Sleepy Hollow HD DVD: NOT IMPRESSED!

[pteittinen]

^^ Ouch...

All of a sudden I got this mental image of a spandex-wearing superhero with a blazing HD DVD logo on his chest. His battlecry is "Sharpness to the max!"

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Fettastic

The main problem with this transfer is that it is inconsistent. Though the print is in good shape with no major defects, it does vary greatly in terms of softness and grain."

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/laracrofttombraider.html

It makes more sense to say that the film elements used are inconsistent. The transfer is usually done on the same telecine and the machine does not go soft and add grain on some shots and not on others. If some shots are softer/grainier than the rest then this is how the film elements look.

[Dave Mack]

Before anyone calls RAH "That guy" you should do some research on him.
What he forgets in a day about film and video is more than most member's here will learn in a lifetime.

Robert A. Harris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Robert A. Harris is a film historian and preservationist who specializes in restoring the large-format widescreen films of the 1950s. He has restored and reconstructed a number of classic films including Lawrence of Arabia (in 1989), Spartacus (1991), My Fair Lady (1994), and Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1996) and Rear Window (1998). He frequently collaborates with James C. Katz.

Their pristine restorations of classic films have earned a great deal of respect from cinephiles and critics.

d

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Fettastic

Can you name one thing in SH that looked "3D" as we refer to it here?

Extrapolating from the HBO HD version, yes, most of the film looks very 3D provided you watch it on equipment that is not, cough, pretty contrast challenged (e.g. CRT projector, Ruby). It's a dark film, but boy does it look good in a totally light controlled room on a very high contrast projector.

[Dave Mack]

Oh wait, this is from they guy who thinks "The Phantom of the Opera" is actually an opera!

With all due respect, there have been like 8 versions of this story and this is the first one that was actually an opera.

[ChrisMcCarthy]

All right guys, you've made your point. Don't belabor it. We don't want the powers-that-be to come stomping down here because we are no longer playing 'nice'.

Chris.

[Dave Mack]

You're right Chris, I'm totally goofing.
I haven't seen it so what do I know. I just didn't like RAH being referred to simply as "some guy"

[Fettastic]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Extrapolating from the HBO HD version, yes, most of the film looks very 3D provided you watch it on equipment that is not, cough, pretty contrast challenged (e.g. CRT projector, Ruby). It's a dark film, but boy does it look good in a totally light controlled room on a very high contrast projector.

NOTHING on the HD DVD is like that. Nothing at all. It sounds like the HBO HD version is a lot better.

[Fettastic]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

Keep in mind that Fettastic is the guy who vehemently argued that the best way to judge picture quality is by turning his TV's sharpness all the way up.

I said that as an EXPERIMENT, you could turn up your sharpness to identify compression artifacts. I would certainly never say you should watch any more than a couple of minutes like that.

[zalahmar]

Fettastic, You seem to be fighting an uphill battle. Everything you've said so far goes against what the majority has experienced.

While your perceptions of the movie might be different then the majority of people on this forum, Trying to discredit people such as Robert Harris who have WAY more credebility than yourself is not the way to try and justify your own views.

[Fettastic]

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

Oh wait, this is from they guy who thinks "The Phantom of the Opera" is actually an opera!

Way to twist my words. Obviously it is MUSICAL THEATER but I guess I have to break everything down to syllables for some of you. That was from a thread about POTO as an opera, I was merely using his definition, not mine.

[Fettastic]

Originally Posted by zalahmar

Fettastic, You seem to be fighting an uphill battle. Everything you've said so far goes against what the majority has experienced.

While your perceptions of the movie might be different then the majority of people on this forum, Trying to discredit people such as Robert Harris who have WAY more credebility than yourself is not the way to try and justify your own views.

All I did was point out that he thought The Perfect Storm had perfect PQ. I don't care what his credentials are. if he is so detail oriented and precise in his measurements, he wouldn't have said that. Anything else is completely irrelevant.

[Fettastic]

And by the way, reviews are coming in for SH saying it is soft and lacking detail. But hey, don't take my word for it.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Fettastic

NOTHING on the HD DVD is like that. Nothing at all. It sounds like the HBO HD version is a lot better.

