Akira comparison *PIX* [Text View]

Xylon

02-24-09, 05:24 AM

I have the VHS, the Criterion Collection Laserdisc, Signature Series DVD, the Special Edition DVD (TIN) and the DTS audio edition DVD. You could say I'm a fan :)

This new high definition transfer does not disappoint. This one was cleaned and tweaked as much as possible. There is still some dirt and scratches here and there but fortunately the film grain is left almost entirely alone. Very nice. They also boosted the contrast and brightness to reveal more of the animation. I never realized all this years that the previous versions I watched are indeed "too dark". Do not expect that the restoration will make the color "POP". This was made with the artistic intent of it being dark, dull and dirty.

In the past I have done three comparison thread on anime releases, Appleseed Ex Machina (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1006227&highlight=), Vexille (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1015973&highlight=) and Afro Samurai (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1061274&highlight=). They have not really delivered any consistency in PQ. Aliasing, banding and blocking plague one or the other. Akira did not suffer any of them.

For todays audience Akira may be seen as just another post-apocalyptic movie but 20 years ago this "anime" is something very new and very different from any animation we see from Hollywood (Disney) at the time. I would say the animation done on this movie is several years ahead of what was being produced in Hollywood. The detail, the fluid movement is just an amazing piece of work. The influence of this movie in the West can be seen on the popularity of Japanese animation and Manga literature today.

Xylon

02-24-09, 05:24 AM

I would like to take this opportunity to beg Sunrise studios to get Code Geass available here in the US this year. The Blu-ray version has been out but unfortunately there is no English subtitles. I could do the Vexille trick but sometimes I am just doing too much just to watch a movie. This TV series in my personal opinion is one of the best to come out from that genre ever.

Xylon

02-24-09, 05:24 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_9977f236.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/9977f236.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_1c88489f.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/1c88489f.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/9977f236.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/1c88489f.png

Xylon

02-24-09, 05:24 AM

DVD Special Edition

Blu-ray File size: 37.00 GB

Bitrate: 19.58 mbps

Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
00001.MPLS AVC 2:04:28 39,757,596,672 41,446,908,828 42.59 19.58 Dolby TrueHD 5.1 1466Kbps (48kHz/16-bit)

DISC INFO:

Disc Title: Akira Blu-ray
Disc Size: 41,446,908,828 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: No
BDInfo: 0.5.1

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00001.MPLS
Size: 39,757,596,672 bytes
Length: 2:04:28 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 42.59 Mbps
Description:

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 19583 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1466 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1466 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)
Dolby TrueHD Audio Japanese 14340 kbps 5.1 / 192 kHz / 14340 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Core: 2.0 / 48 kHz / 192 kbps / Dolby Surround)
Dolby Digital Audio Japanese 640 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps
LPCM Audio Japanese 1536 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 71.737 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 65.790 kbps

FILES:

Name Time In Length Size Total Bitrate
---- ------- ------ ---- -------------
00377.M2TS 0:00:00.000 2:04:28.461 39,757,596,672 42,587

CHAPTERS:

Number Time In Length Avg Video Rate Max 1-Sec Rate Max 1-Sec Time Max 5-Sec Rate Max 5-Sec Time Max 10Sec Rate Max 10Sec Time Avg Frame Size Max Frame Size Max Frame Time
------ ------- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1 0:00:00.000 0:03:04.309 19,218 kbps 38,200 kbps 00:00:17.600 24,063 kbps 00:00:46.212 22,625 kbps 00:01:26.002 100,174 bytes 458,307 bytes 00:00:30.196
2 0:03:04.309 0:02:20.974 19,883 kbps 27,348 kbps 00:04:46.619 21,975 kbps 00:03:23.202 21,147 kbps 00:03:15.737 103,662 bytes 380,100 bytes 00:04:11.542
3 0:05:25.283 0:01:33.384 19,749 kbps 23,280 kbps 00:06:37.605 20,788 kbps 00:06:20.421 20,391 kbps 00:05:26.701 102,963 bytes 402,567 bytes 00:06:56.707
4 0:06:58.668 0:03:34.839 19,453 kbps 28,285 kbps 00:07:19.730 21,420 kbps 00:07:04.632 20,433 kbps 00:10:18.868 101,420 bytes 346,011 bytes 00:10:33.507
5 0:10:33.507 0:01:38.223 19,695 kbps 24,705 kbps 00:10:44.810 21,430 kbps 00:11:12.922 20,548 kbps 00:10:35.801 102,681 bytes 374,415 bytes 00:11:17.134
6 0:12:11.730 0:04:42.156 19,717 kbps 30,886 kbps 00:12:40.009 21,656 kbps 00:12:37.923 20,548 kbps 00:12:37.339 102,797 bytes 351,861 bytes 00:12:40.509
7 0:16:53.887 0:03:43.556 19,549 kbps 24,515 kbps 00:18:26.730 21,671 kbps 00:17:19.246 20,732 kbps 00:17:15.075 101,920 bytes 334,972 bytes 00:19:08.188
8 0:20:37.444 0:03:07.896 19,722 kbps 24,051 kbps 00:22:22.382 20,952 kbps 00:21:50.183 20,276 kbps 00:21:45.178 102,821 bytes 346,128 bytes 00:21:58.608
9 0:23:45.340 0:02:59.345 19,687 kbps 28,052 kbps 00:25:40.205 20,860 kbps 00:26:35.385 20,288 kbps 00:25:40.330 102,638 bytes 396,580 bytes 00:25:40.413
10 0:26:44.686 0:02:25.395 19,672 kbps 26,928 kbps 00:27:14.007 21,837 kbps 00:27:18.428 20,640 kbps 00:27:17.886 102,560 bytes 368,839 bytes 00:27:20.847
11 0:29:10.081 0:03:00.430 19,603 kbps 29,978 kbps 00:30:12.685 21,807 kbps 00:30:33.832 20,731 kbps 00:30:33.373 102,201 bytes 391,714 bytes 00:29:14.961
12 0:32:10.511 0:03:11.065 19,760 kbps 25,900 kbps 00:34:12.800 21,005 kbps 00:33:40.393 20,602 kbps 00:32:11.179 103,018 bytes 330,637 bytes 00:32:12.138
13 0:35:21.577 0:02:52.672 19,762 kbps 23,716 kbps 00:35:28.835 20,930 kbps 00:35:28.084 20,375 kbps 00:35:28.084 103,028 bytes 382,557 bytes 00:38:14.250
14 0:38:14.250 0:03:08.897 19,718 kbps 24,652 kbps 00:38:57.543 20,945 kbps 00:38:28.305 20,292 kbps 00:38:48.534 102,802 bytes 394,684 bytes 00:40:08.280
15 0:41:23.147 0:03:42.555 19,672 kbps 24,198 kbps 00:42:51.360 21,641 kbps 00:43:52.463 20,821 kbps 00:43:52.463 102,561 bytes 437,475 bytes 00:43:54.965
16 0:45:05.703 0:02:34.404 19,648 kbps 22,805 kbps 00:45:05.744 20,906 kbps 00:45:05.744 20,436 kbps 00:45:05.703 102,436 bytes 329,244 bytes 00:45:24.847
17 0:47:40.107 0:05:36.377 19,776 kbps 30,925 kbps 00:53:08.476 21,713 kbps 00:47:40.858 20,794 kbps 00:47:40.315 103,101 bytes 327,181 bytes 00:47:48.657
18 0:53:16.484 0:04:00.365 19,684 kbps 25,959 kbps 00:54:16.878 22,345 kbps 00:55:34.539 21,092 kbps 00:55:09.806 102,625 bytes 334,946 bytes 00:54:53.331
19 0:57:16.850 0:05:15.356 19,758 kbps 26,134 kbps 00:57:34.284 20,854 kbps 00:57:17.559 20,350 kbps 00:57:31.573 103,012 bytes 313,541 bytes 00:58:56.324
20 1:02:32.206 0:02:57.969 19,724 kbps 24,742 kbps 01:05:25.087 21,858 kbps 01:02:55.730 20,843 kbps 01:02:55.897 102,830 bytes 315,576 bytes 01:05:30.176
21 1:05:30.176 0:03:06.227 19,710 kbps 25,060 kbps 01:05:35.306 21,022 kbps 01:05:48.569 20,397 kbps 01:05:48.611 102,758 bytes 390,563 bytes 01:05:42.396
22 1:08:36.403 0:02:34.654 19,763 kbps 27,132 kbps 01:09:20.698 21,242 kbps 01:09:17.069 20,397 kbps 01:09:12.064 103,038 bytes 305,578 bytes 01:09:45.931
23 1:11:11.058 0:03:19.407 19,741 kbps 23,941 kbps 01:11:58.689 20,417 kbps 01:12:05.571 20,172 kbps 01:13:14.556 102,921 bytes 301,182 bytes 01:14:30.466
24 1:14:30.466 0:03:41.804 19,711 kbps 26,560 kbps 01:16:29.334 21,082 kbps 01:16:25.330 20,241 kbps 01:16:33.463 102,764 bytes 342,461 bytes 01:16:10.482
25 1:18:12.270 0:03:19.157 19,643 kbps 26,484 kbps 01:20:01.671 20,776 kbps 01:19:57.667 20,327 kbps 01:18:22.447 102,409 bytes 401,705 bytes 01:19:55.457
26 1:21:31.428 0:04:26.057 19,619 kbps 27,442 kbps 01:22:46.211 21,076 kbps 01:21:31.636 20,338 kbps 01:23:04.646 102,283 bytes 415,532 bytes 01:23:59.117
27 1:25:57.485 0:04:49.872 19,577 kbps 27,738 kbps 01:29:22.231 21,868 kbps 01:29:22.231 20,774 kbps 01:28:44.944 102,064 bytes 388,685 bytes 01:25:58.278
28 1:30:47.358 0:05:18.151 19,707 kbps 25,036 kbps 01:34:30.915 20,948 kbps 01:32:37.009 20,279 kbps 01:32:31.963 102,743 bytes 382,538 bytes 01:34:01.552
29 1:36:05.509 0:03:33.296 19,693 kbps 25,568 kbps 01:37:39.687 21,490 kbps 01:37:58.080 20,547 kbps 01:38:34.116 102,673 bytes 337,694 bytes 01:38:21.979
30 1:39:38.806 0:02:16.094 19,733 kbps 26,253 kbps 01:41:01.055 21,145 kbps 01:40:56.467 20,155 kbps 01:40:51.712 102,877 bytes 357,516 bytes 01:41:01.138
31 1:41:54.900 0:03:47.435 19,681 kbps 25,022 kbps 01:44:43.735 21,213 kbps 01:45:19.688 20,376 kbps 01:45:14.599 102,605 bytes 391,237 bytes 01:42:29.434
32 1:45:42.335 0:03:39.344 19,705 kbps 26,727 kbps 01:46:06.985 21,250 kbps 01:46:06.985 20,418 kbps 01:46:06.860 102,730 bytes 354,988 bytes 01:45:45.881
33 1:49:21.680 0:03:02.015 19,626 kbps 28,885 kbps 01:52:10.640 23,441 kbps 01:50:13.773 20,755 kbps 01:50:22.324 102,323 bytes 600,004 bytes 01:50:18.320
34 1:52:23.695 0:03:43.264 19,581 kbps 40,684 kbps 01:53:19.793 23,009 kbps 01:53:19.876 21,798 kbps 01:53:19.834 102,089 bytes 612,857 bytes 01:53:20.001
35 1:56:06.959 0:02:18.054 19,656 kbps 35,086 kbps 01:56:28.648 21,862 kbps 01:56:28.648 21,118 kbps 01:56:28.648 102,476 bytes 333,633 bytes 01:57:47.643
36 1:58:25.014 0:06:03.446 17,831 kbps 30,855 kbps 02:00:57.500 23,044 kbps 02:01:24.610 21,892 kbps 02:01:48.676 92,986 bytes 396,063 bytes 02:01:53.055

