'm sure a 2.0 would have sounded just fine as well (and little different).
In this area I can Daniels point, and that merely seeing a 5.1 spec on the jacket may lead to an preconception of how it will sound that will produce a disappointment.
if you have any specific passages you want me to compare, I'll be happy to do so in the next few days. Otherwise it may be a few weeks before I can sit down and watch it all the way thru.
I'm sure the 5.1 re-jiggering (such as it is) is primarily done for marketing purposes rather than asethetic ones. I'm sure a 2.0 would have sounded just fine as well (and little different).
In this area I can Daniels point, and that merely seeing a 5.1 spec on the jacket may lead to an preconception of how it will sound that will produce a disappointment.
if you have any specific passages you want me to compare, I'll be happy to do so in the next few days. Otherwise it may be a few weeks before I can sit down and watch it all the way thru.
10-28-07, 02:11 AM
#10
Oh, that's ok, Paul. No need. I'll be getting this sometime this year in any case. Keep us posted on anything else you may find interesting.
11-19-07, 07:27 PM
#12
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
I was glad to see Stuart Galbraith review the HD DVD version and give it sterling marks. Was also heartened to hear his opinions of the image on this disc compared to his memories of the original theatrical presentation.
I never got a chance to see the movie in the theaters, but it's been a favorite of mine since I discovered it on Laserdisc- and as I said in previous posts in this thread- I'm absolutely thrilled with the presentation here...moreso everytime I pull it out.
A big
to everyone involved with this release.
I never got a chance to see the movie in the theaters, but it's been a favorite of mine since I discovered it on Laserdisc- and as I said in previous posts in this thread- I'm absolutely thrilled with the presentation here...moreso everytime I pull it out.
A big
to everyone involved with this release.
11-19-07, 08:35 PM
#13
Cool. I have it on my DeepDiscount HD DVD list for purchasing later this week. 
11-20-07, 04:33 AM
#14
Banned by request
We're very happy to have Stuart on the review staff, and I personally love his review of A Room With A View. A diversity of opinions is what we're all about.
11-20-07, 07:06 AM
#15
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Daniel, I have the utmost contempt for your review of this film as well as your apparent asethetic judgment
however,
you've weathered my scorn and derision with much grace
so to that I give you a
seriously- I saw a comment over on another forum that I thought was brilliant in its simplicity and truth-
There is a difference between reference material and demo material.
And I think this comment you made earlier illustrates the division here perfectly
This indicates to me you were grading the presentation here on where it falls in the HDM realm as demo material. I see a lot of reviewers apparently doing that (though they claim to not be). Since you admit that you weren't familar with other incarnations of it (including the last sd dvd), there would be no way you could judge it as reference material. When I praise this disc, it is because of the 4 iterations of it on home video that I've owned (LD, 4:3 Letterbox DVD, SE DVD), this is FAR and away the nicest- and most importantly- least compromised presentation.
And least compromised is how I would define source fidelity.
And I don't think that is anything to dismiss or devalue.
On the contrary, I personally value that aspect far more than 3D pop and gloss that is only created with the help of artificial sweeteners (high frequency EE and contrast/saturation manipulation/boosting etc).
And Daniel, the reason I've been such a caustic windbag on this is because catalog releases are few, and non contemporary action/sci-fi genre releases are fewer still- and will be for some time. It is hard enough for a film buff as it is to get a decent variety of catalog material, and when reviewers warn people off from not only fine films, but what are in fact exceptional presentations of them- that makes it even harder to get anything other than the same old same old in the future.
Rather than being warned off, they should be educated - which is what Stuart did in his review putting the presentation here into the context of the history of the film.
Just a suggestion, and you can take it or leave it of course- but since you have an exalted position as an official reviewer on a forum with a large readership- you may want to hold off on publishing a review on a catalog title that you are unfamiliar with, until you've had time to evesdrop and hear what fans of the film think. If you are ready to praise something, but hear a concensus amongst the people who know the material more intimately saying that the presentation is wrong and has been monkeyed with- or just the opposite- then it would behoove you to be able to pass that data point along in your review to balance what is nothing more than a subjective opinion that has only been informed by personal taste.
Otherwise the opinion, while not invalid, is just ignorant.
however,
you've weathered my scorn and derision with much grace
so to that I give you a
seriously- I saw a comment over on another forum that I thought was brilliant in its simplicity and truth-
There is a difference between reference material and demo material.
