Cool news for fans of Euro-horror titles, Blue Underground is continuing to bring select cult horror to HD. Coming this fall they will be issuing Lucio Fulci's NEW YORK RIPPER (9/29/09) and Jorge Grau's THE LIVING DEAD AT MANCHESTER MORGUE (10/27/09) to BD.

The latter is one of the best post-NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD zombie films out there, and still packs quite a punch.

Great news indeed. I found out about these in my recent Fangoria mag. I agree with you on The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue it is a great zombie movie. I was pumped for Maniac but that looks like it won't come out till next year since on the page it says Maniac 30th anv. SE and it came out in 1980.

Great news indeed. I found out about these in my recent Fangoria mag. I agree with you on The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue it is a great zombie movie. I was pumped for Maniac but that looks like it won't come out till next year since on the page it says Maniac 30th anv. SE and it came out in 1980.

Maniac's eventual release is almost a certainty as Bill Lustig who basically owns Blue Underground made that film.

I'm hoping for DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS, ZOMBIE, THE BEYOND, & SUSPIRIA out of them eventually too.

and Jorge Grau's THE LIVING DEAD AT MANCHESTER MORGUE (10/27/09) to BD.

The latter is one of the best post-NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD zombie films out there, and still packs quite a punch.

Sounds cool. Never heard of this but want to check it out...


:)

I'm hoping for DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS, ZOMBIE, THE BEYOND, & SUSPIRIA out of them eventually too.

I agree with most of those titles, but given the complete and utter mess Bill Lustig made of SUSPIRIA's soundtrack on DVD, and given his jaw-dropping insistence that this dreadful mess is perfectly valid (no, it isn't!), that's the LAST film I want to see being announced for Blu-ray by Blue Underground!!...

Maniac's eventual release is almost a certainty as Bill Lustig who basically owns Blue Underground made that film.

I'm hoping for DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS, ZOMBIE, THE BEYOND, & SUSPIRIA out of them eventually too.

On the back of the 30th ANV. Fangoria BU has a coming soon listing-The Crazies, The Toolbox Murders, The NY Ripper, Manchester Morgue, Daughters of Darkness, Vampyres, The Blood Splattered Bride and Maniac 30th.

I love these titles and so far the Blue Underground releases have looked pretty good.

I agree with most of those titles, but given the complete and utter mess Bill Lustig made of SUSPIRIA's soundtrack on DVD, and given his jaw-dropping insistence that this dreadful mess is perfectly valid (no, it isn't!), that's the LAST film I want to see being announced for Blu-ray by Blue Underground!!...

I don't know about that, last I heard the Weinsteins have the U.S. rights to it. If true we'll never get a Blu-Ray.

On the back of the 30th ANV. Fangoria BU has a coming soon listing-The Crazies, The Toolbox Murders, The NY Ripper, Manchester Morgue, Daughters of Darkness, Vampyres, The Blood Splattered Bride and Maniac 30th.

-The Crazies, Manchester Morgue, Daughters of Darkness, Vampyres, The Blood Splattered Bride and Maniac 30th, will all be mine

BU does not own the Suspiria rights much longer--they will not bedoing a blur of it...I asked Lustig at the Fango con in June.

I don't know about that, last I heard the Weinsteins have the U.S. rights to it. If true we'll never get a Blu-Ray.

Don't they own the rights to the most recent HD remastering of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD too? Bummer if so, since they seem to think there is no money to be made on Blu-ray.

Gimmee DEEP RED (Profondo Rosso). Now that is Euro horror I can deal with.

Gimmee DEEP RED (Profondo Rosso). Now that is Euro horror I can deal with.

Daughters of Darkness, Vampyres, an The Blood Splattered Bride probably represent the three best "adult" vampire movies ever made unless you're keen on the Rollin canon.

Daughters is a masterpiece IMO, so I'm pretty psyched. Allow me to bore with my own Amazon review of the DVD,

The notion of "vampirism" has always had ties to dark and forbidden sides of human sexuality, and has served as metaphor for homosexuality, nymphomania, and maochism. The sexual revolution of late 60's and early 70's produced a bevy of erotic, "lesbian" vampire films, in which their creators were able to graphically exploit all manner of sexual taboos that had only been hinted at previously. DVDs have given us a wonderful cross-section of these forbidden fruits from Jess Franco's psychedelic Vampiros Lesbos to the surreal-dreamy trappings of Jean Rollin's Shiver Of The Vampires, but Daughter's of Darkness is for many (myself included) is the cream of the crop.

Daughter's is kind of a hybrid between Sheridan Fornau's often-filmed vampire story, Carmilla, and the many legends and exploits of real-life "vampire" Elizabeth Bathory. Brought into the present, the film begins with the arrival of two newlyweds, Stephan & Valerie (John Karlen & Danielle Quimet), to a gloomy and mostly deserted beachfront hotel in Belgium. From the onset we observe all is not right with this union, Stephan refuses to tell his "mother" of their marriage and is revealing an aloof and sadistic temperament, which Valerie mournfully tolerates. Out of the night arrives the Countess Elizabeth Bathory (Delphine Seyrig) and her sultry companion/accomplice Ilona (Andrea Rau). The Countess takes an immediate, carnal interest in the young newlyweds, and especially in Valerie. Meanwhile there seems to be a rash of murders in the nearby villages in which the young female victims have been drained of all their blood. Before long the countess and her reluctant companion have seduced the troubled newlyweds, and this is where the fun begins.

Though many erotic vampire films of the time boast tantalizing visuals & copious nudity, director Harry Kummel clearly meant Daughters of Darkness to be more than a thinly veiled soft-core "art film". Not that it's minus these elements, Daughters' is quite explicit, but it's also a sophisticated and highly styled horror film laced with bewildering moments of black-comedy. In short, it's delightfully European.

As the ageless and decadent Elizabeth Bathory, Euro-star Delphine Seryig is without peer. More often than not, female erotic-vampires are portrayed as baleful, unwilling victims of their own desires, but not Elisabeth. The Countess takes great pride in her wickedness, and done-up like a thirties Marline Dietrich, Seyrig is believable and amusing, but never corny as she gleefully corrupts all that she touches.

Did Zombi 2 ever see a Blu release?

I guess I should be googling instead of posting this, but what the hell.

Did Zombi 2 ever see a Blu release? Not yet. New York Ripper -- coming in September -- is the only Fulci that's been announced.

On the back of the 30th ANV. Fangoria BU has a coming soon listing-The Crazies, The Toolbox Murders, The NY Ripper, Manchester Morgue, Daughters of Darkness, Vampyres, The Blood Splattered Bride and Maniac 30th.

Gonna get ALL of them :)

"Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue" is, to me, one of the BEST zombie movie ever made. And the british landscape gives the movie a touch of "Hammer" feel :)

Lustig did say Deep REd was probably on the short lsit as far as next Argento to hit blu from BU...

Did Zombi 2 ever see a Blu release?

I guess I should be googling instead of posting this, but what the hell.

Oddly enough Blue Underground and Media Blasters both released a remastered DVD within months of each other. Who knows where the BD will (hopefully) come from. I have more faith in Blue Underground doing the best job. I'd love to see a ZOMBIE, CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, BEYOND blu-box (they could even toss HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY in for good merit)

Oddly enough Blue Underground and Media Blasters both released a remastered DVD within months of each other. Who knows where the BD will (hopefully) come from. I have more faith in Blue Underground doing the best job. I'd love to see a ZOMBIE, CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, BEYOND blu-box (they could even toss HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY in for good merit)

BU's latest Zombi 2 looked too good to be a DVD of a 30 year old movie (anniversary edition anyone?).

I was impressed, but still left wanting RED in place of RORANGE.:D Thanks NTSC color!

Held off on buying it in hopes of a Blu. Seems like a natural choice for BU to port over with that new-ish master. Isn't it one of the better known flicks(sales) of their euro-horror vault?

Held off on buying it in hopes of a Blu. Seems like a natural choice for BU to port over with that new-ish master. Isn't it one of the better known flicks(sales) of their euro-horror vault?

ZOMBIE (2) is probably Fulci's most well-known flick, it got a lotta play in the US, and graced just about every Ma & Pa video store back in the 80's. It also boasts that iconic ad campaign image of the worm-ridden, toothy zombie, and the tag line "WE ARE GOING TO EAT YOU!"

Don't they own the rights to the most recent HD remastering of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD too? Bummer if so, since they seem to think there is no money to be made on Blu-ray.

I thought that was FOX? Maybe I'm wrong though..

I thought that was FOX? Maybe I'm wrong though..



I could be wrong, but i thought Fox put out that colorized version from Legend, and Weinstein had the rights to the new NOTLD transfer and Romero's most recent DIARY OF THE DEAD.

I could be wrong, but i thought Fox put out that colorized version from Legend, and Weinstein had the rights to the new NOTLD transfer and Romero's most recent DIARY OF THE DEAD.

You may be right...let's hope not though (although I'm sure somewhere in the world it will come out region-free).

I'm hoping for DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS, ZOMBIE, THE BEYOND, & SUSPIRIA out of them eventually too.
BU doesn't have The Beyond. The Anchor Bay disc was a distribution deal with Grindhouse Releasing. Now Grindhouse has their own DVD (http://www.grindhousereleasing.com/beyond.html) out. Zombie is owned by Media Blasters under their Shriek Show label, the BU disc was a compromise between the two studios over confusion over who owned the rights. Media Blasters allowed the BU disc since it didn't have all the extras of their edition. Argento's Suspiria is also with Dimension/Miramax now (came with the remake rights) with BU's DVD set now out of print.

You may be right...let's hope not though (although I'm sure somewhere in the world it will come out region-free).

The way Weinstein is going, someone else is gonna own all that stuff pretty soon.