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File PID Type Codec Language Seconds Bitrate Bytes Packets
---- --- ---- ----- -------- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----
00377.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0x1B AVC 7468.378 19,583 18,281,744,524 99,462,475
00377.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x83 TrueHD jpn (Japanese) 7468.378 14,532 13,566,022,250 78,937,499
00377.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x80 LPCM jpn (Japanese) 7468.378 1,542 1,439,920,052 8,962,158
00377.M2TS 4354 (0x1102) 0x83 TrueHD eng (English) 7468.378 2,106 1,965,701,474 15,233,907
00377.M2TS 4355 (0x1103) 0x81 AC3 jpn (Japanese) 7468.378 640 597,478,400 3,500,850
00377.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 PGS eng (English) 7468.378 72 66,970,452 376,241
00377.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 PGS jpn (Japanese) 7468.378 66 61,418,361 347,450

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/d853b93e.png

MRMOTA

02-24-09, 07:32 AM

Looks like they definately cleaned it up. Some softness but may have been needed to do a decent clean up. The colors look like they've changed some. I'll have to pull out the original VHS(If it still works that is) and my TIN and see the color change over the three different versions. I was waiting for some nice captures before pulling the trigger. Thanks Xylon.

I've heard the sound is killer. Supposedly it takes up 12 gig of the disk. Can't wait to pick it up.

jd213

02-24-09, 07:38 AM

Some people have said DNR has apparently been applied in some shots based on screenshots posted elsewhere. I don't have my disc yet (and freakin' DVD Pacific has yet to ship it either, so much for getting the slipcover/booklet), so I'd be interested in hearing whether or not you share this opinion.

paku

02-24-09, 07:40 AM

It's not bad, but not as good as some of their earlier titles from the same era. They either went overboard with the clean-up, or more likely they intentionally grain-processed it. In any case, the result is the grain is not very consistent and often moves unnaturally. For most people though it will look great.

the thing wnn

02-24-09, 08:13 AM

its a massive improvement on the DVD's, I had the tin and the dts version
don't expect to be too wow-ed by the PQ though, compared to other animated titles it looks a bit flat, but for any Akira fans, its a must buy
as for the soundtrack, its simply stunning. The music sounds so immersive, great surround use and with the music each instument seems to be placed specifically
A must buy IMHO

Xylon

02-24-09, 08:15 AM

The film grain for the most part is there. I am more lenient on grain scrubbing done on animation since the resulting image doesn't suffer much to the overall presentation. If the level of DNR was used on a live action film then the result will be different. There are more fine details to be lost when removing grain on live action. Sleeping Beauty (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073677&highlight=xylon+sleeping+beauty) has more DNR applied to it but no visible smearing and waxy PQ.

The sewer scene where Kei shot the pursuer in the head was still very grainy and there is still visible scratches. Its very tempting to dial up the DNR on this one but they left it alone. If it was applied on that dark scene the resulting image will have a smeared look and should be too obvious not to notice.

Xylon

02-24-09, 08:17 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_7ab002fa.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/7ab002fa.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_30e0a9ae.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/30e0a9ae.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/7ab002fa.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/30e0a9ae.png

chirpie

02-24-09, 10:26 AM

This TV series in my personal opinion is one of the best to come out from that genre ever.

I would have never guessed by your avatar. :-)

pcweber111

02-24-09, 11:27 AM

You know, the DVD doesn't really look that bad. There's some bad edge enhancement but I'm surprised at how well it holds up. I'll definitely pick up the BD version though.

paku

02-24-09, 11:31 AM

It's still somewhat of a disappointment to me, especially considering the high profile of the title and the fact that it's actually a brand-new transfer. In my opinion neither sharpness, grain consistency or overall quality/clarity is anywhere near their release of for example Patlabor:
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/778/pat02bdzb8.th.jpg (http://img14.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pat02bdzb8.jpg)http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4868/pat03bduz7.th.jpg (http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pat03bduz7.jpg)http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6535/pat04bdel9.th.jpg (http://img12.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pat04bdel9.jpg)
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/335/pat05bdtd1.th.jpg (http://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pat05bdtd1.jpg)http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/1410/pat06bdyb8.th.jpg (http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pat06bdyb8.jpg)http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/7803/pat07bdnv7.th.jpg (http://img9.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pat07bdnv7.jpg)

sharkcohen

02-24-09, 11:32 AM

Yay no more edge enhancement.

eric.exe

02-24-09, 11:37 AM

It's still somewhat of a disappointment to me, especially considering the high profile of the title. In my opinion neither sharpness, grain consistency or overall quality/clarity is anywhere near their release of for example Patlabor: Yeah, Jin-Roh had some nice grain too: http://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4405

I'm pretty happy with this (Akira) release overall, just wished they skipped the windowboxing, even if it is a tiny amount, and maybe open up the top and bottom to 1:78:1 to get a little more artwork.

TayC

02-24-09, 03:07 PM

Looks like a huge upgrade to me. Double dip time.

Grubert

02-24-09, 03:11 PM

Yeah, Jin-Roh had some nice grain too: http://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4405

I'm pretty happy with this release overall, just wished they skipped the letterboxing, even if it is a tiny amount, and maybe open up the top and bottom to 1:78:1 to get a little more artwork.

Please don't mention Jin-Roh to me. I didn't buy it when it "came out" because it was so expensive. Now it is super-rare and goes for even more. I'm still kicking myself.

joekun

02-24-09, 04:02 PM

The pics look EXTREMELY soft. I expected it to look nearly as good as the cel I used to own from the film. I'm going to wait for the inevitable remaster.

brickuser

02-24-09, 04:48 PM

i just got the movie and i was reading the book about the Hypersonic sound. most systems out there cant even play this formate but here is the info about it

brickuser

02-24-09, 04:49 PM

sorry have to post 1 more time to post a URL

brickuser

02-24-09, 04:49 PM

http://www.yamashirogumi.gr.jp/akira-e/sankou/index_e.html

paku

02-24-09, 05:16 PM

Please don't mention Jin-Roh to me. I didn't buy it when it "came out" because it was so expensive. Now it is super-rare and goes for even more. I'm still kicking myself.
It's still available from dot-anime (http://www.dot-anime.us/detail/?item_no=61400) if you're in the US. Other than that there's also the Japanese re-release (http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/switch-language/product/B0018KKQBY/ref=dp_change_lang?ie=UTF8&language=en_JP) which is about the same price. Though no box or storyboard book.

paku

02-24-09, 05:19 PM

The pics look EXTREMELY soft. I expected it to look nearly as good as the cel I used to own from the film. I'm going to wait for the inevitable remaster.
Agreed on the softness. Though since this was a new transfer I think you're going to be waiting a loooong time before it's redone (if ever).

chirpie

02-24-09, 06:01 PM

The pics look EXTREMELY soft. I expected it to look nearly as good as the cel I used to own from the film. I'm going to wait for the inevitable remaster.

I gotta ask... which cel?

A good looking transfer will be directly related to the condition of the elements they have to work with, which I imagine were just so-so. Akira was NOT a success in Japan when it was initially released. I wonder how well it was cared for after it didn't even turn an initial profit?