I'm pretty sure they are basically the same. Your definition of 3D look is likely different from mine. It's NOT the deep focus super crisp HD-Cam look for starters. Nor does it require poppy colors or lack of grain. It's not the 'out of the window' HD look. To me 3D look in film is foremost a picture with proper contrast and no unwanted haze, correct color plus sufficient detail and lack of digital artifacts to look film like.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Fettastic

I said that as an EXPERIMENT, you could turn up your sharpness to identify compression artifacts. I would certainly never say you should watch any more than a couple of minutes like that.

You're wrong in either case.

[Kram Sacul]

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

Their pristine restorations of classic films have earned a great deal of respect from cinephiles and critics.

Except the redone soundtrack for Vertigo is just crap and not at all faithful to the original. Not that he had much to do with that but anyway...

[ILJG]

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

Before anyone calls RAH "That guy" you should do some research on him.
What he forgets in a day about film and video is more than most member's here will learn in a lifetime.

Robert A. Harris
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Robert A. Harris is a film historian and preservationist who specializes in restoring the large-format widescreen films of the 1950s. He has restored and reconstructed a number of classic films including Lawrence of Arabia (in 1989), Spartacus (1991), My Fair Lady (1994), and Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1996) and Rear Window (1998). He frequently collaborates with James C. Katz.

Their pristine restorations of classic films have earned a great deal of respect from cinephiles and critics.

d

I've seen some of those restorations and they are fantastic! Lawrence of Arabia and Spartacus especially. I wonder if he was involved in the restoration of The Birds and North By Northwest (two other Hitchcock greats), because they are amazing too. When looking at these, even as upconverted DVD, they look like some of the best PQ I've ever seen. I think NBNW is due to be released on HD-DVD...something I'd really like to see!

[rboster]

Originally Posted by Fettastic

IMHO, he's 0-for-2 in the two reviews of his that I've read.

I'm afraid you should be humbled when throwing stones at Robert. Just because I play weekend baseball doesn't mean I understand the mechanics of hitting like a Albert Pujols. To me you slamming Robert's reviews is the same thing.

Ron

[Larry Sutliff]

Robert Harris is watching these titles on a fully calibrated Ruby. Heck, he even called the cinematographer of one of the films on HD DVD a few weeks ago to make sure his settings were correct. He knows what film looks like, and how video presentations compare to true cinema. I'll trust his judgement any day of the week.

[joerod]

I am watching it tonite (I was lucky to get my local BBs last copy)... Hopefully I won't be dissapointed!

[Dave Mack]

Fettastic, your EXACT quote was

With all due respect, there have been like 8 versions of this story and this is the first one that was actually an opera.

So, umm, yes you did call it an opera.
Also, have you ever even handled a piece of actual film?
Mr. Harris stated in his review,
"That said, as one of Paramount's initial offering of high definition DVDs, Sleepy Hollow magnificently represents the brilliant cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki in a home theater format.

While a terrific piece of entertainment on all counts, it is Mr. Lubezki's work, which looks akin to the three-strip Technicolor productions of the 1930s and early 1940s, which still used the silver key image to both add contrast, control the black level and tone down color, which is also a star of this film. To the best of my knowledge, the process was last used by John Huston in Moby Dick (1956).

There isn't a great deal more that needs to be said here.

Paramount has hit the ball out of the park with Sleepy Hollow. If the point to be achieved is to replicate the look of the film, they have done it to perfection.
"

If the goal of the HD disc is to faithfully replicate the look of the film, it seems they have done so. Who cares if it doesn't look as whizbangy as Swordfish?!? It wasn't meant to. It was SUPPOSED to look grainy, unsaturated.

Also the HTF reviewer just chimed in with a good review,
http://hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=238928

VIDEO:


Sleepy Hollow is an exceptionally dark picture to begin with and that is only enhanced on this new release. Black levels are deep while still showing good detail in the surroundings. As the next step, the smoke and fog take on a life of their own but exhibit no blocking or aliasing as can be noted in SD releases when they are challenged with this material. Burton’s DP, Emmanuel Lubezki (who later went on to shoot Lemony Snicket) complements his director’s vision by using a pale and washed out color palette that shows flares of saturation. The actors maintain a pale complexion that suits their surroundings. This is not to say this lack of color takes away from the detail by any means: this is an exceptionally detailed picture that brings alive the backgrounds. All of the trees and leaves in the various wooded scenes are now distinct and clear.