BU doesn't have The Beyond. The Anchor Bay disc was a distribution deal with Grindhouse Releasing. Now Grindhouse has their own DVD (http://www.grindhousereleasing.com/beyond.html) out. Zombie is owned by Media Blasters under their Shriek Show label, the BU disc was a compromise between the two studios over confusion over who owned the rights. Media Blasters allowed the BU disc since it didn't have all the extras of their edition. Argento's Suspiria is also with Dimension/Miramax now (came with the remake rights) with BU's DVD set now out of print.

Very interesting, lets hope Media Blasters coughs up ZOMBIE, unfortunately Grindhouse didn't even bother to remaster THE BEYOND from the Anchor Bay release.

Very interesting, lets hope Media Blasters coughs up ZOMBIE, unfortunately Grindhouse didn't even bother to remaster THE BEYOND from the Anchor Bay release.

Well, if using dnr means remastering, then they did.;)

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/vergleich.php?vergleichID=300

Zombie is owned by Media Blasters under their Shriek Show label, the BU disc was a compromise between the two studios over confusion over who owned the rights. Media Blasters allowed the BU disc since it didn't have all the extras of their edition.

crap.... the BU disc had better PQ

crap.... the BU disc had better PQ

I may be wrong, but I believe that an agreement was made in which Media Blasters was allowed to release their Zombie DVD at the same time as Blue Underground's since MB had already produced a bunch of extras without securing the rights to the film. My understanding is that the exclusive rights would revert back to BU effective 2 years after the latest DVD releases, including all the bonus features produced by MB.

ok so one person is saying one thing while someone else says different... this is all too confusing

Any thoughts on the BU latest BD titles?

Most I've seen have been nice. I was on the 10K Bullets page today and two of their titles don't look too good based on the caps.

http://10kbullets.com/reviews/l/living-dead-at-manchester-morgue-the-bluray/
http://10kbullets.com/reviews/c/crazies-the-bluray/


Anyone seen these and can say how they look? All the titles I've seen (these two aren't among them) have looked nice. Just wondering why these caps don't look too good.





On the other hand, these Django caps look great!

http://10kbullets.com/reviews/d/django-bluray/



Wal-Mart sent me an email saying the release date of City of the Living Dead was pushed back by the manufacturer though everyone else appears to be selling it.

New York Ripper and Two Evil Eyes look spectacular. Quite grainy and with minor print anomalies, sure, but anyone expecting low-budget Italian horror films to look any different are... well, insane.

City of the Living Dead isn't going to knock a lot of people's socks off, but it was shot on 16mm. I'm wondering if Living Dead at Manchester Morgue was, too, since it has similar problems... it literally has thick grain dancing on top of smeared, blurry patches of nothing. It's either the worst DVNR + Digital Grain transfer on the market, or there's something very strange photochemically going on. (Or both?)

The Django caps I've seen look artificially sharpened, but otherwise it looks like a winner.

City of the Living Dead isn't going to knock a lot of people's socks off, but it was shot on 16mm.

Actually it wasn't. It was shot on 2-perf 35mm with Techniscope cameras.

Actually it wasn't. It was shot on 2-perf 35mm with Techniscope cameras.
You are correct.

Even though I'm not completely put off by the transfers of Django and CotLD - there's clearly something very wrong with the image quality.

It looks to be a combination of DNR gone wrong, combined with incredible amounts of sharpening and colour boosting. Blacks are riddled with noise and grain freezes from time to time, almost shaping a honeycomb pattern. There's quite a bit of smearing and artifacting going on in CotLD. Detail in Django is preserved, but waxy faces tend to show up.

I hope this doesn't become a new trend in the releases of BU, seeing as Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue also suffered from this look.

Actually it wasn't. It was shot on 2-perf 35mm with Techniscope cameras.

Now I'm confused... how can it be Techniscope when the film has always been framed at 1.85:1?

The Techniscope process is (basically) using one-half of a 35mm frame and then printing it anamorphically to 2.33:1, right? The Beyond, Zombie, House by the Cemetery and other Fulci scope pictures were made this way, but COTLD has always had a different ratio, and a generally grittier "look" I've always assumed was the result of being a 16mm blow-up.

DVDBeaver (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/city_of_the_living_dead_blu-ray.htm)'s forward from genre critic Eric Cotenas mentioned 16mm as the source of the negative, and I'm not seeing any more reliable sources contradicting him. Robert A. Harris has said that the new transfer is from the camera negative, and Blue Underground certainly did a fine job with their recent transfer of Fulci's Techniscope picture New York Ripper... so if COTLD wasn't shot on 16mm, what else could explain the film looking the way it does? :confused:

Now I'm confused... how can it be Techniscope when the film has always been framed at 1.85:1?

The Techniscope process is (basically) using one-half of a 35mm frame and then printing it anamorphically to 2.33:1, right? The Beyond, Zombie, House by the Cemetery and other Fulci scope pictures were made this way, but COTLD has always had a different ratio, and a generally grittier "look" I've always assumed was the result of being a 16mm blow-up.

DVDBeaver (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/city_of_the_living_dead_blu-ray.htm)'s forward from genre critic Eric Cotenas mentioned 16mm as the source of the negative, and I'm not seeing any more reliable sources contradicting him. Robert A. Harris has said that the new transfer is from the camera negative, and Blue Underground certainly did a fine job with their recent transfer of Fulci's Techniscope picture New York Ripper... so if COTLD wasn't shot on 16mm, what else could explain the film looking the way it does? :confused:

Robert Harris got the confirmation directly from Bill Lustig that CotLD was shot 2-perf 35mm. He mentions this in his "A few words about SPARTACUS" thread on the hometheaterforum, and I even followed up and questioned Robert about this (because like you, I had theorized that CotLD was likely shot in Super-16) and he checked again with Lustig. While it's true that the native aspect ratio of 2-perf 35mm is 2.35:1, there's no reason Fulci couldn't have shot using 2-perf but composed for 1.85:1, matting the sides of the frame to achieve that shape. This would be kind of like what Tati did with PLAYTIME, albeit in Tati's case he was shooting native 2.2:1 65mm and matting the sides to 1.85:1.

As for why one would shoot 2-perf but compose for 1.85:1, a couple possibilities are- 1. Fulci and Salvati intended to shoot 2-perf 'Scope, but upon arriving on location in Savannah, Georgia with their equipment they decided that the locations were better suited to a 1.85:1 frame and composed the film accordingly, or 2. they wanted to shoot 1.85:1 from the get go but only had access to the 2-perf cameras, so they matted the sides to get the shape they wanted, or 3. they wanted a 1.85:1 shape but choose to shoot 2-perf to save money since they'd only be exposing and processing half the footage vs. shooting native 1.85:1 4-perf. Even with the additional expense of an optical step to "blow up" the 2-perf image to a 4-perf final release print, they probably still saved a lot more money by shooting and processing half the amount of 35mm film up front.

Vincent

I would assume that every Blue Underground release is flawless because William Lustig is a true hero of cinema and cinema preservation.

Harris' post (found HERE (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/300552/a-few-words-about-spartacus-in-blu-ray/30#post_3690993)) didn't specifically mention the format, just that it was from the negative. To the best of my knowledge nobody involved in the film itself has ever actually said how it was shot, so this is the first I'm hearing of 1.85:1 Techniscope.

If I'm doing my math right, Techniscope at 1.85 would give you about 15% more horizontal/60% more vertical resolution than using Super 16mm at the same ratio - though that would still be about 25% less resolution than shooting spherical 35mm. That would help explain both the softness and the heavy grain on display, though it doesn't explain why plenty of other Techniscope films - including New York Ripper and Bird With Crystal Plumage - look substantially better. I guess all I can do is blame the available lenses and film stock, since little else makes sense.

Thanks for passing this info along. I just wish I'd heard it ages ago. :)

(Does anuone here happen to know of any other two-perf 1.85:1 films? Not that it's overly relevant, I'm just curious...)

Harris' post (found HERE (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/300552/a-few-words-about-spartacus-in-blu-ray/30#post_3690993)) didn't specifically mention the format, just that it was from the negative.

Yes he does. He specifically says it was a 2-perf negative. You linked the wrong post, much earlier in the thread. The post I was referring to I've linked as follows, and if you read further posts after it you'll see my question to Robert re: 2-perf and the aspect ratio and his response: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/300552/a-few-words-about-spartacus-in-blu-ray/210#post_3695389

...If I'm doing my math right, Techniscope at 1.85 would give you about 15% more horizontal/60% more vertical resolution than using Super 16mm at the same ratio - though that would still be about 25% less resolution than shooting spherical 35mm. That would help explain both the softness and the heavy grain on display, though it doesn't explain why plenty of other Techniscope films - including New York Ripper and Bird With Crystal Plumage - look substantially better...

Remember those other films were 'Scope- they used the entire Techniscope frame, and it's centered within the full 16:9 High-definition frame with black bars top-and-bottom. CotLD, on the other hand, is basically Techniscope with the sides cropped, so it's blown up further to fill the entire 16:9 frame top-to-bottom. Essentially, you're taking a Techniscope image, cropping the sides, and blowing it up to fill a taller 16:9 frame, which explains why it looks softer/grainier than a 2.35:1 Techniscope film which is letterboxed and centered within the 16:9 HD frame and thus is not blown up nearly as much.

Vincent

Heh, I never did get that far in once I saw the Spartacus screencaps for myself... (Heck, what else was there to say? ;) )

I was right about the 25% loss on the horizontal, but didn't even figure on the vertical - though the vertical resolution of a Techniscope print be about 0.373" versus 0.466" for a spherical shoot, so, about a 20% difference? That'd be a loss of 25% vertical and 20% horizontal... I guess that does begin to explain why CotLD looks the way it does.

I would assume that every Blue Underground release is flawless because William Lustig is a true hero of cinema and cinema preservation.


You're kidding right? Or have you not seen the Django BD?


The Django caps I've seen look artificially sharpened, but otherwise it looks like a winner.

