Well here's a title that didn't need an hd transfer. PQ is ok, nothing better than I would see on an upconvert.Sound quality is full on crap. Painful to say the least. Hopefully American Werewolf in Paris will be better. At least with that we get Julie Delpy naked. That's worth a watch at any quality.

Last Friday afternoon I attended a theatrical screening of "AAWIL" in NYC in which director John Landis introduced the movie. He went on a 20-minute rambling about the movie's origins, behind-the-scenes anecdotes, etc. He took time to tell the audience that the "high-definition Blu-ray" versions of "Werewolf" and "Animal House" (he meant HD-DVD but he said beforehand he's not a technical guy or knew all the terms, and I didn't have the balls to tell him it was HD-DVD and not Blu-ray) were made to look less-than-pristine because he wanted them to look grungy and dirty. He said the technicians that worked on transfering his movies to high-definition hate him for making them go back and 'downgrade the picture at director's request.' He said "Wewolf" in high-definition looked much better than the 35mm version we were about to see (he was right, the print screened was washed-out and scratched like hell) and that one could read the names of the bottles in The Slaughtered Lamb bar on the high-definition version but not on the film or DVD version. He asked the crowd (about 85-90 people) how many had "high-definition" HDTV's with "high-definition" players (he actually used the word 'Blu-ray' instead of "HD" but he clearly meant "HDM") and only 7 people raised their hands (myself included). "I guess I just wasted everybody's time talking about this ****" said Landis. :rolleyes:

Well here's a title that didn't need an hd transfer. PQ is ok, nothing better than I would see on an upconvert.
Uh, yeah. Right. How long has it been since you saw an upconvert?

Well here's a title that didn't need an hd transfer. PQ is ok, nothing better than I would see on an upconvert.

I wish people would stop saying this without actually doing the comparison. Have you *seen* the standard def version upconverted. It also looks like ass.

The HD DVD version isn't stellar by any means (it's clearly limited by the source material)... but it's the best it has ever looked on home video. Believe me, I've owned them all - VHS, a couple of LD versions, both DVD versions. And the HD looks noticably better than the DVD.

Did this need to be an early HD release? Definitely not... there are lots of other flicks in the Universal catalog that would have benefited from HD more. But as a fan of the film, I'm not even slightly sorry I bought it. Again, the best the film has ever looked, in my opinion... and that's (ultimately) what matters.

Here is one of several previous threads on this titles PQ

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=786602&highlight=werewolf

While nothing impressive I didn't think the PQ of this disc was the equivalent of upconverted SD. I dunno, I love the movie so maybe there's no way to piss me off. I was just happy it came out on HD DVD so soon.

My complaint is not with the pq. I said it was ok and yes i have it on dvd and have watched it upconvert. Sorry I noticed very little difference. I've got a 34" ws sony crt if you want to discount my visual experiance.

My main complaint and what made it painful to get through was the audio. Worst audio of any hd-dvd I have played.

I have read detailed reviews elsewhere corroborating the OP's stance.

I have seen this on hd-dvd and the movie IS the best it has ever looked. Maybe tier 2-3 for an old movie.

After seeing the magic done with Trading Places and especially The Thing this move looks like poop. I just got my copy yesterday and was very disappointed.

I'll be happy to post pics of the SD-DVD upconverted on my Pany BD10A compared to the HD copy on my A2. The PQ is a very slight improvement but I would not recommend buying it if you already have the DVD. I also own this on VHS and am very familiar with the film. The only improvements I see in the HD-DVD is color, particularly in the greens and reds. Other than that the image is flat, lacks pop and is full of grain. The only transfer I have seen on HDM that is worse is Total Recall on BD. Just my 2¢.

Sony 52" XBR3 @ 8 feet

suprisingly big improvment on my set up (86" wide/1080p fp).
I was happy with the sd dvd many years back (on a 1024 x 768 res pj), but in a direct comparision the HD DVD is clearly, without a single doubt, superior in both color rendition and resolution. WTF more do you people want or expect?

I have no doubt it looked even better than the film print one poster saw.
Best it has ever looked + one of my favorite movies = one very happy camper.

also, I find this whole phenomena of people enthusiastically telling other people how much such and such movie sucks in HD to be a very interesting one. Its almost as if people were somehow trying to validate to themselves how superior and discerning their eyes and equipment are by finding fault with the majority of releases. There have been things I've had a legitimate gripe with due to DVNR, EE, or obvious macroblocking...but even with these things the difference between sd scaled up and native HD res is 99 times out of 100 blindingly obvious...if you aren't sitting more than 1.5 screenwidths away from a 1080p display.

suprisingly big improvment on my set up (86" wide/1080p fp).
I was happy with the sd dvd many years back (on a 1024 x 768 res pj), but in a direct comparision the HD DVD is clearly, without a single doubt, superior in both color rendition and resolution. WTF more do you people want or expect?