Wouldn't it have been completely wonderful if they still had all the cels in mint condition in a vault somewhere, and redid the thing on computer by scanning instead of the degrading step of committing it to film? Oh well, one can dream. ^_^;

Picked this one up over the lunch hour... will spot check it tonight.

vazel

02-24-09, 06:16 PM

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks it's soft. To me it does disappoint.

Toe

02-24-09, 06:27 PM

Glad I'm not the only one that thinks it's soft. To me it does disappoint.

Agreed. Looks VERY soft to my eyes....:(

Rieper

02-24-09, 06:29 PM

Yay no more edge enhancement.

Boo! PQ is soft and lackluster/depressing colors.

They cleaned it up too much.

They botched it!

But what the hell can I do? AKIRA is my all-time fav anime. I have to buy the damn thing. ARGH!

Xylon

02-24-09, 07:11 PM

raoul_duke

02-24-09, 07:17 PM

Boo! PQ is soft and lackluster/depressing colors.

They cleaned it up too much.

They botched it!

But what the hell can I do? AKIRA is my all-time fav anime. I have to buy the damn thing. ARGH!
Oh for fu..... :rolleyes:

chirpie

02-24-09, 07:36 PM

I know this film well. REALLY WELL. I know this is a picture quality thread but I gotta rant real fast on the audio.

This whole hypersonic thing is a joke. This film sounds better than it ever has, but that has almost NOTHING to do with it. (maybe 1%)

Half of the sound effects are do overs from the original theatrical release (I'm actually angry they replaced the thundering sound of Kaneda's bike starting up at the beginning with more of a crackling electric sound... too wimpy!) Some of these popped up on the last release, but I think there's even more now.

The soundtrack is much better off this time around, but I SWEAR they're evening using some slightly different musical cues.

And BTW, if you like your surround speakers mixed loud, this is the film for you. The rears are almost TOO active.

Overall, I think I like it, but it kinda takes me out of the film when I'm expecting one sound, and get something else... I'm sure I'll have more to comment on later...

raoul_duke

02-24-09, 07:44 PM

jd213

02-24-09, 07:58 PM

vazel

02-24-09, 10:00 PM

Those people complaining because its too soft and viewed as a negative on this 1988 release is just a taaaaad bit unfair.

Too soft compared to? Not as sharp as? Colors don't pop out as much as?

No offense but some of you guys are spending way too much time at the PQ Tier thread. I will officially enodorse the Film Grain Allowed - Artistic Intent Thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935) as a direct companion to all of my comparison thread.
How about a 1959 animated film, Sleeping Beauty. :) Or are you saying it was meant to be this soft? I doubt it. As has been mentioned in this thread it looks like the softness is due to DNR and improper care of the film.

chirpie

02-24-09, 10:03 PM

Isn't the LPCM 2.0 track the original theatrical audio? It's also Dolby Surround (Pro-logic) encoded according to the Japanese product listing, so the surround info is probably a bit more subdued as well. That track may be more to your liking.

(sigh) It might have to be. I just flipped through a few more chapters, and they COMPLETELY SWAPPED OUT the belgium women's choir during Kaneda's visit to Tetsuo's memory at the end of the film. (The one where Kaneda has beaten up the bullies to get Tetsuo's toy back) Instead, it's more of the music cue "Requiem" with the organ playing over it... It used to be a touching scene and now it's intent has been drastically changed.

I'm mostly surprised no one else has commented on changes like this.

chirpie

02-24-09, 10:12 PM

How about a 1959 animated film, Sleeping Beauty. :) Or are you saying it was meant to be this soft? I doubt it. As has been mentioned in this thread it looks like the softness is due to DNR and improper care of the film.

Perhaps not soft, but the color palette was definitely designed to be muted.

And I'm guessing Disney has a few more resources available. This isn't A+ material, but I'm still glad I purchased it.

Neuromancer

02-24-09, 10:33 PM

How about a 1959 animated film, Sleeping Beauty. :) Or are you saying it was meant to be this soft? I doubt it. As has been mentioned in this thread it looks like the softness is due to DNR and improper care of the film.

Also, how many millions do you think Disney spent on remastering Sleeping Beauty, versus the amount of money that Bandai/Honneamise spent on Akira?

I remember re-watching Akira in theaters when it was re-released by Pioneer many many moons ago, but it is too far back for me to remember how that print compared to this BD release.

vazel

02-24-09, 10:42 PM

Toe

02-24-09, 10:51 PM

Those people complaining because its too soft and viewed as a negative on this 1988 release is just a taaaaad bit unfair.

Too soft compared to? Not as sharp as? Colors don't pop out as much as?

No offense but some of you guys are spending way too much time at the PQ Tier thread. I will officially enodorse the Film Grain Allowed - Artistic Intent Thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935) as a direct companion to all of my comparison thread.

1988 is no excuse.....Sleeping Beauty anyone;)

It just looks unusualy soft in general to my eyes :( I am usualy easy going with PQ as most of you know, but this just seems a bit lackluster IMO.
I dont spend much time in the PQ tier thread so that is not what is causing my issues with the PQ.

chirpie

02-24-09, 11:07 PM

Someone gave an example in this thread of another old anime movie that doesn't have this problem, Patlabor, released one year after Akira. Which looked just fine on BD without the resources of Disney.

As some have already theorized, it's very likely the original elements they worked with were simply in better shape. They likely didn't have to muck with it much because it was already fine. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't (remember the print damage already happening to Star Wars when they pulled it out to take a look?)

vazel

02-24-09, 11:52 PM

As some have already theorized, it's very likely the original elements they worked with were simply in better shape. They likely didn't have to muck with it much because it was already fine. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't (remember the print damage already happening to Star Wars when they pulled it out to take a look?)
That's what I said.How about a 1959 animated film, Sleeping Beauty. :) Or are you saying it was meant to be this soft? I doubt it. As has been mentioned in this thread it looks like the softness is due to DNR and improper care of the film.

Neuromancer

02-24-09, 11:56 PM

Someone gave an example in this thread of another old anime movie that doesn't have this problem, Patlabor, released one year after Akira. Which looked just fine on BD without the resources of Disney.

It is not a one to one relationship. We do not know the original conditions of the film negatives, what kind of restoration they did to the film, the original intent of the filmed content, and we could go on and on. Just because something came out at around the same time does not mean that you will get the same quality out of it.

Look at release like Neon Genesis Evangelion (DVD) and Ghost in the Shell (Blu-ray). They had to redo these releases because of poor quality original masters and both received extensive redraws.

Hell, even the recent release the Ghost In the Shell: Innocence (2004 theatrical release) was incredibly inconsistent in quality. At times I felt like someone had replaced my Blu-ray disc with the DVD.

EDIT:
Another thing to consider: Are we actually watching these movies, or are we just comparing screenshots? If the later, then we are completely at the mercy of the person who captured the frames. One person may capture only the pristine images, while another may capture the image which is more indicative of the overall quality.

vazel

02-25-09, 03:12 AM

For the third time I already mentioned damage from film storage as a possible reason. And I also mentioned DNR as another reason. And I doubt any animated movie was meant to look this soft.

Xylon

02-25-09, 03:34 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_ce3f3d42.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/ce3f3d42.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_5e2dae34.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/5e2dae34.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/ce3f3d42.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/5e2dae34.png

Neuromancer

02-25-09, 04:20 AM

For the third time I already mentioned damage from film storage as a possible reason.
Yes, you made the comment once (quoted a second time, and mentioned again in your reply to me), but that was not the quibble with your Disney quip and reference to Patlabor. Just because two films belong in the same medium, and one is released a year later, does not mean that they are equatable.

And I doubt any animated movie was meant to look this soft.

And again, are we comparing stuff we are actually watching, or merely making comments based off of a few frames someone has captured?

All Japanese animated Blu-rays I have watched which have predated CG scanning and coloring (from Honneamise (1987) to Memories (1995) to Escaflowne (2000)) have all suffered from major visual issues, from scratches and hairs, to obvious cell layers and shadows, to noise and contents being slightly or overly soft (Paprika being a good example).

This goes back to the Disney comment. Disney will spend the time and money to make sure their transfer of a beloved classic is quality. The Japanese animation market keeps shrinking year after year in both the United States and Japan, so they are less likely to put in the time, money, and resources required to really make these older films shine.

Kram Sacul

02-25-09, 06:04 AM

I say it looks okay for being a film based animated film from another country.

vazel

02-25-09, 02:35 PM

Well at least now we all seem to be on the same page that this movie doesn't look its best. We just disagree on wether it's excusable or not. I'm of the opinion that better storage care and less DNR is reasonable for any company. :)

Kentai

02-25-09, 02:35 PM

"It's very soft compared to other Bandai Visual transfers of 1980s theatrical anime films", maybe? I only saw a few shots, but Wings of Honneamise struck me as looking similar to Patlabor: very sharp and with visible fine grain. Memories looks pretty decent too, though it's got a bit of EE.

The only Bandai Visual transfer I can think of that's probably less impressive than this is Ghost in the Shell, but that makes sense considering the unique digital/analog process that was used to create it. GITS has no "negative" in the traditional sense, so its' hazy but grainy nature can be forgiven by the technological vaccum that created it.

The restoration crew have already admitted here (http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2394) that they used NR as a means to get rid of dirt; "After an automated pass, where the computer identifies what it believes to be print damage or debris and then eliminates it, the real work begins."