Sorry to disappoint you but the Django BD is one of the worst BD transfers up to this date. I can explain you roughly what happened:

First they DNR'd the hell out of it, then they artificially shaprened it and last but noch least they ran it trough an encoder which left an atrocious amout of video noise. Yes, thats not grain you are seeing there, it's video noise. It's clearly visible cause the black dots are covering the EE halos. If it was grain, the grain would have been destroyed by the EE halos.

I've got to say, I'm pretty confused by all the reviews for Django. I was planning on ordering it, but now I'm not so sure. A lot of people, including many reviewers, have been praising it as a really solid transfer and now it's being called one of the worst on the format. :confused:

Does anybody have screenshots to back this up? That way those of us on the fence can see if the image is heavily manipulated or not?

I talked to Torsten Kaiser from TLEFilms about it. He could explain it in a more detailed manner. The screenshot which made me aware that there is something not right is this one:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/django_blu-ray/large/large_django_blu-ray1.jpg

Notice how the noise dots cover the EE halos. Now imagine the dots not being there and you'll see how soft the image is.

Another hint: Compare this kind of noise to the noise of other BDs with video noise like the Canadian release of Chasing Amy. Looks almost identical.

I've got to say, I'm pretty confused by all the reviews for Django. I was planning on ordering it, but now I'm not so sure. A lot of people, including many reviewers, have been praising it as a really solid transfer and now it's being called one of the worst on the format. :confused:

Does anybody have screenshots to back this up? That way those of us on the fence can see if the image is heavily manipulated or not?

Having seen the disc myself, I can only confirm Rathbone's findings. While it's not a horrendous wax-fest, there is clearly something very wrong with this transfer. DSR + extreme sharpening + contrast boost = Django.

I'm pretty confident the original print must have been in a rough shape with quite a few damages, and DSR was used to wipe out blotches and such - unfortunately also affecting the rest of the print.

Thanks for the quick responses, guys. Very disappointing indeed. Is City of the Living Dead similarly messed up?

DSR + extreme sharpening + contrast boost = Django.

Assuming DVDBeaver's caps are reliable (and I know they aren't always), Django on BD hasn't clipped highlights compared to the prior BU DVD. I think it's just the sharpening itself that's causing the contrast to look boosted, rather than an outright example of someone cranking up the whites to make the film look brighter.

Out of curiosity, have you seen the prior BU DVD? There are long stretches - 10, 20 seconds at a time - where the entire screen was caked in film damage. I'd expect some grain structure anomalies in fixing them, even with the best available technology. That negative was in sad shape, and if BU has managed to get even half of the damage from the DVD fixed then some temporal oddities - like slightly waxy faces, and digitally restructured grain - are still among the least of this film's problems.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that anyone disappointed in the transfer doesn't have every right to feel that way. The grain looks sharpened to me too, and I've already said as much. I just hope people look at it in the proper context; Django has never looked "good" on home video, and if this new transfer is equally unimpressive, I'm sure plenty of that has to do with the negative rather than BU not taking the film seriously.

If BU is boosting contrast, using heavy DNR, and sharpening, I think it would be best to email our concerns directly to BU before this type of practice is used on more titles. Region coding is more strict for BD, and going by DVD releases, these might be the only versions we may ever get in region A. Those MANCHESTER MORGUE caps look terrible.

DJANGO looks awesome.
Don't knock it, HAVE YOU SEEN EVIL DEAD 2???
Blue Underground is up there with Criterion.

Fanboyz: See post #31, review of LDaMM (aka 'Let Sleeping Corpses Lie'). Smeary like Evil Dead 2.


I'm even starting to wonder if the 'grain' on the early titles like Stendhal is just noise, since between all these films it is looking similar. Just speculating.

I'm even starting to wonder if the 'grain' on the early titles like Stendhal is just noise, since between all these films it is looking similar. Just speculating.

I've had that same thought... it's just odd that all of BU's catalog titles would be exceptionally gritty and noise-ridden, even the relatively good looking titles like New York Ripper and Two Evil Eyes.

Does anyone know if the BU and Arrow encode of City of the Living Dead are the same?

Also, everyone here should probably take a look at DVDTalk's brief comparison (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/42044/django/) between Django and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly... good for a laugh, if nothing else. :)

Also, everyone here should probably take a look at DVDTalk's brief comparison (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/42044/django/) between Django and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly... good for a laugh, if nothing else. :)
Both look pretty awful. That doesn't look like film grain.

Out of curiosity, have you seen the prior BU DVD? There are long stretches - 10, 20 seconds at a time - where the entire screen was caked in film damage. I'd expect some grain structure anomalies in fixing them, even with the best available technology. That negative was in sad shape, and if BU has managed to get even half of the damage from the DVD fixed then some temporal oddities - like slightly waxy faces, and digitally restructured grain - are still among the least of this film's problems.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or that anyone disappointed in the transfer doesn't have every right to feel that way. The grain looks sharpened to me too, and I've already said as much. I just hope people look at it in the proper context; Django has never looked "good" on home video, and if this new transfer is equally unimpressive, I'm sure plenty of that has to do with the negative rather than BU not taking the film seriously.

Like I said, I'm quite certain Django suffers from DSR (scratch removal). I haven't seen the DVD, but the blu-ray does display reduced film damage from time to time (yellow blotches etc.).

What worries me, is not so much that the grain has been sharpened (although it gets ugly), but that there also seems to be lots of noise in the picture.

Overall I'm not completely put off by the look of Django, but I just hope it doesn't set a standard for upcoming BU releases - seeing as how CoTLD also suffers from occasional smearing.

DJANGO looks awesome.
Don't knock it, HAVE YOU SEEN EVIL DEAD 2???
Blue Underground is up there with Criterion.

Now I know why your Nick is Fanboy. :D

There is no more grain left in Django at all. What you can see there is digital video noise introduced by the encoder. Exactly the same issue the Canadian release of Chasing Amy had where everybody thought the black dots was grain but it was in fact video noise.

Lowry/DTS admitted to adding fake grain to the James Bond films.
Django looks awesome, mind you I am comparing it to the Anchor Bay DVD. From ten feet on a sixty inch TV I am satisfied, where as other (Evil Dead 2, Patton, Spartacus, Star Trek 1-6) left me upset.

That my fellow prisoners is my rule of thumb.

I've had that same thought... it's just odd that all of BU's catalog titles would be exceptionally gritty and noise-ridden, even the relatively good looking titles like New York Ripper and Two Evil Eyes.
The grain (or noise?) on DJANGO has a completely different density to that of TWO EVIL EYES, THE NEW YORK RIPPER etc. However it got there, I doubt it's some sort of uniform filter that is being applied to all BU titles.

Does anyone know if the BU and Arrow encode of City of the Living Dead are the same?
Judging by the comparative screen captures posted here (http://10kbullets.com/reviews/c/city-of-the-living-dead-bluray-blue-underground-vs-arrow-video/), the Arrow release has the same grain density as the BU version, although a lot of it has been transformed into mush as a result of weaker encoding.

I'm not suggesting that they slap a catch-all noise filter on every title they have. I just wonder if BU's encoder, for whatever reason, is making things look even more gritty than the source. Particularly Living Dead at Manchester Morgue makes me wonder, since you can see smeared DVNR artifacts with seemingly unmolested "grain" on top... I guess it could just be an incredibly strange photochemical problem, but it sure looks like somebody dusted digital noise on top of a shoddy master to distract the viewer from how everything looks like it's covered in KY Jelly.

Sadly, Django is much closer to Stendhal Syndrome (except worse). I'll have to rent it myself to confirm what BsRoz and Rathbone are saying - it's not that I don't believe them, I'm just not seeing it based on still frames. Thanks for the CotLD caps - now I'm torn. I really do want some of those UK exclusive extras, but the BU encode definitely comes out on top.


Another point I don't think has been mentioned yet; while BU is theoretically in charge of having these new HD transfers made, I doubt they're actually given direct access to the negative. BU doesn't "own" these films the way Warner or Universal does, they merely license them from whatever studio already owns the picture in Europe. More likely than not, Lutsig calls up whoever in Rome has the copyrights, and then offers to split or cover the cost in getting a new HD telecine made. Maybe he's allowed into the studio to oversee the new transfer, maybe they send him a D5 when they're done - it could even vary from title to title.

If that's the case, Django could be borked through no fault of his own. Even if he demands the transfer be made a certain way, he's at the mercy of whoever the Italian producers actually farm the negative out to.

Blue Underground is awesome, most of the films they release are shot on garbage stock and stored even worse. Django even begins with a warning saying that it's going to be rough.
All of Blue's encodes have either been high VC1 or AVC/Mpeg4, certainly not problematic encoding.
You all need to start watching movies and stop looking at transfers so hard.
A true botched transfer REQUIRES NO EXAMINATION OR DEBATE. One need only glance at T2-Skynet Edition or Spartacus and see that something is really off.

Blue Underground is awesome, most of the films they release are shot on garbage stock and stored even worse. Django even begins with a warning saying that it's going to be rough.
What is "garbage stock"? They were likely shot on the same Eastman stock everything else was at the time.
One glance is all it takes to see that many of BU's transfers are loaded with some kind of extraneous noise.

What is "garbage stock"? They were likely shot on the same Eastman stock everything else was at the time.
One glance is all it takes to see that many of BU's transfers are loaded with some kind of extraneous noise.

Some movies are shot on "short ends"- unused film from another production that you can buy for a bargain. The quality of those could pssibly be suspect, plus you might end up with a whole mix of different stocks that you then have to cut together.

The other thing to consider is, even if they didn't use short ends, they probably didn't process the negatives at the best labs. Shoddy lab work can degrade even the best film stock that has been prfectly exposed.

I believe Robert Harris is friendly with Bill Lustig, maybe he can look into some of thes potential issues and ask Bill directly.

Vincent

Django stills look atrocious. Horribly overprocessed.

OK, I just talked to some people here in NYC who do this for a living and their opinion is that Django was DNR'd of grain, then given fake grain, added via computer. They even showed me the algorithm for grain that looked exactly the same.