At first I was surprised to see so much grain in the picture, but it is clear this was the director’s intent. It can be a bit distracting at first, but it contributes to the film like appearance of the picture. The VC-1 encoded picture is correctly framed at 1.85:1. I did not notice any edge enhancement.

"this is an exceptionally detailed picture..."

And yes, I would take RAH's comments over yours...

What type of projector do you own, btw? As good and revealing as Mr. Harris'...?

Everyone has a right to their own opinion but if you start attacking the credibility of a VERY well respected Film preservationist and restorer you are gonna get called out.

[Kram Sacul]

Didn't RAH think Full Metal Jacket's bobbed 1080i transfer was really film like? Kind of curious since every other review I've read slammed it.

[redcar54]

Sleepy Hollow HD DVD: I'm impressed

[I Superman I]

Watched this title last night and with all truth I was impressed in many regards. I was definatly not expected a clarity of Swordfish going in, it would not make sense for the film, however even without seeing the origonal DVD or this film at all, it's still reasonably easy to tell this is a huge upgrade over SD and definatly an HD DVD title. What is impressive is that HD DVD is able to perfectly replicate the source material, this film has 2 special features and 2 HD trailers, everything else is dedicated to the film, so obviously there were no cutbacks in the PQ. There was constantly alot of definition onscreen, especially in outdoor environments, especially in the ending scene with the orage and brown folliage. I aslo saw no "artifacting" even in backgrounds, and for what this film is worth, I enjoyed the film and definatly am glad I picked it up.

If you went into this film as a reviewer and expected the clarity of TD then your an idiot, no dated movie such as this one should ever look like that, or are even possible of looking like that, if HD DVD is able to perfectly replicate the source material, then I'd say it's a pretty damn good transfer.

[Dave Mack]

Exactly. Why would we want an HDdvd to look different than the director intended. If Burton wanted it grainy and unsaturated, that's good enough for me.

[Kram Sacul]

I don't remember it being grainy or soft in the theater.

[darinp2]

I haven't looked at "Sleepy Hollow", but honestly, I'm not that impressed with most of the Paramount releases. "Four Brothers" looked good on one projector for the short clip I saw, but I haven't seen it on my Ruby. I'm in the minority on "Sahara" as I thought it looked pretty good, but just not up to some of the Warner and Universal releases. I'm not comparing to DVDs though as those went out as my standard about 3 years ago and I rarely watch DVDs with all the HD content I have.

Basically, of the Paramount titles I've looked at (I think SH and "Aeon Flux" might the only two I haven't looked at), I just don't think any of them were up to "The Last Samurai" and not even close to "Phantom of the Opera" or "Training Day". And not close to "The Chronicles of Riddick" from the little bit I looked at based on memory (it has been weeks since I looked at that one) and although I haven't watched the whole thing again, other than some banding that is also in the D-Theater version, for the parts of "U-571" I've looked at none of the Paramount titles I've seen are up to that one to my eyes either.

Maybe it is different strokes for different folks, but I would like to hear people comparing SH or "Sahara" by looking at "Phantom of the Opera" or "The Last Samurai" right after (or before) looking at SH or "Sahara" and then say what they think. Comparisons to DVDs mean almost nothing to me and I think we need to be judging based on high standards from what we have already. If people look at "Sahara" and then those other two from earlier and say that "Sahara" looks better to them, then I will know it is a difference of preferences, difference of equipment, difference of scenes looked at, or something else. But if they say "Sahara" takes 3rd place out of those 3, but still gets a 10/10 or they say it is top quality, then I will know what their scoring/judging system is.

--Darin

[Dave Mack]

I remember Sleepy Hollow being VERY grainy in the theatre. But in a good way.
Nothing wrong with film grain, it's like the brushstrokes on a fine painting when used right.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Kram Sacul

Didn't RAH think Full Metal Jacket's bobbed 1080i transfer was really film like? Kind of curious since every other review I've read slammed it.

Robert Harris is a top film restorer and expert in various fields concerning film. He's also human and as such he has preferences and areas where he sees/reports all problems and other areas where he's (far) more forgiving and less bothered if something is not (as good) as it should/could be. Judging from his comments on various titles he's not that bothered by '+-mild' edge enhancement/ringing, not obvious aliasing/interlace issues or grain reduction issues. Whether YOU are not bothered you can only find out by watching the discs yourself on your equipment.

[Matt_Stevens]

Is anyone able to compare it to the version that was shown on Showtime?