This is the best Akira has ever looked, easy. I'm just not convinced it's as good as it could have looked. As I've said before, it looks okay, but certainly doesn't look like $50. (Probably sounds like it, but I don't have the system to make that matter right now.)

spectator

02-25-09, 02:44 PM

The restoration crew have already admitted here (http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2394) that they used NR as a means to get rid of dirt; "After an automated pass, where the computer identifies what it believes to be print damage or debris and then eliminates it, the real work begins."

Is DNR really a practical problem on a cel-animated title? Obviously, it can always be overused (say, to remove grain), but outside of that, if it's being used for dirt and scratch removal, I would think the results could potentially be detail-reduction-free. The majority of specks and blemishes are going to be smaller than the fields of uniform-color cel paint they reside in, so how often will there even be any high-frequency detail at risk?

dad1153

02-25-09, 02:48 PM

This is the best Akira has ever looked, easy. I'm just not convinced it's as good as it could have looked. As I've said before, it looks okay, but certainly doesn't look like $50. (Probably sounds like it, but I don't have the system to make that matter right now.)

Agree. If it were $20-25 I'd swallow hard, look past the soft PQ and bite the bullet. For fifty bucks though I want more than 'as good as it's ever going to look given today's technological limitations.' I'll stick with the DVD. :)

vazel

02-25-09, 02:49 PM

Is DNR really a practical problem on a cel-animated title? Obviously, it can always be overused (say, to remove grain), but outside of that, if it's being used for dirt and scratch removal, I would think the results could potentially be detail-reduction-free. The majority of specks and blemishes are going to be smaller than the fields of uniform-color cel paint they reside in, so how often will there even be any high-frequency detail at risk?DNR can be just as disastrous to animation. http://www.lyris-lite.net/dvnr.html

chirpie

02-25-09, 02:51 PM

Agree. If it were $20-25 I'd swallow hard, look past the soft PQ and bite the bullet. For fifty bucks though I want more than 'as good as it's ever going to look given today's technological limitations.' I'll stick with the DVD. :)

It's worth noting that I walked into a Best Buy yesterday, plucked it off the shelf, and walked out. With tax, $32.

Not quite 25, but certainly not 50. That price is for this week only, next week it's back up to $35, but that's still cheaper than 50, and a lot of this board has access to BB.

Kentai

02-25-09, 03:05 PM

Take a gander at Kei and Kaneda's faces in this (http://www.fanboyreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/akira-bd-cap015.png) lossless shot. They're just as horrified by the clumpy grain and smudged outlines as I am. ;)

DrCrawn

02-25-09, 03:05 PM

You know, the DVD doesn't really look that bad. There's some bad edge enhancement but I'm surprised at how well it holds up. I'll definitely pick up the BD version though.

Dude that is some of the worst EE on anything DVD ever. It looks terrible. The BD is huge improvement just for the clean edges.

xradman

02-25-09, 03:58 PM

Why the *&^$ is it windowboxed??? Someone needs to tell Bandai that most HDTVs now are fixed pixel displays and have no overscan.

joekun

02-25-09, 04:05 PM

I gotta ask... which cel?
It was from the sequence at the beginning of the film where Tetsuo is sitting on Kaneda's bike. Sold most of my cels on ebay a few years ago.

sharkcohen

02-25-09, 04:11 PM

Why the *&^$ is it windowboxed??? Someone needs to tell Bandai that most HDTVs now are fixed pixel displays and have no overscan.

I am also unhappy with the windowboxing. I can zoom the picture with my external processor, but I shouldn't have to.

MrGonk

02-25-09, 04:19 PM

dlbsyst

02-25-09, 04:36 PM

i honestly don't know why people are complaining. soft? the f'in movie itself is soft. looks like a great transfer - no noise, a little bit of grain, no apparent DNR abuse, no EE at all. looks nice and clean with vivid, balanced colors to me. looks to me like this shows plenty of signs of being faithful to the film presentation. oh sure, it's not "TIER ONE LIKE KING KONG WOOOooooo" but some movies just don't look like king kong. deal with it.

I agree. Having seen AKIRA dozens of times from VHS, LD, and DVD I am very pleased with the transfer. Saying this blu-ray looks soft is just silly. To me it looks like a film print and that is what I want from my blu-ray's.

-Will

TayC

02-25-09, 04:36 PM

I don't think it looks much softer than I would expect to see. It may be soft, but the rest of the picture looks pristine to me. In order to sharpen the image, wouldn't EE have to be utilized?

TayC

02-25-09, 04:43 PM

Why the *&^$ is it windowboxed??? Someone needs to tell Bandai that most HDTVs now are fixed pixel displays and have no overscan.

I'm curious about that, too. What is the purpose of windowboxing?

MrGonk

02-25-09, 04:52 PM

I don't think it looks much softer than I would expect to see. It may be soft, but the rest of the picture looks pristine to me. In order to sharpen the image, wouldn't EE have to be utilized?

yep. i mean, look, there's essentially no detail in this movie that should not have shown up in the DVD. so the fact that this BR looks like the dvd, except with better color, WAY less noise and no EE is about as good as i could imagine it looking. this movie has always had a soft look to it -- on dvd, on ld, on vhs, anywhere i've seen it. it's from 1988. i don't care what they did with sleeping beauty. this isn't sleeping beauty, this is akira, and to me it looks exactly the way it should.

xradman

02-25-09, 04:53 PM

I'm curious about that, too. What is the purpose of windowboxing?

It used to done to compensate for TV overscan, so that you get the entire picture with nothing being cutout by your TV. It was more common with Japanese DVDs and anime. However as more and more HDTV are now LCDs and Plasma displays, overscan is becoming a thing of the past. They should retire windowboxing scheme.

Kentai

02-25-09, 05:06 PM

In order to sharpen the image, wouldn't EE have to be utilized?

No, they just needed to skip the noise reduction. When the guys who made the transfer say they used NR, it isn't as sharp as it could be. That's just sort of what NR does.

There are some NR artifacts on the transfer, they just aren't constant. It's nowhere near as bad as, say, FUNimation's transfer of the Dragonball Z movies, but it still isn't perfect.

dlbsyst

02-25-09, 05:10 PM

No, they just needed to skip the noise reduction. When the guys who made the transfer say they used NR, it isn't as sharp as it could be. That's just sort of what NR does.

There are some NR artifacts on the transfer, they just aren't constant. It's nowhere near as bad as, say, FUNimation's transfer of the Dragonball Z movies, but it still isn't perfect.

May not be perfect buy I think it's close.

-Will

Josh Z

02-25-09, 05:24 PM

raoul_duke

02-25-09, 06:30 PM

It used to done to compensate for TV overscan, so that you get the entire picture with nothing being cutout by your TV. It was more common with Japanese DVDs and anime. However as more and more HDTV are now LCDs and Plasma displays, overscan is becoming a thing of the past. They should retire windowboxing scheme.
I'm watching the MGM Hong Kong release of Army Of Darkness on DVD at the moment and it's windowboxed the same as Akira. It's not even an issue to me.

Kentai

02-25-09, 07:04 PM

Josh Z: Reading it a second time, you're probably right. The article could well have been talking about actual human-aided scratch removal (which was also done on the Pioneer restoration), but the wording still made me nervous. FUNimation's bragging about how their Dragon Ball Z HD telecine "removed millions of scratches and pieces of dirt" with no actual scratch removal stage in the transfer has seemingly made me a little paranoid. For that I apologize. :)

But, if you need proof that DNR was used on this transfer:

http://www.fanboyreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/akira-bd-cap015.png

If that isn't DNR, I'd love to know what it is.

(Screencap can be found in this (http://www.fanboyreview.net/2009/01/30/akira-blu-ray-early-lookreview/) review.)

joekun

02-25-09, 07:14 PM

to me it looks exactly the way it should.
Do a search on ebay for some of the cels that are for sale from "Akira", they look nice and sharp. Putting them to film added grain, but shouldn't have blurred them up like you can see in some of the shots on page 1.

MrGonk

02-25-09, 07:17 PM

just got this in the mail when i got home from work. i'm watching it right now on my calibrated xbr960 - i won't deny based on the above screencaps that there's a little bit of dnr going on, however, if you guys think this isn't a good transfer, you're crazy. despite the bit of dnr, the image is very filmlike, smooth, sharp but not unnaturally sharp.

also, the 192/24 soundtrack is AMAZING. purists won't like all the new foley work - and there is a good bit of it, but it sounds ridiculous. if i didn't know it was 192/24 and someone told me it was just uncompressed 48/16, i'd certainly believe them. it's definitely not a night and day difference, or even all that noticeable a difference. but the soundstage is absolutely huge, the dynamic range is crazy, the clarity is flawless, with plenty of bass but not too much bass. the new mix is also extremely aggressive, maybe a little too aggressive, which is basically the only fault i'd site. an overall epic disc.

TayC

02-25-09, 07:21 PM

Wendell R. Breland

02-25-09, 07:36 PM

DISCLAIMER: I have not read the thread nor have I seen the disc.

As a professional video person the second set of comparison pictures caught my eye. There is a person on a conveyor and under the person is a set lines in a arced pattern. This pattern is similar to one of many test patterns we use for testing video response.

Note the DVD lines that are ≥ 45° (CCW) vs. the same ones in the Blu-ray version. The DVD ones smear and blend together, the ones on Blu-ray are nice and distinct. This implies much greater video bandwidth (detail) and that is as it should be for the Blu-ray.

