bluetoast

If somebody can locate this issue of American Cinematographer, I'm sure we would get at least a few quotes from key sources, from the actual time of production.

RocShemp

Here's what I'm seeing in the special features versus the main feature:

Solid Snake

wow..that's a very very noticeable....sad...so would it be better that I get the CC of Spartacus considering it's closer to what it should be like?

RocShemp

You're not responding to my post, right? Cos those are screenshots from Dracula.

This post links to the screenshots of Spartacus:

tylergfoster

The new caps are pretty dark, but I also think the old caps look overly bright.

Doctorossi

They most certainly do not have the same timing! They have a vaguely similar tonal palette, but the temperature values are totally different. If there's any kind of encoding error here (and I don't see evidence of one) it's independent of the different timing and, I would think, probably coincident.

RocShemp

Okay and what of the fact that the footage in the special features exhibits more image detail and shadow detail than that of the main feature? Doesn't that strike you as a problem?

Are we to assume the answer print lacks image detail present in other prints of the movie? Does that make any kind of sense?

Doctorossi

No. It's called different color timing. The presence of image detail in the negative exposure is not necessarily an indication that said detail is intended to be seen. That's why movies are processed and color timed, in the first place.

Yes and yes. It happens every day and it's what color timing is all about.

RocShemp

Interesting. So this like how in The Descent the footage in the caves was darkened to make it appear scarcely lit? My bad on the confusion regarding colour timing as I think of that in terms of colours soley and not of how bright or dark an image is made to be.

For the record, I like the new colour scheme of the movie as I feel it makes it look creepier. I just feel they overdid it when making the overall image darker as it makes the blacks appear clipped or crushed (whichever is the correct term).

bunkaroo

I like it too except for the crushing of course. It's obvious that the letter superimposed on the scene should not have been obscured in darkness.

I wonder in some basement somewhere, there's a cammed bootleg of the movie sitting on VHS, just waiting to prove out it actually looked in the theater.

Burnt Thru

Why on earth would I hold a grudge about you remembering the transfer of Traffic incorrectly? You got that one wrong, but imagine that people should take your memory of Dracula seriously? Please.. Your self belief is impressive, if a little misplaced. Your Traffic debacle is richly demonstrative of your overconfidence in your own memory. Again it "looks exactly how the film is meant to look", according to your infallible memory. Dare a mere mortal (who doesn't think he can remember how films looked a few years ago let alone 20) question your powers of recollection..?

Doctorossi

No such tape could help us- VHS tapes (and 20+ year-old camcorders) have nowhere near the latitude to represent cinema color.

And, as no one seems to have picked up on it in their arguments yet, I feel I should state again my distinct memory of there being two substantially different kinds of print of this film, so we need to be talking about our memories of a look, not of the look.

chanster

Nothing like the good old Dracula debate to get people going. I actually do remember this movie in the theaters, because I was really impressed with how the writing was overlayed with the scenes - I had never really seen that before. The Blu Ray drops that completely due to the darkness.

I also point out that these people at Zoetrope have a vested interest in seeing their movie do well in sales, so they can pawn off whatever they claim as the "answer print" as the Gospel truth. Its a debate you simply can't win. Basically, everybody is willing to sign their name away for money. Coppola did it for the Criterion LaserDisc - why would he have done it if it wasn't the truth? Simply put, this is flat out selling the name out for money.

Jay G.

The screencaps are interesting to look at. As has been pointed out, the color timing is different between the two. Also, I don't notice significant differences in details on things clearly visible in both caps, such as the support beam and rat. The Special Features cap does look sharper, but there's also haloing about the flames, suggesting edge enhancement on this version.

As for the "crushed" blacks. Objects obscured by darkness in the main feature are, for the most part, gone, even when turning up the brightness. However, I'm not convince this is a "screw up" of the transfer. There are a number of reasons why this has occurred, from it being a limitation of the blu-ray encoding process, to a lmitation of the particular encoder used, to a limitation of the particular decoder used, to a limitation of the screenshot software used.

To color timing, at least to me, looks better on the new transfer, as evidenced by the caps in this review:
http://www.hometheaterspot.com/fusio...hp?tid/138718/

Josh Z

I'm not dredging up that old argument again. But your memory of that debate, and my position in it, are less than accurate. It doesn't surprise me that you can't remember what Dracula looked like either. We'll leave it at that.

Josh Z

The Superbit DVD is too bright and a little oversaturated. I won't deny that. But the Blu-ray veers too far in the other direction.

RocShemp

As I said, I prefer the colour scheme of the BD. I just feel they went overboard with the darkening of the image.

Burnt Thru

I'm not surprised you don't want people to remember your mistaken memory of how Traffic looked at the cinema. Frankly it's clear you have difficulty remembering things (as do the rest of us) which that particular case demonstrated fairly conclusively. It's ludicrous that you think you can now claim to remember how Dracula looked in theatres 20 years ago. Probably just best for you to accept that you have no evidence to support your questionable memory and move on..

Gizmo

I'm so booooored.

WMAangel

I'm not "choosing sides" or getting into this debate, but I will say just this: simple logic states that they wouldn't have taken the money and time to do that overlay of the letter on the screen to have it be completely unreadable and just about invisible due to the over dark color timing.....just look at that screen shot, why would they waste time on such an effect that can almost not even be seen due to the extreme darkness? What's the point if you can't see it??

Jay G.

Directors have done worse. Terry Gilliam excised a large, CGI intensive action sequence from The Brothers Grimm, after it had been finished, because he felt it interrupted the flow of the story. James Cameron removed from T2 some CGI shots of the T1000 "glitching" from near the end of the film, which are viewable on the extended version. Those scenes and shots likely cost a lot more, and took more effort, than a simple optical overlay of a letter, but were sacrificed to the director's overall vision for the film in the editing room. It could very well be that for Dracula, Copolla preferred the 10 second scene being darker to the letter overlay being more easily visible.

So simple logic states that you can't judge whether a shot, effect, or scene is supposed to be in a film just on whether or not it took "time and money" to create it.


Personally, I think that for a few specific shots (like the 10 second letter overlay), they may be a bit too dark in the new transfer. However, that's just my personal opinion, as are the two opinions quoted above. Regardless of what any of us feel about the new transfer, what really matters is whether or not it is accurate or correct. According to all credible evidence, the new transfer is an accurate reflection of how the film was intended to be shown in theaters.

tylergfoster

I understand where your opinion lies on this issue, but I think what I posted above is closer to the truth.