And I think this comment you made earlier illustrates the division here perfectly
In other words, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You see this as the best presentation to date on home video, I see it as presentation that still isn't good enough. I'm one of the biggest supporters of older films on DVD (not that I consider 1985 to be very old) and films that aren't just big action flicks, but as such, I've seen how great those films can look. This is nowhere in that league.
And least compromised is how I would define source fidelity.
And I don't think that is anything to dismiss or devalue.
On the contrary, I personally value that aspect far more than 3D pop and gloss that is only created with the help of artificial sweeteners (high frequency EE and contrast/saturation manipulation/boosting etc).
And Daniel, the reason I've been such a caustic windbag on this is because catalog releases are few, and non contemporary action/sci-fi genre releases are fewer still- and will be for some time. It is hard enough for a film buff as it is to get a decent variety of catalog material, and when reviewers warn people off from not only fine films, but what are in fact exceptional presentations of them- that makes it even harder to get anything other than the same old same old in the future.
Rather than being warned off, they should be educated - which is what Stuart did in his review putting the presentation here into the context of the history of the film.
Just a suggestion, and you can take it or leave it of course- but since you have an exalted position as an official reviewer on a forum with a large readership- you may want to hold off on publishing a review on a catalog title that you are unfamiliar with, until you've had time to evesdrop and hear what fans of the film think. If you are ready to praise something, but hear a concensus amongst the people who know the material more intimately saying that the presentation is wrong and has been monkeyed with- or just the opposite- then it would behoove you to be able to pass that data point along in your review to balance what is nothing more than a subjective opinion that has only been informed by personal taste.
Otherwise the opinion, while not invalid, is just ignorant.
Last edited by Paul_SD; 11-20-07 at 07:52 AM.
11-20-07, 08:20 AM
#16
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,824
Received 1,882 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul_SD
This indicates to me you were grading the presentation here on where it falls in the HDM realm as demo material.
Originally Posted by Paul_SD
And least compromised is how I would define source fidelity.
And I don't think that is anything to dismiss or devalue.
And I don't think that is anything to dismiss or devalue.
11-20-07, 08:35 AM
#17
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
I have no problem with the issue of a particular titles Demo-worthiness being brought up in a review, at all- as long as it is clearly identified as such.
If the reviewer clearly states that is the only aspect he is concerning himself with, then at least people will know how to assess the review and how much value it has to them personally.
I understand, at this stage of the game especially, that demo material is all some people really care about.
But making that the imperial pass/fail criteria- without elaborating that there may be a caveat (i.e. that it isn't broke, and is supposed to look like that) - is what I have a problem with, and is what I see as having a serious dumbing down effect on the ultimate appreciation of the art form these are representing.
If the reviewer clearly states that is the only aspect he is concerning himself with, then at least people will know how to assess the review and how much value it has to them personally.
I understand, at this stage of the game especially, that demo material is all some people really care about.
But making that the imperial pass/fail criteria- without elaborating that there may be a caveat (i.e. that it isn't broke, and is supposed to look like that) - is what I have a problem with, and is what I see as having a serious dumbing down effect on the ultimate appreciation of the art form these are representing.
Last edited by Paul_SD; 11-20-07 at 08:56 AM.
11-27-07, 09:08 PM
#18
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul, your passion has inspired me to upgrade my special edition DVD and pick up the HD DVD. Plus it comes highly recommended by DVD Talk. Even if the transfer doesn't quite live up to my highest expectations, it's still a beautiful film, so why not have the best possible transfer that's out there?
12-08-07, 11:41 PM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought the HD-DVD today and just watched the first half hour... it brings tears to my eyes...
Right from the openning credit, I can tell it is significantly improved... much more details on the title card graphic... the music sounds much deeper (than SD-DVD)... to my eyes, there is more color and details on most of the out-door scenes...
I guess we need to realize that, a good movie presentation doesn't means it HAS to "looks-like" or "sounds-like" those modern big-budget production (i.e. Transformer, Spiderman...)
Right from the openning credit, I can tell it is significantly improved... much more details on the title card graphic... the music sounds much deeper (than SD-DVD)... to my eyes, there is more color and details on most of the out-door scenes...
I guess we need to realize that, a good movie presentation doesn't means it HAS to "looks-like" or "sounds-like" those modern big-budget production (i.e. Transformer, Spiderman...)
Last edited by tsetse27; 12-08-07 at 11:43 PM.
12-09-07, 11:29 AM
#20
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watched this on BD last night. I thought it looked and sounded OK at best, but I'd never seen the film before. It was decent enough but nothing spectacular IMO - I know it paved the way for more films of this type through the years, but I can think of quite a few that I enjoy more.... Although the acting was pretty great all around and I liked the title cards.