Sorry for the interruption, now back to your regular arguing :).

brickuser

02-25-09, 07:44 PM

to the 192/24 audio most surrond sounds cant even processe that format so you are not going to notice but if we all a system that could, i would think it would be big difference.

MrGonk

02-25-09, 09:33 PM

my ps3 is decoding it correctly and outputting it as 192/24 5.1 LPCM to my onkyo 605 and it sounds like butter. i'm just saying there's no way i'd be able to tell the difference between this and a well-mastered 48/16 truehd/dts-ma/LPCM track. and i'm not listening on a small system. i have full-range floor standing polk audio l/r speakers and timbre matched multi-driver center and surround speakers. by no means is it a top-of-the-line or even high-end system, not by a long shot, but it's no HTIB. all things considered, i'd say the surround mix on the blade runner final cut is better than this one - it's more subtle, dynamic and directional. and it's like 1/3 of the data as in this one. i just don't think there's much you gain by going beyond 48/16.... nevertheless, it does sound phenomenal.

Ruined

02-25-09, 09:46 PM

Honneamise is the new Criterion. :cool:

Foxarwing42

02-25-09, 10:16 PM

Honneamise is the new Criterion. :cool:

Yeah, but doesn't Criterion put like a lot of extras on discs (well, at least their DVDs, I don't know about their Blu-rays.)

Xylon

02-26-09, 04:59 AM

Josh Z:
But, if you need proof that DNR was used on this transfer:

[edit]

If that isn't DNR, I'd love to know what it is.

We know there is DNR use. Who said there isn't?

someone else

02-26-09, 06:53 AM

Do a search on ebay for some of the cels that are for sale from "Akira", they look nice and sharp. Putting them to film added grain, but shouldn't have blurred them up like you can see in some of the shots on page 1.
Maybe so, but the transfers aren't made from the cells unfortunately. They are made from dusty films of those cells. And that's a very big difference.

Josh Z

02-26-09, 11:42 AM

Josh Z: Reading it a second time, you're probably right. The article could well have been talking about actual human-aided scratch removal (which was also done on the Pioneer restoration), but the wording still made me nervous. FUNimation's bragging about how their Dragon Ball Z HD telecine "removed millions of scratches and pieces of dirt" with no actual scratch removal stage in the transfer has seemingly made me a little paranoid. For that I apologize. :)

But, if you need proof that DNR was used on this transfer:

If that isn't DNR, I'd love to know what it is.

(Screencap can be found in this (http://www.fanboyreview.net/2009/01/30/akira-blu-ray-early-lookreview/) review.)

I'm not saying that the disc wasn't DNR'ed. I received my copy yesterday, but so far haven't watched more than 2 minutes of it on a small monitor to verify that the TrueHD track was working with my equipment. I really have no opinion on the video transfer yet. All I mean is that the quote you pulled doesn't sound to me like an admission of guilt. :)

joekun

02-26-09, 03:26 PM

Maybe so, but the transfers aren't made from the cells unfortunately. They are made from dusty films of those cells. And that's a very big difference.

Not saying it's going to be perfect, just that some of those shots don't look very sharp, and some of them do. This shot for example seems very blurry, and I don't think that was intentional for this scene:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/1c88489f.png

Kentai

02-26-09, 09:27 PM

We know there is DNR use. Who said there isn't?

Nobody. Sorry if I'm being dramatic, I just wanted to establish what got me so upset that I wasn't thinking straight. ;)

Several people on forums, review sites and the like (not just here) have said it looks "fantastic", "pretty much perfect", and all sorts of other overly excited things. I disagree. It's not a bad transfer, and heaven knows I own worse, but it's neither as good as Bandai Visual has done in the past, nor as good as the film deserves. Even if Akira is soft by nature, there are DNR artifacts, and particularly on a release touting its' own prestige and quality, I find that inexcusable.

And why would Akira be any softer than Patlabor, Honneamise or Memories? Not trying to be difficult, I'm just curious if there's any part of the creation process I don't know that would lead to it being overly soft? I'll be renting the disc to see for myself if it's worth the investment. For $50 with several key DVD extras missing, I think I can be just a little greedy in asking for a perfect transfer.

joekun, my guess is that the shot with Kaneda and co. in the station was an optically printed effect, with the kids themselves overlaid on the original animation of the police at their desks. That would explain the heavy outlines (matte lines), and also why the shot is soft, and yet has a lot of grain. Maybe there were just too many layers of cels, and they couldn't properly photograph it all at once?

sharkcohen

02-26-09, 09:43 PM

That shot of Keneda and the kids looks intentional, as if the kids are the focus, not the rest of the room or the cops.

kdssrugby

02-26-09, 10:52 PM

I say that we make a big deal about this, just like people did with sleeping beauty (a few random shots had wonky focus). We should definitely boycott this release and demand they re-do it. [/sarcasm]

KMFDMvsEnya

02-26-09, 11:30 PM

I do not know the technical background aspects of the film but here are some possibilities.

Some of the softness can be from various factors:

1. Film stock that was used could have been very different from other productions of the time.

2. Lenses that were used could lend a softer look.

3. The animators smoked like chimney stacks and all that atmospheric haze got in the way of the lens. ;}~

4. The originating source that was used for the (re)master(s) had deteriorated a degree and caused some softness.

5. The auto DNR software initially used before hand restoration fudged a bit.

6. Akira has always had some softness to it. -The pioneer release has such strong EE that I think that perhaps which ever elements used were a tad soft.

7. Combination of all of the above.

8. Insert you own theories here...

One thing from the various shots I've seen, still debating the hefty price tag, the color rendition is fantastic and a major plus for the video aspect, many claim the audio is an awesome upgrade as well but hopefully it hasn't been cooked.

Best Regards
KvE

unclepauly

02-27-09, 12:16 AM

I've never seen this movie. Would you recommend I buy the BD version?

Foxarwing42

02-27-09, 12:35 AM

I've never seen this movie. Would you recommend I buy the BD version?

Might as well see the movie in the best presentation available. Trust me you won't be disappointed.

sharkcohen

02-27-09, 02:54 AM

I've never seen this movie. Would you recommend I buy the BD version?

I'd recommend renting any movie first that you haven't seen.

unclepauly

02-27-09, 09:35 AM

I'd recommend renting any movie first that you haven't seen.

Well I'm a fan of anime in general. Haven't seen too much but from the little I've seen it's really a unique experience. It's hard for me to put in a short post but it just transports me to another place more so than other types of movies. I can't get enough.

Donnie Eldridge

02-27-09, 09:44 AM

I'll wait for a domestic release.

chirpie

02-27-09, 09:48 AM

Well I'm a fan of anime in general. Haven't seen too much but from the little I've seen it's really a unique experience. It's hard for me to put in a short post but it just transports me to another place more so than other types of movies. I can't get enough.

Even in the world of anime, this film has a mood unto itself. Much like Blade Runner, Akira has a distinct and tantalizingly bizzare flavor all it's own. Whether or not a person likes it, they at the very least acknowledge the uniqueness of the proceedings.

unclepauly

02-27-09, 09:56 AM

I've never seen Blade Runner either :o. I'm in search of a good price for the BD version of that movie also. Don't worry I've seen Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. :D

jd213

02-27-09, 11:03 AM

I'll wait for a domestic release.

This is a domestic release, actually.

raoul_duke

02-27-09, 11:14 AM

I'd recommend renting any movie first that you haven't seen.
Very true.

I'll wait for a domestic release.
Hang in there, Donnie...

This is a domestic release, actually.
See, that didn't take long! ;)

stephenju

02-27-09, 02:14 PM

I'd recommend renting any movie first that you haven't seen.
That's good suggestion.

Now which one of you took the last copy from Netflix? :) It's "very long wait" only one day after it's available.

Xylon

02-27-09, 04:23 PM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_5bb12f7f.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/5bb12f7f.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_2dd4e814.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/2dd4e814.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/5bb12f7f.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/2dd4e814.png

dad1153

02-27-09, 04:51 PM

^^^ $19.99, maybe. $30+??!! Don't think so! :)

Ruined

02-28-09, 09:21 AM

^^^ $19.99, maybe. $30+??!! Don't think so! :)

Its worth the cost, this is the best Akira is going to look. Honneamise basically charges Criterion-like prices, for the same reasons. They go to great lengths to ensure the highest possible quality from the original elements without the dumploads of processing the typical hollywood studio uses. Not to mention that in Japan it would cost 3x as much - we are actually getting quite a deal over in the US!

sharkcohen

02-28-09, 11:57 AM

I'm definitely pleased with the price. Now if only I could find the damned thing locally.

paku

02-28-09, 12:21 PM

Its worth the cost, this is the best Akira is going to look. Honneamise basically charges Criterion-like prices, for the same reasons. They go to great lengths to ensure the highest possible quality from the original elements without the dumploads of processing the typical hollywood studio uses.
If only that was true.

sethk

02-28-09, 10:52 PM

I think it's a real slap in the face to fans to not have all the special features that were in previous home releases of this movie, yet keep this high price. I can see if they were planning to double dip but kept the price low to indicate - "Look, here's a cheap version but it's a clean high def transfer. If you want the super deluxe ultra edition, wait for for it, but it'll cost extra."

This release is expensive enough for a US Blu-ray release (please don't quote JDM prices - I'm well aware,) that I expect all the extras. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there will be a future release of this movie with the extras we've already seen, and more.

Kentai

03-01-09, 10:57 PM

Saw the disc at Best Buy for $30 at the Mall of New Hampshire, with 3 copies left (all first press). It took a lot of time to decide on this one, but in the end I brought it home. Watched about 20 minutes, particularly the bike chase at the start of the film, and the scenes with Kaneda and Kei in the sewers on their way to rescue Tetsuo.