Remember, fake grain is added by studios from time to time. Why they go through the process of removing natural grain, only to replace it with unnatural FAKE grain is a mystery of all mysteries, but it happens and I think it happened here.

God help us with DEEP RED. :(

I believe Robert Harris is friendly with Bill Lustig, maybe he can look into some of thes potential issues and ask Bill directly.

Vincent

Thats another reason why I have so much faith in Blue Underground.
Remember Lustig is responsible for the glory days of Anchor Bay- for that he is above my criticism.

Anchor Bay ruined more transfers than they fixed. They DNR'd the hell out of countless could have been good releases and screwed up so many soundtracks with their BS remixes that in my view, they are a bunch of complete tools.

One recent screw-up is HALLOWEEN on BD and one classic screw-up is SUSPIRIA and it's botched to hell sound remix. That Frackup is legendary. So much so that some of us had to fix it on our own (thank you, Image Laserdisc!) and make our own DVD.

Actually, the Italian No Shame Films/Mondo Home Entertainment DVD of City of the Living Dead taken from a "new digital transfer from the original Italian negative" looks far, far, far, far, faaaaarrrrrrrr worse than Blue Underground's Blu-ray with an extreme amount of DNR and constant sprocket flutter. So I'm not particularly complaining.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/513/vlcsnap23816.png
http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/6194/vlcsnap16225.png
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/1006/vlcsnap18201.png
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6772/vlcsnap19034.png
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/9184/vlcsnap29992.png
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5590/vlcsnap28466.png

Why they go through the process of removing natural grain, only to replace it with unnatural FAKE grain is a mystery of all mysteries, but it happens and I think it happened here.

Three words; Digital Scratch Repair. You can either hire a team of people to use something akin to photoshop to handle every single spot of dirt on the print, or you can use an automated algorithm to try and zero out any "random" spec that appears only once out of every three frames. The former is preferable, of course, but the fact is computers are better at doing it than people sometimes. (Also, computers don't ask for an hourly wage.) Not only does DSR erode away grain (which from a mathematical standpoint does look a bit like random noise), but if you process the transfer with DVNR first, it will make it easier for the algorithms to "tell" what is and isn't dirt/scratches. Having used scratch removal tools on VHS/LD sources, I can tell you that a little DVNR first goes a long way in getting rid of all sorts of print anomalies.

So now you have a "clean" copy of the film that doesn't have print damage, but it's also soft and looks rather digital. The easiest way to hide that fact is adding some digital noise on top to emulate the look of film grain. It's not a perfect solution, but it's by far the most cost effective way to deal with a dirty source. Blue Underground surely can't throw around hundreds of thousands of dollars on obscure Italian genre pictures that will only ever appeal to a much smaller audience that the American funded pictures they were aping, so to some degree a transfer with compromised grain structure is exactly what I had expected.

Ugh! Those Italian caps are more terrifying than the film itself! (...what? I can't prefer House by the Cemetery? :D )

re: Anchor Bay being "tools":

The Halloween Blu-ray color timing looks very much like the Criterion LD approved by John Carpenter, just not the THX DVD approved by Dean Cudney. The level of detail and the overall presentation on the AB Blu-ray is stunning, and the only thing "wrong" with it is the fact that it didn't match the color timings that, at least to me, look like a man tweaking the "look" of the film in retrospect. But everyone has their opinion on this, so I won't waste my breath trying to change anyone's minds.

Suspiria did have a royally messed up audio track, but the old AB DVD transfer still looks better than the current HD transfer kicking around. Make of that what you will.

I almost ordered City of the Living Dead the other day but Diabolik was out of stock.

Have only seen the screencaps but at first glance I thought the grain looked weird. Like I took a picture and added some grain filters in photoshop. A bit extreme? Sure but it just the caps I've seen do not look natural. Does that disc suffer the same problem? I hope not but at least it would ease my mind.

Horror fans are going ape-sh.it over that release and almost beat me up on the internet when I mentioned it looked weird. :p

Blue Underground is good, Anchor Bay went bad but did is trying walking the path or redemption.
Halloween (THX) vs. Halloween (BD)- The DVD color timing is Cundey approved for THX certification and the BD color timing is Carpenter approved for Criterion admission.
This makes them both accurate and correct.
Viewer preference is the issue here.
I am so hard on Anchor Bay because of how they handled Evil Dead 2, to me thats worse than Spartacus, Patton, and Gladiator combined times a million.

If Blue Underground adds fake grain (I'm sure they do) than they are no worse than Lowry/DTS which is the gold standard.
Do you think Dr. No is "botched" because of that.
MY ONLY ISSUE with Django is the window boxing of the 1.66 image- that pisses me off.

If Blue Underground adds fake grain (I'm sure they do) than they are no worse than Lowry/DTS which is the gold standard.
Do you think Dr. No is "botched" because of that.
MY ONLY ISSUE with Django is the window boxing of the 1.66 image- that pisses me off.
Whatever Lowry does, it doesn't result in a terribly noisy image.

It's a bit disturbing to me that they're risking further damage to the fragile camera negatives to make transfers like this :(

I almost ordered City of the Living Dead the other day but Diabolik was out of stock.


There is no problem with CotLD.

Horror fans are going ape-sh.it over that release and almost beat me up on the internet when I mentioned it looked weird. :p

*Cracks Knuckles* You got something to say about The New York Ripper or The Bird With Crystal Plumage while you're at it, punk? ;)

See earlier in the thread for a possible explanation - namely using Techniscope cameras at 1.85:1 is almost unheard of, but that's exactly what they did for that film. It used 25% less film than other Techniscope two-perf features, and as such would have 25% less resolution on the camera negative.

Lowry surely does not add fake grain anywhere. On the contrary, he is the head of a strict "no grain" policy. But I admit he's very good at removing only so much grain that the PQ doesn't suffer too much. You can see it in every title he has touched like Indiana Jones Trilogy, Star Wars IV-VI and some of the early Bond movies. Regarding its source material, Dr. No looks denoised. I have watched a print last year in cinema, which was derived from the new HD masters and had a lot more grain than the BD.

Even the Lowry stuff looks overly scrubbed to me. I saw Dr. No and Goldfinger projected digitally at 2K recently and both looked like they had been DNRd - they didn't really look like film anymore.

I cut Blue Underground a bit more slack than the major studios because they're largely dealing with low budget exploitation films from the mid-60s to early-80s - even if there weren't any issues with the original photography, film preservation most likely wasn't a high priority with the producers given that these films pre-date the video era.

All things considered, I think they do a great job, given that they're dealing with films that they don't own, rely on thirty to forty year old source materials stored under less than optimal conditions, and appeal to a pretty small audience.

*Cracks Knuckles* You got something to say about The New York Ripper or The Bird With Crystal Plumage while you're at it, punk? ;)

See earlier in the thread for a possible explanation - namely using Techniscope cameras at 1.85:1 is almost unheard of, but that's exactly what they did for that film. It used 25% less film than other Techniscope two-perf features, and as such would have 25% less resolution on the camera negative.

Ha! No I swear. Those discs looked good from what I remember. :)

Thanks for the info

Is City of the Living Dead's video transfer really the disaster some are making it out to be? Based on DVDBeaver's screengrabs the Blue Underground release looks muuuuuch better than the UK Arrow. But DVDBeaver has been woefully inaccurate before.

Is City of the Living Dead's video transfer really the disaster some are making it out to be? Based on DVDBeaver's screengrabs the Blue Underground release looks muuuuuch better than the UK Arrow. But DVDBeaver has been woefully inaccurate before.

The problem of DVDBeaver is that the reviewers don't have a clue what they are talking about. See the Django review for example.

I looked at the COTLD caps and I can tell you: It's the same DNR'd, video noise riddeled garbage for both BDs. The Arrow release looks worse tough.

"more support for the heavy grain structure" is just a joke. The reviewer should be fired.

I looked at the COTLD caps and I can tell you: It's the same DNR'd, video noise riddeled garbage for both BDs. The Arrow release looks worse tough.

"more support for the heavy grain structure" is just a joke. The reviewer should be fired.


So you are basing this on those screencaps? Sorry but are you serious? :confused:

So you are basing this on those screencaps? Sorry but are you serious? :confused:

Yes! Screencaps can't be that wrong. And I know the difference between film grain and video noise.

So if "City" is DNR:ed, how come it shows lots of fine details in clothes etc. that would have been wiped out by the DNR?

I have the Arrow disc, and you should really watch the disc before you judge it.

So if "City" is DNR:ed, how come it shows lots of fine details in clothes etc. that would have been wiped out by the DNR?

I have the Arrow disc, and you should really watch the disc before you judge it.
Using DNR will not automatically nullify any resolution increase :confused:

Yes! Screencaps can't be that wrong. And I know the difference between film grain and video noise.


They can be wrong and many times it HAVE been wrong. dvdbeaver have made a lot of misstakes before. You believe that but unless you can prove it in a blindtest that is just talk. I would wait until one have actually seen the disc in person.

When I said DVDBeaver has been woefully inaccurate, I wasn't even referring to their reviews. I NEVER even bother to read their reviews anymore because they're a complete joke. "Woefully inaccurate" was meant to describe their screengrabs, which have occasionally looked completely awful next to the actual product.

Example: The alleged full resolution grabs they took from the Mondo-Vision Zulawski dvds looked like scaled down jpegs in comparison to the actual disc quality. The pics were totally fuzzy and lacking clarity... something the discs themselves can't be accused of.

So really, i'm asking... does the actual blu ray disc of City look any better than the Beaver screen grabs (which do look moderately better than the hideously waxy Arrow grabs)?

So really, i'm asking... does the actual blu ray disc of City look any better than the Beaver screen grabs (which do look moderately better than the hideously waxy Arrow grabs)?