I have no doubt it looked even better than the film print one poster saw.
Best it has ever looked + one of my favorite movies = one very happy camper.


Agree 100%, it is the best its ever looked.

This isn't just about comparing it to the quality of its previous format transfers its about comparing it to other HDM titles... especially those of similar age. As far as I'm concerned The Thing should be a benchmark in what can be done with a 25 year old movie.

I don't know tech specs on source material or any of that stuff I just know what I see and as much as I love this move it does not look HD quality when compared to other HD movies of similar age. As far as I'm concerned the negative comments are just as valid as the positive ones and I own very few HDM titles that I am unhappy with.

This isn't just about comparing it to the quality of its previous format transfers its about comparing it to other HDM titles... especially those of similar age. As far as I'm concerned The Thing should be a benchmark in what can be done with a 25 year old movie.

I don't know tech specs on source material or any of that stuff I just know what I see and as much as I love this move it does not look HD quality when compared to other HD movies of similar age. As far as I'm concerned the negative comments are just as valid as the positive ones and I own very few HDM titles that I am unhappy with.

An American Werewolf In London has never been a pretty film. And that goes back to the way it was originally shot. If you are a fan of the film, the HD disc is the best this particular film has ever looked. I agree that The Thing looks better but why the comparison.
I myself find comparing transfers of completely different films a rather pointless exercise.There are a lot more factors to be taken into account. The age of the film is only one of them.What about a different crew,filmstock,locations and how its handled at the lab. Purchasing films solely based on which title has demo picture quality ain't my thing. I'm sure a lot do and thats fine. I purchase based on my liking of the film first and if it features a great transfer,thats just an added bonus.

An American Werewolf In London has never been a pretty film. And that goes back to the way it was originally shot. If you are a fan of the film, the HD disc is the best this particular film has ever looked. I agree that The Thing looks better but why the comparison.
I myself find comparing transfers of completely different films a rather pointless exercise.There are a lot more factors to be taken into account. The age of the film is only one of them.What about a different crew,filmstock,locations and how its handled at the lab. Purchasing films solely based on which title has demo picture quality ain't my thing. I'm sure a lot do and thats fine. I purchase based on my liking of the film first and if it features a great transfer,thats just an added bonus.

I compare the two because they are both classics in my mind, they are both roughly the same age and I own both on VHS, DVD and HD. I don't pay attention, nor do I care about filmstock, lab handeling, etc. I know these things play their role but when we are talking HD I think that comparing it to other HD titles of equal age is a perfectly relevant thing to do. I mean these types of things might be deciding factors for average joes that are on the fence about a double or triple dip on the movie. Trading Places was a very dull movie as far as color but that was another example, although to a lesser degree, of a good HDM transfer and worth while improvement over the SD-DVD upconverted.

Myabe my HDA2 is to blame and I should grab a better HD player? Anyways, I'm glad to have it on HD but with what I've seen of the 80's flicks that have been released on HDM I guess I was just hoping for a bit more 3D pop and little less grain.

I compare the two because they are both classics in my mind, they are both roughly the same age and I own both on VHS, DVD and HD. I don't pay attention, nor do I care about filmstock, lab handeling, etc. I know these things play their role but when we are talking HD I think that comparing it to other HD titles of equal age is a perfectly relevant thing to do...

If you "don't care about filmstock", etc., you really have no room to make such comments, because how a movie was filmed- not just WHEN it was filmed- plays a huge role in how it will look in HD (or DVD, or 35mm for that matter). THE THING was filmed in anamorphic Panavision while AMERICAN WEREWOLF was standard 1.85:1. Panavision has a much larger negative area, thus will almost always look better, less grainy, more cinematic, etc.

Also, THE THING was directed by John Carpenter, a man known for having a very visual style. Hell, this guy shot a film for $300,000 back in 1978 that still looks great to this day. Landis has never been known for being a particularily visual director. His films are not known for their visual "pop" or whatever, whereas Carpenter is well-known for his visual style and love of shooting in anamorphic. You can't compare these two films visually just because they came out around the same time, it just doesn't work that way.

Vincent

If you "don't care about filmstock", etc., you really have no room to make such comments, because how a movie was filmed- not just WHEN it was filmed- plays a huge role in how it will look in HD (or DVD, or 35mm for that matter). THE THING was filmed in anamorphic Panavision while AMERICAN WEREWOLF was standard 1.85:1. Panavision has a much larger negative area, thus will almost always look better, less grainy, more cinematic, etc.