If what I've watched is representative of the disc as a whole, the transfer is sometimes fairly sharp, other times very soft, but the film never looks as sharp as I would assume a film costing $10 million some 20 years ago would look. I could be wrong, and maybe Akira has always been soft, but even if that's the case this transfer doesn't quite look 'natural', for lack of a better way to describe it. The level of detail changes several times in the same scene (sometimes with the second half of the same cut of animation!) which makes me think that Bandai have literally tweaked each and every shot separately, applying noise reduction at heavier settings when they felt the shot itself needed it. Every now and again there's a healthy layer of grain, but a few seconds later the whole film may look comparatively blurred.

Watching the level of grain change, sometimes dramatically, from shot to shot was kind of jarring. It's certainly no Sleeping Beauty, where every shot is free of anything resembling noise, but it's certainly inconsistent. The fact that several shots that are optically printed effects exhibit very little grain shows that, even if the negative is just as inconsistent, some of this softness is due to digital restoration tools being over-used. Optical effects should have more grain, not less, and occasionally the Akira Blu-ray proves it by leaving a dissolve as-is, grain and all.

I was thrilled to see the original Japanese surround mix included, along with the (apparently punchy) remix. Sadly, I don't even have non-TV speakers hooked up at the moment, so a lot of good it does me... :D

I took a peek at the special features. The trailers were all in HD, and were degrained far more than the film itself (they were likely far grainer to start with). The theatrical trailers look downright static! Nothing in the main feature so far has looked remotely that filtered, thankfully. I can't help but wonder if not including the Production Report and other "vintage" NTSC extras were - in part, at least - an effort to keep the Blu-ray 100% HD?

It's not an awful HD transfer, it's just not a spectacular one either. It's a lot better than the Pioneer DVD and prior HD cable broadcast (though topping either of those couldn't have been hard). I paid as much for Akira as I did The Dark Knight, and feel about the same way: the transfer has issues, and that frustrates me, but I bought it to enjoy the film in the best home release possible. No, it isn't ideal, and yes, I wish there was something better, but the odds of Akira getting a third HD remaster in the next several years are slim to none, especially with most of the people watching the disc being perfectly content with it.

I stand by more or less everything I've said up to this point. I'm somewhat disappointed, but odds are this is as good as Akira will ever get on Blu-ray. So I'll stop complaining let you all enjoy your anime. ;)

spectator

03-02-09, 12:22 AM

Optical effects should have more grain, not less, and occasionally the Akira Blu-ray proves it by leaving a dissolve as-is, grain and all.

Not necessarily, if they were shot large-format to compensate for generation loss.

Xylon

03-02-09, 08:51 AM

^^^ $19.99, maybe. $30+??!! Don't think so! :)

You can always wait 3 months down the road for the "sale" ;)

chirpie

03-02-09, 10:37 AM

The level of detail changes several times in the same scene (sometimes with the second half of the same cut of animation!) which makes me think that Bandai have literally tweaked each and every shot separately, applying noise reduction at heavier settings when they felt the shot itself needed it.

I wonder. Pop in the DVD, and you can tell there were scenes like that on the DVD as well. (The sewer show down in the middle of the film, the interrogation room at the beginning...) even with DVD's lower resolution you could see anomalies in the same cut...

I liked the earlier theory about it being some technical limitation and them needed to run a separate exposure, that's sort of what it looks like to me.

chirpie

03-02-09, 10:40 AM

Watching the level of grain change, sometimes dramatically, from shot to shot was kind of jarring.

Really? Which scenes? The biggest jump I've seen is in light scenes vs dark scenes, and it isn't excessive grain I'm seeing disappearing and reappearing, but dust and particles (many of which were on the actual plates when the scene was shot, so it's not even the negative to blame in these instances.)

And no, I'm not perfectly content. I'm just in the camp of 'they did what they could with what they have.'

Ruined

03-02-09, 11:37 AM

FYI the Pioneer BDP-51FD is able to decode the Japanese 24bit/192khz TrueHD 5.1 soundtrack perfectly... While my $1.5k DTC-9.8 prepro cannot!

This is an old movie, and while the video is inconsistent I'd bet the farm the master is too. Honneamise has been nothing short of excellent with its Blu-ray releases; while some of them are sourced from older masters, they do the best with what they have like Criterion & Blue Underground does. No heaping on of DNR & EE like the major studios. I am very satisfied.

Kentai

03-02-09, 03:43 PM

One great example of the inconsistent focus would be when the Clowns trash the yellow car at the stop light, before they rumble with Kaneda and his crew. There are two overhead shots of the ill-fated car from the same angle. The first overhead shot is quite soft and lacks grain, the second overhead shot a moment later is nice and sharp. I can't find anything that suggests an optical effect in the first shot that isn't in the second, so unless they were just changing film stocks/lenses for kicks (despite these shots probably having been filmed at the same time - same background, same cell of the yellow car, etc.), the earlier shot was probably filtered while the later shot was not.

And why? I have no idea. :confused:

Keep in mind that the Pioneer restoration used DNR as well, so it can't be used as a proper reference for Akira's grain structure either. I don't doubt that the negative has some focus anomalies, but I do know the negative doesn't have DNR issues, so what we're seeing a combination of both.

chirpie

03-02-09, 05:06 PM

Keep in mind that the Pioneer restoration used DNR as well, so it can't be used as a proper reference for Akira's grain structure either. I don't doubt that the negative has some focus anomalies, but I do know the negative doesn't have DNR issues, so what we're seeing a combination of both.

True, but the chances of the transfers having identical DNR related issues isn't terribly likely.

Thanks for the specific example BTW. I'll need to take a look at that shot.

It just seems odd to me that Akira would be the first animated title where DNR would cause the picture to look out of focus. I've seen DNR on animation cause anomalies like lines on edges disappearing and jagged edges on line art type artifacts, but this focus issue would be the first for me.

It's worth questioning and poking around for if, for nothing else, it better enables the forum to know what to look for and for the studios to better handle their titles with appropriate feedback.

chirpie

03-02-09, 05:10 PM

One great example of the inconsistent focus would be when the Clowns trash the yellow car at the stop light, before they rumble with Kaneda and his crew. There are two overhead shots of the ill-fated car from the same angle. The first overhead shot is quite soft and lacks grain, the second overhead shot a moment later is nice and sharp. I can't find anything that suggests an optical effect in the first shot that isn't in the second, so unless they were just changing film stocks/lenses for kicks (despite these shots probably having been filmed at the same time - same background, same cell of the yellow car, etc.), the earlier shot was probably filtered while the later shot was not.

And why? I have no idea. :confused:

It could've been a planar focus issue with the multi-tiered cameras that are used. Also, no less than EIGHT production houses were brought in to work on the film with different scenes and cuts being jungled around. Maybe some issues popped up there. But I don't want to dismiss the observation, I wanna take a took and I welcome others to weigh in as well.

TimV

03-02-09, 05:25 PM

chirpie

03-02-09, 05:37 PM

Here is a funny question. I realize that film was obviously required to originally show this movie in a theater. But today, things are a little different. Why not just make high resolution scans of all the original animation cells directly to avoid these problems, bypassing the film entirely? Do all of the cells still exist? If so, are the all in one place? For a movie like this, I would hope that the resources exist somewhere to do such a restoration. What do you all think?

The cells were all sold or given away.

You can go buy a couple off ebay right now actually.

http://cgi.....com/AKIRA-Anime-Japanese-Art-Production-Cel-KANEDA_W0QQitemZ360104263725QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDom ain_0?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116

replace the dots with ebay

Not a bad idea, just not possible. :-/

dvdmike007

03-02-09, 05:43 PM

To show how good the BRD looks this is from the 720p HDTV version

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v56/dvdmike/ak1copy.png

chirpie

03-02-09, 05:50 PM

To show how good the BRD looks this is from the 720p HDTV version

Man, something looks weirdly wrong with that transfer. Something's not right. Grain GONE, the lines on the back half of the bike have almost disappeared. It looks smugged sharp. Basically what I'd expect DNR to do, or if someone tried manually painting in a screen cap.

Geoff D

03-02-09, 05:53 PM

Now that's DNR'd.

paku

03-02-09, 06:18 PM

That's not how it was originally broadcast though. That's someone who re-encoded it to 720p and got a little filter-happy.

vazel

03-02-09, 06:19 PM

Woah that looks like it was colored with pastels. But still if we're going to go by 'b-b-but it looks better than the Laserdisc/VHS/DVD/HDTV version!' then I guess every BD out there is a winner.

chirpie

03-02-09, 06:22 PM

Woah that looks like it was colored with pastels. But still if we're going to go by 'b-b-but it looks better than the Laserdisc/VHS/DVD/HDTV version!' then I guess every BD out there is a winner.

Read the thread more closely. That IS the HDTV version.

raoul_duke

03-02-09, 06:24 PM

Yuck!

vazel

03-02-09, 06:24 PM

Read the thread more closely. That IS the HDTV version.

What? Are you talking about dvdmike's post? I know that. I was responding to the 'to show how good the BRD looks...' comparison.

chirpie

03-02-09, 06:29 PM

What? Are you talking about dvdmike's post? I know that.

Apologies. I guess reading it in order of the screen caps it sounded like you were talking about the last screen cap.