It does! I have just seen COTLD (Oppo 83 -> Panny 4000) at 100 inch x1,4 viewing distance. I'm not saying there can be some DNR or processed image, but I can say this:
*In many scenes the image have amazing pop and hair (and other very small things) is very strong without lumps together like they tend to do when there is DNR.
*The grain is VERY different in various scenes. So why should they scrub away the grain and then put on fake grain in very different amount depending on scenes. It don't sound logical at all.
*CotLD have always been a movie with heavy grain. To scrub all that away and adding fake grain would make the image VERY soft and small detail would go to vast. I cannot see any of that.
*And the last one, most people that complain have not even seen the disc. The sickness of avsforum.

So get it, it will NEVER come a better version on this title. I have had this on swedish VHS, japanese VHS, dutch VHS, Japanese LD, EC LD, Anchour bay DVD and now this BD.

*And the last one, most people that complain have not even seen the disc. The sickness of avsforum.
I can't tell you everything about how a movie looks based on screen grabs, but the idea that you can't determine if a transfer looks like film by looking at what should look like a frame of film is nonsensical.
Based on every capture I can find on every site, there's something wrong with the transfer. Chroma noise reduction has decimated the colors, the "film grain" doesn't look like film grain, it doesn't really correlate with the image but seems laid over it; there appears to be a lack of texture under all the noise, it just looks completely electronic.

Please, this it getting ridiculous. See the movie before you say something.

Thanks for your input, NIN74.

I'm really torn about this title. On one hand I love the film while on the other, I hate wasting money on potentially lackluster product.

I promise you this, this movie have never and will never look better. It is not perfect but it destroys all other releases. And I'm not alone. World famous film restorer Robert harris had this to say about Django and City of the living dead BD:

"I've used Mr. Lustig's Blue Underground as a benchmark in this thread for potential quality on Blu-ray. Even when situations do not permit he and his people to harvest images on their own turf, BU invariably makes the best of situations, and provides stunning Blu-ray products for the consumer.

I've screened City of the Living Dead, as well as Django, but have not as yet found a moment to post. We are in total agreement regarding City, which was derived (with the exception of a single reel) from the original 35mm / 2-perf OCN.

Django, a film which has never looked good on any home video format, now has a new life on Blu-ray."

So what did he agree on? This post:

"Last nite I watched Blue-Undergrounds release of City of the Living Dead that was released just this week. (I also picked up Django)

Having never seen the film I was amazed at how good the film looked. The transfer to me looks true and no manipulation that I can tell. City of the Living Dead is even a tricky film to begin with, I believe it was shot on 16mm blown up to 35m (correct me if I am wrong) Many scenes showed a lot of detail, and even misty filtered shots at least look true to what I would think one would see theatrically."

So a world class film film historian and preservationist, that have worked many years with this, say it looks great, I say it look great but some people that ONLY have seen the screenshots from dvdbeaver (that have many times got the screenshot wrong) say it looks bad, says it all.

I honestly trust Robert Harris about as much as I do the folks who are basing their opinions solely on screencaps. He's defended some hideous looking transfers before ... e.g. Bram Stoker's Dracula and Dark City.

Basically, I don't trust the people who have only seen the screencaps... but I don't necessarily trust Harris either.

I just found this article... http://www.landofwhimsy.com/archives/2010/06/blue-underground-blu-ray-and-grain/

Whiggles always seems to give an honest, unbiased opinion (I'm not suggesting that yours is biased, NIN74) and he has also seen the disc in motion. I think I'll be skipping this one for now.

Please, this it getting ridiculous. See the movie before you say something.
Like I said, screen capture = frame of film, and I'll assess it as such. Beaver's admittedly inconsistent caps aren't the only ones on the internet.

This seems to be news to some people, but photography, film, and high resolution film scanners are not exclusive to filmmakers, film archivists, or hollywood insiders.

GhostBatoh, So, you skip this because of, what? There will NOT be another bluray release on this one. It is WAY better than any other release. So what are you waiting for?
Whiggles have been rather good before but he is not perfect.

Like I said, screen capture = frame of film, and I'll assess it as such. Beaver's admittedly inconsistent caps aren't the only ones on the internet.

This seems to be news to some people, but photography, film, and high resolution film scanners are not exclusive to filmmakers, film archivists, or hollywood insiders.


Get back when you have SEEN the movie. This is just stupid!

I honestly trust Robert Harris about as much as I do the folks who are basing their opinions solely on screencaps. He's defended some hideous looking transfers before ... e.g. Bram Stoker's Dracula and Dark City.

Basically, I don't trust the people who have only seen the screencaps... but I don't necessarily trust Harris either...

I disagree 100% that BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA looks "hideous". It looks different than previous video versions (i.e., much darker), but it looks like film. There's no "digitally manipulated" look to it, it's just a lot darker than most folks have been used to seeing it on home video. Watching the Blu-ray on my front-projector in a dark room brings back memories of when I saw it projected in 35mm all those years ago (I went to see it 4 times theatrically).

Regarding Robert's comments on DARK CITY (among other titles), he amended his comments in his own thread (which he has also done regarding many of the early HD titles he viewed). His comments on these transfers has evolved since the earliest days of the HD home optical media formats four years ago.

I agree with your overall point, though. One should not base their opinion entirely on screen-caps, nor entirely on the opinions of others. One could always rent the title first and make up ones own mind, which is probably the best idea when it comes to titles that have question marks hanging over them.

Vincent

I must say that of one wants to be taken seriously with their critic, they NEED to see the transfer itself.

All I can say is that I have seen it and it completely destroy all previous releases and both I, Robert harris and all reviewers (except for Whiggles) give the transfer top reviews. So test is and see if you like it or not.

Get back when you have SEEN the movie. This is just stupid!
okay :D just for you, i'll rent it and get screengrabs 100% accurate to the image the player spits out, which will undoubtedly once again confirm that every screen grab on the internet can't be wrong, just like they weren't with lord of the rings, gladiator, dark knight, patton, etc, etc... :rolleyes:

Some of you guys just WANT to find errors and flaws, don´t you ;)

I´ve seen this disc two times now, and if it´s been DNR:ed, all those tiny finedetails that I´m seeing in backgrounds and on cloth shouldnt been there since DNR whipes away those together with grain and would turn the image wax. But this is NOT waxy at all.

Yes, some scenes are little soft, but that´s how they have been since the day they shot it, and been the same on ALL versions since the VHS day.

As NIN says, this one blows ALL previous versions away.
But if you wanna stick with a crappy DVD edition over this one, so be it then, guess NOTHING will change your minds ;)

As NIN says, this one blows ALL previous versions away.
But if you wanna stick with a crappy DVD edition over this one, so be it then, guess NOTHING will change your minds ;)


Yes and thats why there is a ignore function on the forum. And it just got another member. :D

Great! Totally forgot that function. That,ll clean this forum up a little bit ;-) hehe

Finns ju ett antal stöniga rötägg här ;-)
Bäst att säga det på svenska annars åker man väl ut ;-)

Yes and thats why there is a ignore function on the forum. And it just got another member. :D
you've thoroughly ignored what i'm saying so far, so that changes nothing really :D

I have watched the BD now can can confirm that COTLD is the same digital abomination like Django. There is no grain, just noise. Not sure though if its artifical or introduced by the encoder. Definitely not analog. The noise fools the viewer into thinking it's sharp (again - like Django).

I definitely plan on checking this thing out at some point, Vincent. It's just not at the top of my list anymore.

I have watched the BD now can can confirm that COTLD is the same digital abomination like Django. There is no grain, just noise. Not sure though if its artifical or introduced by the encoder. Definitely not analog. The noise fools the viewer into thinking it's sharp (again - like Django).


And HOW do you know this?
How can some scenes have VERY high detail level if they used so massive amount of DNR (because the original source have very much grain)?
WHY should the noise be different in different scenes, like they always been, if it is noise and not grain? There is NO logic for that.

And HOW do you know this?
If you have good teachers you can learn to distinguish between analog grain and digital noise.

How can some scenes have VERY high detail level if they used so massive amount of DNR (because the original source have very much grain)?
DNR does not mean that there is no detail left at all. The noise is clearly digital. It looks fringy, blocky, artificial. That is not what analog grain looks like.

WHY should the noise be different in different scenes, like they always been, if it is noise and not grain? There is NO logic for that.[/QUOTE]

There is a logic. I assume the noise is introduced by the encoder and the encoder reacts to bitrate, brightness etc. of a frame with different results.

Example how this works:

First you de-grain the hell out of it like they did with the new Predator disc:
http://forum.cinefacts.de/attachments/blu-ray-software-deutschland/55616d1276289553-predator-blu-ray-wax_2.jpg

Then you re-grain it with milder grain so it looks sharp again:
http://forum.cinefacts.de/attachments/blu-ray-software-deutschland/55617d1276289553-predator-blu-ray-wax_2artnoise.jpg

Rathbone: Those pictures aren't visible unless you register for that website. Just a heads up.

There is a logic. I assume the noise is introduced by the encoder and the encoder reacts to bitrate, brightness etc. of a frame with different results.


No, there is NO logic to what you say at all.
The thing is, that most can see that WATCH the disc, is that the grain variation is very much like the older DVD's. So it have nothing to do with noise.

So please, show some proof or stop spreading nonsens lies.

Example how this works:

First you de-grain the hell out of it like they did with the new Predator disc:
http://forum.cinefacts.de/attachments/blu-ray-software-deutschland/55616d1276289553-predator-blu-ray-wax_2.jpg

Then you re-grain it with milder grain so it looks sharp again:
http://forum.cinefacts.de/attachments/blu-ray-software-deutschland/55617d1276289553-predator-blu-ray-wax_2artnoise.jpg


Is this a joke? Have you even SEEN the COTLD BD? It do NOT look anything like that! You must be joking? :confused:

I just did a small test, again. I used the old AB DVD, the EC laserdisc and the BU BD.
Standing 3 ft from a 100 inch screen it is not hard to see the VAST improvement the BD is. The Anchor bay DVD is just video noise, all over the place. The EC laserdisc is rather good, for a old analog laserdisc but the image is FAR from the BD.
One can also see that the grain structure on the BD is random, like it should. I'm NOT saying that they didn't use some DNR och processed the image, but comparing to BU Dead & buried, the COTLD do not look more processed than that release.