Also, THE THING was directed by John Carpenter, a man known for having a very visual style. Hell, this guy shot a film for $300,000 back in 1978 that still looks great to this day. Landis has never been known for being a particularily visual director. His films are not known for their visual "pop" or whatever, whereas Carpenter is well-known for his visual style and love of shooting in anamorphic. You can't compare these two films visually just because they came out around the same time, it just doesn't work that way.

Vincent

Very valid points and they make perfect sense. These are the types of things that make a difference in the end result and obviously have plenty of weight in discussions that take place among people that have a knowledge of this stuff. I'm not sure how Trading Places would fall in this discussion as I know nothing of who shot it and how but I know it looks pretty good for what it was originally.

The point I was trying to make is that if we are talking about rating HDM based on PQ we can't give more credit or give a handicap simply because of the source material. I mean lets be real here, the average HDM consumer is just going to see that The Thing looks much better than AWIL. The why's will just be lost in a technical discussion that will not make much sense IMO.

I don't disagree with what has been said in defense of the transfer I was just trying to say that if it's a HDM title comparing it to others is fair. Apples to apples as far as source is concerend may be a different story but again for the average guy:o

I watched and was impressed with the transfer, given that its a 13GB file!! Not even double that of a DVD.

Looks better than it has ever looked.

Granted it's the best it's ever looked - but pales in comparison to other HD titles (except maybe Total Recall).

The point I was trying to make is that if we are talking about rating HDM based on PQ we can't give more credit or give a handicap simply because of the source material. I mean lets be real here, the average HDM consumer is just going to see that The Thing looks much better than AWIL. The why's will just be lost in a technical discussion that will not make much sense IMO.



this is otherwise known as dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator.

The whole point of using higher resolution, is to be able to preserve a higher, finer degree of source fidelity. It is NOT to be able to homogenize something and make it look consistent to anything else.

Some of you people are distressingly off base with your expectations, and you really need to get out the theater more and look at the projected films you see there with the same critical eyes you do with these $20 discs. The next movie you go out to see, pretend you just 'bought' it and watch it with that kind of mindset, catalog each soft, out of focus shot, each instance of grain and pluged up shadows, etc etc. You will be suprised at what you find.

this is otherwise known as dumbing things down for the lowest common denominator.

The whole point of using higher resolution, is to be able to preserve a higher, finer degree of source fidelity. It is NOT to be able to homogenize something and make it look consistent to anything else.

Some of you people are distressingly off base with your expectations, and you really need to get out the theater more and look at the projected films you see there with the same critical eyes you do with these $20 discs. The next movie you go out to see, pretend you just 'bought' it and watch it with that kind of mindset, catalog each soft, out of focus shot, each instance of grain and pluged up shadows, etc etc. You will be suprised at what you find.

...yep...+1. I have a feeling that most will feel like they have wasted mucho$$ everytime they go to the theater! LOL!

Don't compare it to a theater experience... gimme a break, as if there was not a difference in spending money to see something for the first time around vs. buying a title for near triple the price that is supposed to be "the look and sound of perfect". Besides there are plenty of theater released movies that come to HDM with excellent results. Just look at Die Hard, The Thing, Trading Places, etc. The negative should not be ignored when we are praising the PQ/SQ of the good transfers. If it's a HDM title it is perfectly reasonable to compare it to others. Again, this may be a deciding factor for anyone on the fence of a double or triple dip.

It's the tech obsessed intellectuals that need to dumb down and realize people want their moneys worth when they pay for HDM.

The whole point of using higher resolution, is to be able to preserve a higher, finer degree of source fidelity.

That does not change the fact that garbage in = garbage out. Where's the value in buying HDM if there is little difference between the upconverted DVD.

Granted it's the best it's ever looked - but pales in comparison to other HD titles (except maybe Total Recall).
Indeed... At least AWIL had some improvements over the SD-DVD. Total Recall is just terrible looking. Too bad to because that is another 80's favorite of mine. I have Blade Runner and The Shining on the way so we'll see how those look.

Just rewatched this again recently. I thought it looked amazing, and can clearly see the difference since I watched my old DVD copy over and over again. Absolutely great movie.

But I only care about PQ when I buy HDM, so I threw the disc in the garbage and proceeded to watch Crank on BD 5 times in a row :rolleyes:

Nothing like watching that CLASSIC movie Crank...;) eeep!

I LOVE 1980's films too :eek:!

Speaking of - Blade Runner has simply STUNNING picture quality and when compared to American Werewolf, Total Recall or Robocop - well all the latter look more like VHS (OK maybe SVHS) in comparison (IMHO).