BTW, what makes you think it looks like pastels? The colors seem to me to be darker than most animated fare.

vazel

03-02-09, 06:33 PM

It looked brighter to me. But now that I did a double take it's not as bright as I thought. I just woke up. http://mysite.verizon.net/res113aif/smileys/coffee.gif

Kentai

03-02-09, 10:06 PM

I took down a few timecodes from the opening of the film, to mark some of the scenes that struck me as instances of the easy to spot inconsistent grain/focus/possible DNR - mind these are only a few instances, and some of the more extreme ones at that, but I figure pointing out the easier to spot examples would be for the best:

00:02:00-00:02:04 - The bar owner yawning shows his gray shirt to be extremely grainy. The next shot has the same shirt from the back, and there's virtually no grain to be found.

00:04:12 - First shot of the yellow car is blurred, and has plenty of clumpy grain (almost has to be an optical effect shot). The rest of the scene looks considerably better. This one could just come down to the camerawork, I'm not certain.

00:04:48-00:04:58 - The first interior shot of the restaurant is almost completely grain free. The next shot of the Clown flying through the window is quite grainy - pay attention to the booth and the table, which remain the same color in both shots. The third shot of the broken window is once again grain-free, while the fourth shot of Kai is... well, less grainy than the second shot in this sequence, but not outright grainless like the shot before it either.

00:05:05 - Close-up of Tetsuo chasing after a Clown with garbage blowing by. This shot has lots of the clumpy noise that looks like DNR filters was applied grainy footage. (It reminds me of FUNimation's Dragon Ball Z restoration... *shudder*) The footage immediately before and after it look somewhat better.

00:05:20 - Shot of Tetsuo getting back on his bike and cursing. Grainy and delicious. :)

I'd take screen shots if I had the technology, but you can use these timecodes to check out a few good examples that I spotted.

Thanks for the HDTV shot dvdmike007. (And I thought Evil Dead II on Blu-ray looked awful! :eek: )

zeroyon04

03-03-09, 04:43 AM

I just picked up the last first press version that my local BestBuy had (the one with the booklet and special cover), and I watched it yesterday. I was extremely pleased with the PQ, this being my first bluray purchase and all.

I had hoped to take advantage of the amazing 192kHz/24bit audio track, but unfortunately the only speakers I have are the beyond-terrible 10w speakers on my TV. I do have a decent set of headphones though, but I am having issues hooking them up. I made a thread over here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1126100)
Thanks for your help to whomever replies :)

Xylon

03-03-09, 06:58 AM

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_bc20d45b.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/bc20d45b.png)http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/th_e53b85af.png (http://s166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/e53b85af.png)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/bc20d45b.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Akira/e53b85af.png

dvdmike007

03-03-09, 02:03 PM

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9789/11732812.jpg

SlaughterX

03-03-09, 02:34 PM

It's probably been mentioned already, but going by allt he screens it looks liek they opened it up a bit, I see more picture on the right and left sides of the Blu-Ray images than I do on the DVD ones. I would double dip if I didn't already own 2 versions of the DVD and it was cheaper ($30 is still too much for me to drop on a movie I already have, even if anime on Blu-Ray typically tends to cost even more).

Largo

03-03-09, 09:41 PM

That audio does rock the house. I watched it at my parents house and my pops has like a $20k insane sound system (don't ask me what he has,just know my parents almost divorced over it :) ) and Akira sounded amazing. I don't know about all that BS talked about in the booklet, but it does sound blissful. Anyway, picture quality is very satisfactory. Like some have mentioned, I don't think at all this movie is supposed to be all shiny and new looking. The colors have been touched up and pop enough to still keep the dark mood of this Neo Tokyo world. I think people imagine that since there are a lot of neon colors that it's supposed to have that over-saturated pop effect..but I'm really happy with this. Now I really want to order the 1st and 2nd seasons of Lupin III and Lupin III: Castle Caligiostro, but no English subtitles :( I might just get them since I'm sure we probably won't see them released here

jd213

03-03-09, 09:49 PM

Cagliostro uses an 1080i HDTV master with slight EE and a good bit of dirt/print damage, and the Lupin TV series have the most annoying grain-freezing (grain is there, it's just frozen when there's little cel movement) I've ever seen. Cagliostro actually looks okay, but I have to take my glasses off or de-focus my projector to watch the TV series. It's that annoying. A pity because otherwise it looks great. People with smaller screens might not be as bothered with it.

half vader

03-05-09, 10:04 AM

Whoa. Some of the early posts sound very young. I'm old though, and it seems like no-one here saw the film in it's original theatrical release. I did a few times, and it was inconsistent and not the sharpest from the very beginning. Neuromancer and Chirpie made some great points.

It also seems like no-one here really has an understanding of old optical 2d animation (considering the nature of the site that's not a criticism, rather a statement of fact) and how it was filmed. Multiple layers of cels due to number of discreet elements and effects and multiplane can mess with focus and even shift the colour of lower-placed cels (at Disney they even corrected for both cel yellowing with multiple layers and colour shift through using different stocks). More characters, more effects, more detail, more potential for error. You don't get 'cel shadowing' with scanned, CAPS 2d! With old school optical processes, every time you add a layer you add a generation and remove quality. This was even the same with multiple exposures in optical printing. And if there was one mistake you had to start all over again. Even things as simple as a multi-frame dissolve between scenes had sometimes outrageously obvious discolouration and degradation (but many just seem to think it's OK and 'normal' - these people never noticed a 'cigarette burn' before Fight Club gave the game away either), and that was only 1 generation down. This is why films from Star Wars on used essentially 65mm (Vistavision) film for effects shots, even if the rest of the movie was 35mm. Star Wars did suffer from unstable film stock for the final 35mm though.

Which leads me to Vazel's ridiculous comparison of Sleeping Beauty to Akira. Sleeping Beauty WAS a 65/70mm film. It was always about 4 times the quality of Akira (35mm). I can't remember what 'field' each was animated on originally, although for starters SB was animated with MUCH more image size/quality for the actual animation, as it was one of the first scope films, and had an even bigger image area than what scope finally became (2.35 to 2.4). So forget even the 'storage' comments Vazel, there was a huge disparity to start with. I remember the prints of Akira, and they weren't mindblowing back then. The movie was though!

As for Honneamise, I only saw it once, and only on video. What I remember from that one though is that while it had some beautiful compositions, the actually complexity of the elements wasn't as challenging as Akira. And like Xylon said - too soft compared to? Compared to my memory of the original prints, it looks pretty damned good. It's not like in the digital age, Vazel. The cel isn't an indication of the film - that's the tail wagging the dog I'm afraid!

And grading a sequential/progressive line for year to visual quality is simplistic in the extreme! Come on, Vazel and Toe! You can argue that after the 50s and with the newer colour stocks of the 60s and 70s colour film took a big step BACK, quality and reliability-wise. The reason some big 40s and 50s films look so great is that they used the 3-strip technicolour process, which is ridiculously better than the later colour stocks as the 3 black and white separations (which aren't anywhere near as prone to fading and discolouration and warping) make for much better and more consistent (to the original answer print) restoration.

As far as the sound (haven't sat down to listen to it yet), does the stereo mix have the old English dub? The newer dub has different voice actors in addition to effects doesn't it?

I must admit, I'm so used to the original Fox dub of Totoro that I find it harder to warm to a newer dub. I prefer subs though, even for animation. Just gives you the first-generation tone and mood and honesty, which is lost through translation and other actors' interpretations. Ever tried to watch a Kurosawa film dubbed?! I can't do it, call me a snob...

Ramble over...

KMFDMvsEnya

03-05-09, 10:44 AM

Well said half vader and the most likely explanation. In addition Disney still had the original cels and scanned them in, instead of using a master print that would retain optical loss because of the layers of celluloid; even with compensation provisions.

Best Regards
KvE

LineWalker

03-05-09, 01:29 PM

half vader, to answer your Q about the stereo mix and the dub version on the Blu-ray: The stereo mix is the original Japanese track in PCM; the only dub on the disc is the new one from the Pioneer/Geneon 2001 reissue, which does feature new actors and remixed/altered sound effects. The Streamline dub is not on it.

BTW I saw Streamline's subtitled version twice in theaters, back in the early '90s, and I agree, the prints were not the most stellar. The Blu-ray remaster is light years better.

spectator

03-05-09, 01:47 PM

It also seems like no-one here really has an understanding of old optical 2d animation (considering the nature of the site that's not a criticism, rather a statement of fact) and how it was filmed. Multiple layers of cels due to number of discreet elements and effects and multiplane can mess with focus and even shift the colour of lower-placed cels (at Disney they even corrected for both cel yellowing with multiple layers and colour shift through using different stocks).

Also, consider:

I'm not very familiar with the specifics of Akira's production in particular, but from my general understanding of the animation industry in Japan, I would place an educated bet that various sequences in Akira were farmed out to many contract production houses, probably both in Japan and abroad. This aspect would also likely impact scene-to-scene production consistency on the original negative.

chirpie

03-05-09, 05:42 PM

Also, consider:

I'm not very familiar with the specifics of Akira's production in particular, but from my general understanding of the animation industry in Japan, I would place an educated bet that various sequences in Akira were farmed out to many contract production houses, probably both in Japan and abroad. This aspect would also likely impact scene-to-scene production consistency on the original negative.