So, even if COTLD is not perfect (no release are that), it is a VAST upgrade to the worthless AB DVD.

Exactly.
The bd's of COTLD and Django are by far the best transfers ever, regardless of flaws.

What's wrong with the anchor bay DVD :confused: It looks like a cheap grindhouse film print, but it is what it is...

Exactly.
The bd's of COTLD and Django are by far the best transfers ever, regardless of flaws.


Exactly and this a old lowbudget movies and not Spartacus. And one can say "maybe BU should done that or that", but the main facts are:
*these releases have non of the waxfaces or EE that spartacus and other DNR destroyed BD have.
*both are massive upgrade over the past releases.

I'm very happy with both and amazed that they even got a HD release.

What's wrong with the anchor bay DVD :confused: It looks like a cheap grindhouse film print, but it is what it is...
I'm inclined to agree, the desaturated look of the Anchor Bay DVD honestly adds to the film more than the weird, almost pastel look to the colors of the Blu-ray. It looks like the EC Entertainment Ultrabit DVD of Fulci's House by the Cemetery which has a dramatically different color cast than ever seen before. I can still remember a good portion of fans complaining about that, but it seems the same people are fine with this CotLD BD. Of course, this is coming from someone who has several ancient Paragon VHS copies of CotLD and enjoys them every so often.

I'm inclined to agree, the desaturated look of the Anchor Bay DVD honestly adds to the film more than the weird, almost pastel look to the colors of the Blu-ray.


I don't agree. But the biggest problem with the AB disc is the MASSIVE video noise. It is funny that people "see" video noise on the bluray but cannot see that the AB dvd is nothing but video noise.

But, in the last post I will do in this thread, this is the best COTLD ever will look. There is no "criterion" bluray coming 2013.

So please, show some proof or stop spreading nonsens lies.

I honestly don't understand why you're getting so worked up over this.

It's not like you can prove it's analog grain. So how is he supposed to prove it's digital noise? You're just as likely to be telling "nonsens lies" as he is.

There is no "criterion" bluray coming 2013.
Of course, but it's a shame when Blue Underground have already proven they can roll with Criterion (or whatever masters Criterion receives) with stunning Blu-rays of The New York Ripper and The Bird of the Crystal Plumage, CotLD's PQ with this release at least certainly isn't in the same league, at all.

I'm tired of people making these stupid excuses for poor picture quality from digital manipulation. You'll just look like fools when eventually a superior edition on Blu-ray (or some unknown future format) arrives and steamrolls this current "best ever/cutting edge/blind praise" edition on the grounds of a faithful presentation of the vault materials--not this digital pap smear.

I don't agree. But the biggest problem with the AB disc is the MASSIVE video noise. It is funny that people "see" video noise on the bluray but cannot see that the AB dvd is nothing but video noise.
That statement conclusively proves you have no idea what film grain looks like.
(which is not to say that the DVD is an amazing transfer, but by the standard of DVD, its a pretty analog picture)

Exactly and this a old lowbudget movies and not Spartacus. And one can say "maybe BU should done that or that", but the main facts are:
*these releases have non of the waxfaces or EE that spartacus and other DNR destroyed BD have.
*both are massive upgrade over the past releases.

I'm very happy with both and amazed that they even got a HD release.

Exactly.

Maybe it´s time to change the titel of this thread ;)

CotLD and Django looks the best they have ever done on a home format, nuff said, let´s move on guys.

"On the company’s Blu-ray schedule for 2011 (no specific dates yet) are Dario Argento’s DEEP RED, INFERNO and CAT O’ NINE TAILS, Larry Cohen’s Q: THE WINGED SERPENT and GOD TOLD ME TO and Harry Kümel’s DAUGHTERS OF DARKNESS. " :)

And ad "and will never look better because it won't be released again" on BD probably.

Btw you can get Django for 15 and Cotld for 17 at Deepdiscount now with their 25% sale untill june 20th.

What's the point of DNRing the image and then adding fake grain back in? What possible audience is that going to satisfy?

Actually Django looks a lot like Spartacus.

I have to say I am pretty disappoited by the attitude of some of you ppl here.

So is "better than the DVD" the new Standard here? Sure the BDs do look better than the DVDs but is this the new attitude towards crappy Blu-ray transfers. This forum is called Audio Video Science not Blu-ray.com. Where's the science in "yeah well it's better than the DVD"?

Maybe I am just one of these exotic guys who wants a movie to be represented true to the source and not some abomination riddled with fake grain, EE, contrast boosting and DNR.

I honestly don't understand why you're getting so worked up over this.

It's not like you can prove it's analog grain. So how is he supposed to prove it's digital noise? You're just as likely to be telling "nonsens lies" as he is.

You're right. In COLD it's hard to prove it. I have to trust my experience and the experts I am talking to. And I am quite confident in them and me.

But in Django even a blind person should be able to see whats wrong.

But it's hard to convince the fanboys.

Yes the world is coming to an end.
CotLD might not be perfect. But it IS great enough to be able to enjoy it and a HUGE step above ANY versions out there. Some of us has got a life outside of the hometheater as well and don't want to waist time searching for errors that might be there or not and cry about it for weeks on the web.

So are we gonna nag and cry about this for 20 more pages or can we move along and talk about coming titles instead perhaps?

Stop beating a dead horse already ;-)

Hmm..I think it's allways best to inform people more than less..

Anyway, I think it would be fun to compare against different forums for a poll asking, if Django is technically good enough to be able to enjoy it as a blu-ray (without comparing it to DVDs because 99% of BDs are always better than DVDs)? :D

I can't answer that question because I can't buy Django because its region locked but I believe I would, because I don't think it will ever look better even if it would get released sometime somewhere in BD format.

Well you have to ask yourself do i want to watch the DVD or the superior BD ?!

This movie will never be released again on BD and bug don't have the funds to make a perfect new master like warner etc make on certain titles.

It bugs me a hell of a lot more when Uni o Co take shortcuts then maybe in this case, if they have been made?!

If no one complains, then why would they ever address the issue :confused:

This movie will never be released again on BD and bug don't have the funds to make a perfect new master like warner etc make on certain titles.
You're right, never again, like the twenty five times this film has been released on DVD around the world since that format's birth. And all the global LDs and mountain of tape releases.

As a long time horror video collector, I've learned to NEVER use the excuse "this will never be released again!" because you know what? It will...again...and again...and again until the world ends or we die.

And really, screw Blu-ray being the end all superior choice in any case. It's not always and I have no qualms asking myself if I want to watch something on a beat up, seventh generation tape if there is good reason...

As for BU not having the funds, have you seen The Bird with the Crystal Plumage or The New York Ripper or The Toolbox Murders? Stunning Blu-ray transfers that compete with major studio efforts.

It bugs me a hell of a lot more when Uni o Co take shortcuts
It bugs me in both cases. Unlike Universal, a small company like BU or Criterion probably does not have the same muddled, overgrown corporate structure, and could listen to their fanbase and have more efficient quality control throughout the process.

Camera negatives are irreplaceable. I don't think they should be putting wear and tear on them if they're taking "shortcuts".

What's the point of DNRing the image and then adding fake grain back in? What possible audience is that going to satisfy?


It is not. People that says that don't know what they are talking about. There is NON of the waxy faces like Spartacus and Patton and there is NO EE at all. Some "experts" here tries to tell you that COTLD, a small italien horror movie, have been transfered with new magic tools that even Spartacus didn't even had. Because how can one explain the total unlogic path of:
Very grainy film -> DNR so all grain is gone, but WITHOUT waxy faces -> sharpen the image WITHOUT any EE at all -> adding artificial grain.

So, COTLD did what Patton, Spartacus and all other DNR releases could not do, taking away all grain without losing detail or waxy faces and didn't add ANY EE. Strange that a small label like Blue underground have this amazing new technology that even the big labels don't have. :rolleyes: :cool:

Actually Django looks a lot like Spartacus.



It looks nothing like Spartacus.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Spartacus/Spartacusbd3.png

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/django_blu-ray/large/large_django_blu-ray1x.jpg

You're right, never again, like the twenty five times this film has been released on DVD around the world since that format's birth. And all the global LDs and mountain of tape releases.

As a long time horror video collector, I've learned to NEVER use the excuse "this will never be released again!" because you know what? It will...again...and again...and again until the world ends or we die.


Do you know something that Don may jr from Synapse don't know? According to him and other labels, the market is VERY bad even for DVD releases and the sales for cult movies on blurays are very low. That is one reason why Synapse still haven't released even one bluray. So, where is the market for a new transfer of COTLD, a movie that 99,9% are already very happy with the BU/Arrow release?

NIN74, you seem to be missing the point.

You keep saying that it doesn't make sense that a company like Blue Underground (who have indeed turned out quality product in the past) would suck the grain from a picture, then add false grain on top of the image.

Well, no one is accusing Blue Underground of doing exactly that.

From Whiggles:

"these image quality issues are not necessarily Blue Underground's fault. Any independent label licensing films owned by other parties is going to be obliged to work with the materials they're given, and these are not always of the best quality. In the case of CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD, it could well be that Blue Underground were simply handed a heavily DNR'd master of CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD and chose to attempt to reconstruct the grain rather than simply releasing it as a waxy, digital-looking mess. (There's a truly horrendous-looking Italian DVD doing the rounds, taken from a "new digital transfer from the original Italian negative", and the same master could potentially have been the original source for the BU release.) It does happen."

Therefore, it may not entirely be Blue Underground's fault. They may have just been making the best of a bad situation. That still doesn't mean I'm going to buy the product.

If no one complains, then why would they ever address the issue :confused:

Thats exactly my point. By accepting the Status Quo you give BU a positive feedback and signal that they can go on with this. There are huge discussions rising about little things like the slight contrast boost in the Kelly's Heroes thread but here nobody cares about bad quality. That's just confusing.

