Originally Posted by eric.exe
Nice comparison. The StudioCanal transfer is still the one to get.
Yep. Although the WMV HD actually has slightly more picture visible! SC cropped it slightly and added tiny black overlays on the left and right.
Excepting that and the possible bitrate differences caused by differing runtimes, we actually have two fair codec comparisons here as the image underneath compression matches with no DNR apparent on any transfer.
---WMV HD TC
vs StudioCanal DC
= 6.53Mbps WMV9
vs 18.90Mbps VC-1
(interesting because WMV9 is basically early VC-1, so we can see what happens to it at around half the lowest reported HDM bitrates)Kinowelt DC
vs Lionsgate TC
= 12.01Mbps VC-1
vs 18.92Mbps MPEG-2
(I'm actually really surprised by the outcome here...)
The StudioCanal releases might have the best quality, but I'd say the Extreme Edition DVD gets the best value award. A reference-quality DVD transfer with a couple extras and
the best HD version available if
you can ignore the roughly broadcast-quality compression.
Didn't Kinowelt make a big deal about their Ultimate Edition saying they were completely remastering it and crap... ends up looking slightly worse than the MPEG2 US release.
Yep they did, and yep it does. Pretty ridiculous. Shall I dig up all the posts people made about it whooping the US BD's ass during the format wars? Too cruel? I think it would be justified for making people waste their money.
Posts like those and the ones saying the StudioCanal First Blood was vastly superior are why I don't put much faith in anyone's comparisons made without computer assistance.
Originally Posted by paku
I think that either the technology has improved, or the people responsible have improved. Several shots show what looks like EE baked into the master which means it was automatically added in the telecine process (disqualifying the technology as "not that different") or it was added by someone during mastering (disqualifying them as "not that different").
Touché. This level of EE doesn't usually bother me so I end up forgetting about it.
In any case I would be surprised if it could not look a lot better. Also note that the 2003 telecine was from the same IP created in 1997. I don't have much knowledge of advances in analogue film technology and processing, but is it possible the image could be improved by striking a new IP from the original negative before transferring it to the digital domain?
If they were willing to go back to the ON to do that, why not just scan the negative directly?
The way they mention scanning into full-frame 1080p with incorrect formatting makes it sound to me like the IP used was anamorphic 2.35:1. I wonder how much difference that would make versus transferring the same image portion directly from the Super35 source without the squeeze-unsqueeze.