You're right, they were. Particularly when the film started falling behind schedule. I'm not sure if anything was sent abroad, but every animation production house from Gainax to Omnibus were brought in to do parts of the film.

vazel

03-05-09, 07:45 PM

Oh wow I'm getting called out! Well you seem to know your stuff half vader thank you for your input. http://mysite.verizon.net/res113aif/smileys/learning.gif But regardless of the reasons I still find the PQ disappointing and don't think it's worth the $30 asking price on Amazon.

chirpie

03-05-09, 09:37 PM

half vader

03-06-09, 02:17 PM

But regardless of the reasons I still find the PQ disappointing and don't think it's worth the $30 asking price on Amazon.

Hey, I can understand that. Even if there are good/unavoidable reasons for something not being perfect av quality, it's still good that we should always want our films/discs to be great quality, every time. We pay our hard-earned, after all. That's why sites like this are great! Keepin' 'em honest is an admirable thing! Cheers Vazel.

Oh and good one guys about the different production house thing. Missed that one in my rant-o-rama.

And thanks Linewalker for the info! I'll get around to this disc next week hopefully. Ah the joys of conflicting work schedules... :rolleyes:

Kentai

03-07-09, 02:56 AM

What, us whipper snappers can't have an opinion on a film that's a scant 4 years younger than we are? ;)

Watched the whole film today on my friend's Bose/XBR6 setup, which is a decent step up from my usual Hi-Scan CRT. I stand by the transfer being a notch or two from perfect, but man, that TrueHD track is something else... but I noticed was that the subtitles looked 'iffy', which I don't think has been brought up yet. I haven't watched the Pioneer dub since the DVD came out, but a lot of subtitles look 'dubtitled' to me.

The most obvious bit:

Japanese dialog: "Tetsuo!"
English subtitle: "Heads up, Tetsuo!"

While the Pioneer DVD had a literal translation, the Japanese R2 DVD (also from Bandai Visual) was dubtitled, so I shouldn't be surprised if they re-used the same script. It's unfortunate, but the Pioneer dub was so close that I wasn't convinced that something was wrong for a good 20-30 minutes.

half vader

03-08-09, 01:35 AM

Ha ha, good one Kentai!

No, I'm just saying that most of the arguments are completely redundant if the people are debating the merits of the only versions they've ever seen - which are NOT the actual film itself but lower-grade video interpretations of it! If you HAVE seen proper prints, you'd have to say the BD looks pretty great. Which doesn't negate that it looks a bit soft or technically underwhelming in general (Av wise, not imagery/design wise) at all - it does, but so did the film!

People are arguing a sort of similar thing in the Silence of the Lambs thread with the colour timing. Even to the point of ridiculous arguments about how the colours don't look 'natural' enough (Maybe they've never heard of intentional colour timing or noticed it was a horror movie) and the skies not blue enough etc.! Again, beside the fact they're comparing to their own aesthetic subjectivity (no matter how inappropriate), they're also debating versions removed from the original, making the whole thing meaningless.

Then there's the whole Godfather furore. Willis shot and processed in such a repeatable and recordable way that we CAN get much closer to what he wanted all these years later. It WAS soft, it WAS dark, and it was a lot of sepia and gold-soaked imagery. I understand people's attachment to their existing home video version, but it's all about adherence to the FILM, and the new one is RIGHT. They're confusing nostalgia and love for the film with the fact that the look (which they also loved) was wrong/inaccurate.

Having said that, my memory's a bit more hazy on my original viewing of Silence than the few times I saw Akira at the cinemas back then, but I do vaguely remember it looking more like the Criterion version than the more recent grades... I'm on the fence with this one. Too bad, as it's one of my faves!

half vader

03-08-09, 01:42 AM

Oh God, if people are this hard on softness of old films they are going to freak with misplaced annoyance then about the new Quantum of Solace BD. Especially as it seems NO-ONE noticed how awful those couple of set-ups when M gets scolded in the minister's office were in terms of softness/bad focus in the actual film itself! Still can't believe they didn't re-film that bit...

Finally tracked down and watched Peter Jackson's Meet the Feebles last night. Hoo boy, if you want to see a lousy quality DVD that's the one! Just a mess (regarding the transfer, not the also sub-par cheapo av quality of the film stock itself)! Funny flick though...

vazel

03-08-09, 03:47 AM

I don't expect everything live action to be sharp. It's just with animation I do expect it to be sharp, it's just colored in lines(I don't mean to be condescending to traditional animation I'm an animation enthusiast and prefer traditional animation to CG). We have other anime movies from the '80s on BD that look sharp but I guess I'll have to buy your explanation of it being Akira's multiple cel layers complexity as the reason this one isn't.

half vader

03-08-09, 09:50 AM

I getcha Vazel, but like I say, it's from before systems like caps came around (unfortunately Rescuers Down Under which from memory was the first to utilise it was 2 years later, and that was only Disney) and there was room for error and differences in look because of the animation camera, cell setup, different vendors, and very importantly film processing and actual print quality. There are also Japanese TV cartoons that vary in sharpness and quality from the same period. You seem to be thinking of the actual cels themselves but not the whole/old process of getting it onto a screen. These days things are a bit simpler and more consistent, with less margin for error. I see what you're saying though, it does seem funny that you can't always focus the animation camera perfectly on a bit of artwork.

NetworkTV

03-08-09, 11:46 AM

I see what you're saying though, it does seem funny that you can't always focus the animation camera perfectly on a bit of artwork.
It's not that simple. We're talking layers of cells stacked on top of each other, sometimes 8-10 cells thick.

By the time you get to the base layer, things can get pretty muddy.

Also, when you source out your stuff to various vendors, the quality can be very inconsistent with cells, unlike with computer animation where you can have programmed presets for certain things like color.

The other thing to consider is, most animated productions from the 60's through the 80's were just simply lacking in any real quality. Look at the crap put out by Hanna Barbera. They are what animators today mock. Anime was in that zone, too, with the constant use of the "rushing background" to imply speed and the re-use of elements to save cost.

We've been spoiled with bright, popping colors with hard edges in the last decade. It's easy to forget it wasn't always that way.

Xylon

03-10-09, 10:27 AM

We've been spoiled with bright, popping colors with hard edges in the last decade. It's easy to forget it wasn't always that way.

True.

half vader

03-11-09, 11:20 AM

Network, I already said all that about the cells, discolouring etc. And the vendors thing has been discussed too. I started off saying how the old optical/non digital days were different and that 'youngsters' may not realise how things were. Read back a bit. I was just giving a friendly nod to Vazel, that's all. The focusing thing was a bit of an ironic joke. I also worked with an old reprographic camera for years, which should have been simpler again, but...

Cheers mate!

Xylon

03-13-09, 10:29 AM

Whoa. Some of the early posts sound very young. I'm old though, and it seems like no-one here saw the film in it's original theatrical release. I did a few times, and it was inconsistent and not the sharpest from the very beginning. Neuromancer and Chirpie made some great points.

It also seems like no-one here really has an understanding of old optical 2d animation (considering the nature of the site that's not a criticism, rather a statement of fact) and how it was filmed. Multiple layers of cels due to number of discreet elements and effects and multiplane can mess with focus and even shift the colour of lower-placed cels (at Disney they even corrected for both cel yellowing with multiple layers and colour shift through using different stocks). More characters, more effects, more detail, more potential for error. You don't get 'cel shadowing' with scanned, CAPS 2d! With old school optical processes, every time you add a layer you add a generation and remove quality. This was even the same with multiple exposures in optical printing. And if there was one mistake you had to start all over again. Even things as simple as a multi-frame dissolve between scenes had sometimes outrageously obvious discolouration and degradation (but many just seem to think it's OK and 'normal' - these people never noticed a 'cigarette burn' before Fight Club gave the game away either), and that was only 1 generation down. This is why films from Star Wars on used essentially 65mm (Vistavision) film for effects shots, even if the rest of the movie was 35mm. Star Wars did suffer from unstable film stock for the final 35mm though.

Which leads me to Vazel's ridiculous comparison of Sleeping Beauty to Akira. Sleeping Beauty WAS a 65/70mm film. It was always about 4 times the quality of Akira (35mm). I can't remember what 'field' each was animated on originally, although for starters SB was animated with MUCH more image size/quality for the actual animation, as it was one of the first scope films, and had an even bigger image area than what scope finally became (2.35 to 2.4). So forget even the 'storage' comments Vazel, there was a huge disparity to start with. I remember the prints of Akira, and they weren't mindblowing back then. The movie was though!

As for Honneamise, I only saw it once, and only on video. What I remember from that one though is that while it had some beautiful compositions, the actually complexity of the elements wasn't as challenging as Akira. And like Xylon said - too soft compared to? Compared to my memory of the original prints, it looks pretty damned good. It's not like in the digital age, Vazel. The cel isn't an indication of the film - that's the tail wagging the dog I'm afraid!

And grading a sequential/progressive line for year to visual quality is simplistic in the extreme! Come on, Vazel and Toe! You can argue that after the 50s and with the newer colour stocks of the 60s and 70s colour film took a big step BACK, quality and reliability-wise. The reason some big 40s and 50s films look so great is that they used the 3-strip technicolour process, which is ridiculously better than the later colour stocks as the 3 black and white separations (which aren't anywhere near as prone to fading and discolouration and warping) make for much better and more consistent (to the original answer print) restoration.

Ramble over...

Excellent post.

Sleeping Beauty is a whole different beast.

Most people expect the colors to "POP" out and I don't blame them. Current animations look that way. Well almost all of them. Some HD transfers has been "softened" up including CGI features. Artistic intent.

There is no major issue to complain about the PQ of Akira. It is what I expected. Hey it could be worse. Have you guys seen Gulliver's Travels? Oh what could have been. The horror.