Btw. I disagree that there will be no better masters of these films. They are Italian films. And the Italians have already proven that they can beat the s*** out of US transfers with Leone's Dollar movies.

Regarding waxy faces: Django has more fake grain than Spartacus but underneath the layer is basically the same.

NIN74, you seem to be missing the point.

You keep saying that it doesn't make sense that a company like Blue Underground (who have indeed turned out quality product in the past) would suck the grain from a picture, then add false grain on top of the image.

Well, no one is accusing Blue Underground of doing exactly that.

From Whiggles:


So you are basing this on Whiggles? AGAIN, where is the proof!? You and other just talk and talk but have no proof at all.

Regarding waxy faces: Django has more fake grain than Spartacus but underneath the layer is basically the same.


You MUST be joking! :eek:

Regarding waxy faces: Django has more fake grain than Spartacus but underneath the layer is basically the same.

I haven't watched Spartacus on BD because there's no way I am buying or renting that POS; but I have watched Django, and it doesn't it look even remotely similar to the Spartacus screencaps posted here to me. Even when looking past the grain, video noise, or whatever it is.

So you are basing this on Whiggles? AGAIN, where is the proof!? You and other just talk and talk but have no proof at all.

So you are basing your judgment on Robert Harris? AGAIN, where is the proof!? You and other just talk and talk but have no proof at all.

See what I did there? Neither of us have proof.

There's a very interesting post on the Hometheaterforum in the "A few words about HOWARDS END" thread started by Robert Harris. It's post #90 in page 3 of the thread, written by one Adam_S, an assistant film editor who works in the industry. While it's referring to some digital noise issues that some folks are reporting with the Blu-ray of HE and not the Blue underground titles mentioned here, I think what he writes re: certain scanners being unable to properly handle film grain might be applicable to the titles being debated here. Here are some relevant quotes from his post, you can read the full thing over at HTF:

Adam_S:"I was at the academy last summer for their 'film formats through the ages' night which showed a ton of clips from a variety of films, mostly in large format. Some were digitally restored presentations of 70mm films, most were 70mm film. One in particular looked horrid blown up on that wonderful Samuel Goldwyn screen (and I've seen it in 70mm and know what its grain looks like, it wasn't grainy it was noisy and digital). There were a handful of DPs as part of a panel afterwards, and one made an aside comment that one clip looked particularly atrocious tonight, and shouldn't because the people who were so proud of their image hadn't properly harvested it to begin with, they had got an image that they thought represented film grain but was actually like a pulsing parameceum of digital noise... And he then said there were certain image harvest machines he simply wouldn't use because they'd produce an image that looked to most people like a beautiful 2k harvest, but when he looked at it all he saw was a "digital floor," not film grain at all, a digital floor... The image was pulled, they looked at it, thought they were seeing film grain and didn't look closer... and since their harvest was calibrated to the digital noise rather than to the grain of the film, everything after that would be off in small but to some people significant ways. So since film grain is already hard to encode think how much harder it is to encode unfocused film grain that looks like a watery layer of digital noise interfering with the grain. The codec has issues with such a complex random structure, and compensates by introducing additional artifacting."

In other words, it might not be "DNR and re-graining" at all, but a scanner that doesn't handle film grain correctly, and the resulting digital noise causing nasty artifacting during the encode stage. This makes more sense to me than Lustig paying to de-grain then re-grain an image, and would help explain why the "grain" looks so digital.

Vincent

That certainly seems to be the most plausible explanation, and is something I've thought about.

That's interesting, because the noise in the screenshots of Howard's End looks similar, though the compression seems to really be struggling to reproduce it there. A sharpening pass would really bring out the noise to horrible levels, which may be what happened to Django and Stendhal Syndrome. I suspect they also used color noise reduction to get rid of the color component of the noise, since the desaturated, vague colors on these discs look very similar to what happens when you apply the filter to noisy camera images in Photoshop.

Do you know something that Don may jr from Synapse don't know?
No, but I know he wouldn't allow a transfer like City or Django to have the Synapse logo. He's one man who knows how to turn out incredible looking transfers and restorations, even on DVD.

There's a very interesting post...

Thanks for sharing that one, Vincent.

This makes more sense to me than Lustig paying to de-grain then re-grain an image...

Like it says in my above post... it would indeed be illogical for Lustig to de-grain and then re-grain the transfer. What more likely happened (if it did in fact happen) is that the master he received was already DNR'd and then BU just made the best of a bad situation by trying to mask things with synthetic grain. Whiggles isn't the only one who has come to a similar conclusion.

In other words, it might not be "DNR and re-graining" at all, but a scanner that doesn't handle film grain correctly, and the resulting digital noise causing nasty artifacting during the encode stage. This makes more sense to me than Lustig paying to de-grain then re-grain an image, and would help explain why the "grain" looks so digital.
Vincent
Those are some very interesting thoughts on the subject, thanks for pointing it out. It would really be nice, and would end countless discussion, if studios would just start releasing exactly what they did in transferring their films to Blu-ray, step-by-step.

...Like it says in my above post... it would indeed be illogical for Lustig to de-grain and then re-grain the transfer. What more likely happened (if it did in fact happen) is that the master he received was already DNR'd and then BU just made the best of a bad situation by trying to mask things with synthetic grain. Whiggles isn't the only one who has come to a similar conclusion.

I have a hard time believing that the masters Lustig received from Europe were heavily "DNR'd", given the fine detail that is apparent in the images below all the noise. I think the situation I suggested makes the most sense- i.e., a scanner introduced digital noise and it was not noted by the transfer techs, then the BD encode adding more artifacts on top of that. Poster 42041 makes a good point about Blue Underground possibly doing some chroma noise-reduction on the masters they received, but I still doubt much 'traditional' DNR was done because these transfers DO have a lot of detail in them, whereas 'traditional' DNR jobs do not. I think what we're likely seeing is the "digital floor" talked about in that post I quoted combined with the AVC compression trying to make sense of it.

Vincent

So you are basing your judgment on Robert Harris? AGAIN, where is the proof!? You and other just talk and talk but have no proof at all.

See what I did there? Neither of us have proof.


I base my judgment on seeing the transfer on a big screen. One must be blind if one compare Django to Spartacus. Both COTLD and Django have many scenes that have such high level of detail that high level of DNR is impossible. And there is NO EE at all, that many of the DNR releases have (Patton, Spartacus etc).

I have a hard time believing that the masters Lustig received from Europe were heavily "DNR'd", given the fine detail that is apparent in the images below all the noise. I think the situation I suggested makes the most sense- i.e., a scanner introduced digital noise and it was not noted by the transfer techs, then the BD encode adding more artifacts on top of that. Poster 42041 makes a good point about Blue Underground possibly doing some chroma noise-reduction on the masters they received, but I still doubt much 'traditional' DNR was done because these transfers DO have a lot of detail in them, whereas 'traditional' DNR jobs do not. I think what we're likely seeing is the "digital floor" talked about in that post I quoted combined with the AVC compression trying to make sense of it.

Vincent
This is what makes Django so interesting. It has much detail then it can't be that bad? IMO only the colors could been little better if they hadn't used that chroma filter. I think Django looks great compared to DVD by the caps.

I base my judgment on seeing the transfer on a big screen. One must be blind if one compare Django to Spartacus. Both COTLD and Django have many scenes that have such high level of detail that high level of DNR is impossible. And there is NO EE at all, that many of the DNR releases have (Patton, Spartacus etc).

Sorry, we got wires crossed. I've only been discussing City of the Living Dead. I have no interest in the Django, Spartacus or Patton titles.

In other words, it might not be "DNR and re-graining" at all, but a scanner that doesn't handle film grain correctly, and the resulting digital noise causing nasty artifacting during the encode stage. This makes more sense to me than Lustig paying to de-grain then re-grain an image, and would help explain why the "grain" looks so digital.

Vincent

Torsten Kaiser of TLE films recently told me basically the same thing.

And there is NO EE at all, that many of the DNR releases have (Patton, Spartacus etc).

Django has EE that is easy to spot.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/django_blu-ray/large/large_django_blu-ray1.jpg

Django has EE that is easy to spot.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/django_blu-ray/large/large_django_blu-ray1.jpg That's optical ringing from the lenses/camera, not digital.

Django has EE that is easy to spot.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/django_blu-ray/large/large_django_blu-ray1.jpg

You cannot hot link from DVDbeaver. Why do people not understand this yet?

That's optical ringing from the lenses/camera, not digital.

Sry to ask but do you have any proof of that. It surely doesn't look optical like Zhivago or Where eagles dare. I made some own screenshots which look more like classic EE. Will post them today or tomorrow.

You cannot hot link from DVDbeaver. Why do people not understand this yet?

Copy & paste?

Django has EE that is easy to spot.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews51/django_blu-ray/large/large_django_blu-ray1.jpg

No, just give it up.

One more for ignore list.

Is Blue Underground not letting Netflix offer their newer releases for rental or something? Neither Django or COTD even have an availability date :mad:

Thanks Vincent for your post.

10k bullets has an Uncle Sam review up.

http://10kbullets.com/reviews/u/uncle-sam-bluray/

Is Blue Underground not letting Netflix offer their newer releases for rental or something? Neither Django or COTD even have an availability date :mad:

Yeah I am wondering the same thing. Wonder if Blockbuster has them???

Here's some uncompressed caps from Django. And no, there's no DNR underneath the artificial grain.

http://www.minhembio.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-24780-1277889758.png

http://www.minhembio.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-24780-1277889423.png

http://www.minhembio.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-24780-1277889049.png

http://www.minhembio.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-24780-1277889875.png

http://www.minhembio.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-24780-1277890239.png

http://www.minhembio.com/forum/uploads/monthly_06_2010/post-24780-1277890355.png

10k bullets just reviewed The Prowler. They were very happy with the PQ and say it's great upgrade over the dvd. Can't wait to pick this up.

WalMart is officially terrible. Ordered CotLD on 5/19, they delayed it a few times (but still charged me), then after more emails assured I would receive it to my door between 7/something and 7/13. Well, it's 7/13 and it's not here, and the website still says "Processing" with the same time frame listed.

Any place have this cheaper than Amazon? They want around $32, and I paid WalMart $19.

Any place have this cheaper than Amazon? They want around $32, and I paid WalMart $19.$21.41 at Deep Discount...in-stock and free (but slow) shipping.

$21.41 at Deep Discount...in-stock and free (but slow) shipping.

Can't be worse than Wal-Mart in this case. :)

Just got done watching Fast Company and I must say what a good B movie. I've never seen this before, and I must say the picture quality was very good. It's the same way with The Crazies never seen it before and was a a impressed with the picture quality. Shame though Netflix cannot get all of the Blue Underground movies for rent.

In post #31, I made some comments for which I'll have to make a total reversal on.

Just watched The Crazies and it looks excellent. The sound is pretty thin but I'm assuming that's because of the source. It is lossless...and the original mono, and I am thankful for that. The recent release of Inferno has a mono/stereo tracks, but the only lossless was for the surround mix. That was the only disappointment for that release. I do question how nearly all of these mention that they are newly transferred from the original camera negatives, yet they appear to be made from masters made years ago. Not so sure you could call that Italian DVD release from about 5 years ago to be 'new' anymore. I did notice what looked like very mild edge enhancement on Inferno (you notice it on the opening credits and a few other spots).

Django, I watched that one a while back, it was definitely the least pleasing image of all the BU titles I own.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews55/the_house_by_the_cemetery_blu-ray.htm

Another one I'm not buying. Haven't bought a new Blue Underground Blu-ray in months and I'm fine with that. I'm at a point now where titles like these will have to look bloody perfect (as in film-like, not this LVR-produced DNR brightened garbage) for me to actually buy them. I already have six or seven other releases of this film and I'm done until I get a real Blu-ray. Hear me, Blue Underground?

[QUOTE=foughman;18844715]Here's some uncompressed caps from Django. And no, there's no DNR underneath the artificial grain.

It's artificial?

It's artificial?

"Artificial" isn't quite the word, but basically the scanner at the film lab doing all of BU's Italian transfers exaggerates the film grain and produces machine noise on top of the original grain. They aren't going out of their way to generate fake grain, it's more a side-effect of their hardware that they can't disable (short of smearing it out with DVNR).

Here's an example from Tenebrae, one of the only films I know of where we have a faulty noisy transfer and a proper, high quality scan from a different lab using better HD Telecine equipment:

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/8949/tenebrae1uk.jpg
Arrow Video UK

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5675/tenebrae1fr.jpg
Wild Side France

That basically sums up what's wrong with LVR Video & Post's transfers better than words ever could.

Also, DVD Beaver's caps regularly blur out noise/grain, for whatever reason. Rock! Shock! Pop! has reviews for ZOMBIE (http://www.rockshockpop.com/forums/content.php?1952-Zombie-%282-Disc-Ultimate-Edition-Blu-ray%29) and HOUSE BY THE CEMETERY (http://www.rockshockpop.com/forums/content.php?1953-House-By-The-Cemetery) with more reliable caps.

Yea it's sad Bu still uses CRT based telecine :/ pathetic really. CCD scanners are what everyone is using now so no idea why they are using tech that is really really old and looks
like ass.

Yeah, it has basically killed my interest in buying italian movies on blu-ray.
At least the ones done over at LVR.
Some arn´t bothered with it, but to me it´s very annoying and takes me out of the movie.

The Wild Side of Tenebre, and Midnight´s Alien 2, really show us how good those classics can look without the noise.

I can´t believe Blue-Underground isn´t looking into this problem and changing labs. But as long as people still buy them, why would they bother...

Universal should look into putting fake grain on their DNR:ed transfers, as long as there is ANY kind of noise that looks like grain, the fans will be happy with it ;)

"Artificial" isn't quite the word, but basically the scanner at the film lab doing all of BU's Italian transfers exaggerates the film grain and produces machine noise on top of the original grain. They aren't going out of their way to generate fake grain, it's more a side-effect of their hardware that they can't disable (short of smearing it out with DVNR).

The reason why it does not bother me too much is that the grain is not artificial it is analogue in nature. The analogic noise isn't or atleast shouln't be frozen - therefore I think screencaps can't show you the whole truth of the quality.

Personally, I think even BU's Django has many good moments with lots of detail. But Django had print damage that made the analogue grain from the CRT scan to freez, and at a few scenes at worst, the whole picture blinks very frustrating due to this.

My point (sorry for my english) is that I don't believe that a good CRT based scanner could not show as much detail as a common CCD based scanner. Further I think also other studios use CRT scans with some old films to give the picture a grainier more filmic look that might orherwise not be possible because of the limitations of the preservation of the original film.

This is all IMHO ofcourse because I'm certainly not a pro on this field.

Having an audio issue with this "Daughters Of Darkness". I get no sound from either the DTS-HD MA English or French track when watching at normal speed. If I hit the FF button (using a PS3) to go to 1.5X, I get sound. I am able to hear both commentary tracks as normal and all the special features seem fine. But I can't get sound with the main audio tracks. I thought it was a firmware issue related to DTS-HD MA, so I updated firmware on my PS3 from 1.50 to 1.73, but still have the same problem. Anyone else have this or know what the problem might be?

PS3 is connected to my receiver via optical digital out.

Having an audio issue with this "Daughters Of Darkness". I get no sound from either the DTS-HD MA English or French track when watching at normal speed. If I hit the FF button (using a PS3) to go to 1.5X, I get sound. I am able to hear both commentary tracks as normal and all the special features seem fine. But I can't get sound with the main audio tracks. I thought it was a firmware issue related to DTS-HD MA, so I updated firmware on my PS3 from 1.50 to 1.73, but still have the same problem. Anyone else have this or know what the problem might be?

PS3 is connected to my receiver via optical digital out.

Anyone? I noticed that when I fast forward, my receiver shows it is receiving a 48k PCM stream. I get sound while fast forwarding at 1.5X. But when it returns to normal 1X play, my receiver shows it is receiving DTS 1.0 and I get no sound.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews55/the_house_by_the_cemetery_blu-ray.htm

Another one I'm not buying. Haven't bought a new Blue Underground Blu-ray in months and I'm fine with that. I'm at a point now where titles like these will have to look bloody perfect (as in film-like, not this LVR-produced DNR brightened garbage) for me to actually buy them. I already have six or seven other releases of this film and I'm done until I get a real Blu-ray. Hear me, Blue Underground?


Yeah, it is MUCH better to see them on DVD. :rolleyes:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews55/the_house_by_the_cemetery_blu-ray.htm

Another one I'm not buying. Haven't bought a new Blue Underground Blu-ray in months and I'm fine with that. I'm at a point now where titles like these will have to look bloody perfect (as in film-like, not this LVR-produced DNR brightened garbage) for me to actually buy them. I already have six or seven other releases of this film and I'm done until I get a real Blu-ray. Hear me, Blue Underground?

House by the Cemetery is just about the best looking title BU has released to date. I'm confused as to why you are objecting to THIS release rather than any of the numerous recent releases that aren't up to the same standard.

Is there any news on TENEBRAE and a proper release in English? The Arrow version is unwatchable.

House by the Cemetery is just about the best looking title BU has released to date. I'm confused as to why you are objecting to THIS release rather than any of the numerous recent releases that aren't up to the same standard.

House by the Cemetery has plenty of analog noise and DVNR to help hide it. It's notably less processed than Zombie and Torso were, but it's hardly a reference transfer.

Their best looking Italian-sourced BU transfer is still The Bird With The Crystal Plumage, followed very closely by The New York Ripper and Two Evil Eyes.

They need to invest in a ccd type scanner as these crt flying spot scanners produce
less than ideal images yuck.

They need to invest in a ccd type scanner as these crt flying spot scanners produce
less than ideal images yuck.
Or maybe just do some maintenance on the ones they have... I really doubt such incredibly expensive professional equipment would produce such ghastly noise when working properly :eek:

Well it is inferior tech and sure you can get a little less but really it is a bi product of CRT
process and you are left with a TON of Noise that you can leave and it look similar to
Django or denoise it some. All of the major studios use ccd based telecine and have for sometime. There are two companies scanning with this particular scanner which is one of the very few crt telecines being still made. It is very expensive so I doubt they will be
upgrading soon :/

House by the Cemetery has plenty of analog noise and DVNR to help hide it. It's notably less processed than Zombie and Torso were, but it's hardly a reference transfer.


Source to this?

Source to this?

Watching the disc. :p

The grain has been tampered with, and one needs only to look at any of their earlier Techniscope transfers (Bird with Crystal Plumage, New York Ripper, City of the Living Dead) to see that there's been some digital processing applied.

Watching the disc. :p


Ok, no source at all then. Thanks.

Ok, no source at all then. Thanks.

Why would Kentai be any less of a source than some random link to someone else's opinion?

His reviews on PQ are a much better source than most other reviewers. And unlike say, Robert Harris, Kentai actually has years of experience with the digital tools that are used to alter the look of a transfer. So I'd take his word over just about anyone else's.

Why would Kentai be any less of a source than some random link to someone else's opinion?


Because I have read and seen all kind of "reviews" about Blue undergrounds BD that are way out of line. Like the talk that some titles would be heavely DNR and than added fake grain. :rolleyes:

About the Beyond the darkness BD "review" Kentai wrote, and I quote: "The audio fidelity - in and of itself - is a minor step up from DVD,". According to me that is either a statment of someone closes to being deaf or someone that have a reason to "put down" a release.
And still, I have asked for proof about the "CRT equipment" problem but still, I have not got anything than peoples opinion or thoughts.

So, let me put it this way, I rather use my own eyes and ears to review the releases than others peoples thoughts. :)