Jaws - Robert Harris review (see post #1 for link) - Page 13 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #361 of 754 Old 08-02-2012, 05:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Lol, we were all thinking it.

The Sting BD could of been great, if there was no damnable HD-DVD to compare it too. The DragonHeart BD would of had no missing fingers and such as well.

Not that the dead format had anything to do with it, just less mucking about.
wuther is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 754 Old 08-02-2012, 06:06 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 11,859
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post

You do what is necessary to re-create the look of what was seen in the cinema, regardless of how much work is involved.
RAH

I'm a film fan so the look of the cinema is great for me.

That said, what do you think about the approach of allowing titles to look "better" than they ever did in the cinema. By "better" I mean general picture quality parameters, richer, clearer, more detail revealed etc.
Of course there is a balance between showing what the film-makers wouldn't want you to see. But some restoration efforts do seem to have come up with a "better than almost anyone has likely seen it in a theater" source
to play at home, have they not? (Seems like the potential is there, anyway). I'm just wondering about the wisdom of only trying to produce the source as good as it was in the cinema, when perhaps that is limiting what is possible.

(Ok..I know there are so many caveats involved here, for instance some of film's advantages that even Blu-Ray may not reproduce at this point, but I hope you get the gist of my question).
R Harkness is online now  
post #363 of 754 Old 08-02-2012, 09:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC View Post

The DTS 2.0 mono is 768kbps.

I skimmed over this earlier, but you know what the bitrate of LPCM 16-bit 48kHz 1.0 is? 768kbps.

Does DTS still perform psychoacoustic compression in a case like this?
msgohan is offline  
post #364 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 04:33 AM
Member
 
Robert Harris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm a film fan so the look of the cinema is great for me.
That said, what do you think about the approach of allowing titles to look "better" than they ever did in the cinema. By "better" I mean general picture quality parameters, richer, clearer, more detail revealed etc.
Of course there is a balance between showing what the film-makers wouldn't want you to see. But some restoration efforts do seem to have come up with a "better than almost anyone has likely seen it in a theater" source
to play at home, have they not? (Seems like the potential is there, anyway). I'm just wondering about the wisdom of only trying to produce the source as good as it was in the cinema, when perhaps that is limiting what is possible.
(Ok..I know there are so many caveats involved here, for instance some of film's advantages that even Blu-Ray may not reproduce at this point, but I hope you get the gist of my question).

A title by title situation, based entirely upon the quality of extant elements, how the image looks as an OCN (or other preprint) scan, all combined with the desires of the copyright holders, filmmakers.

It was learned early on, when Image Entertainment did the first set of Chaplin transfers from original elements, that transfers, even at lower resolution, from an original fine grain, could be problematic, as so many elements of the filmmaking art showed through the seams. Keep in mind that in that era (through the 1930s) going from the OCN to a lavender or dupe positive to a printing negative and then a print, hid a myriad of things that one did not wish to be seen.

RAH
Robert Harris is offline  
post #365 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 07:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 889
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 64
If certain studios choose to "dumb down" the OCN in favor of making it look like a theatrical print, then it stands to reason that we'll hit the wall of diminishing returns much sooner with higher resolution formats. Is it then logical to assume that the inevitable 4K format will be wasted on catalog films from said studios? As evidenced by Jaws, Universal (or specifically Spielberg in this case) thinks that too much original detail detracts from the viewing experience... for 1080p. What then, 4K?

I don't like where this is going.
nathanddrews is offline  
post #366 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 08:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,404
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

If certain studios choose to "dumb down" the OCN in favor of making it look like a theatrical print, then it stands to reason that we'll hit the wall of diminishing returns much sooner with higher resolution formats. Is it then logical to assume that the inevitable 4K format will be wasted on catalog films from said studios? As evidenced by Jaws, Universal (or specifically Spielberg in this case) thinks that too much original detail detracts from the viewing experience... for 1080p. What then, 4K?
I don't like where this is going.
You're forgetting that there were fundamental shifts in film stocks used at the end of the 60's and late into the 80's.

The first change was moving away from the expensive stuff, like large formats and 3 strip technicolor. In the case of the latter, what happened was, in the 70's and early 80's, the studios were mastering to cheaper single dye layer Kodak stocks that had a horrible shelf life. In other words, they went from high quality masters, past the premium color stocks Kodak also offered, and straight to stuff that was not truly archival. The result is prints from 30 years ago that look far worse than prints of older vintage.

Luckily, the studios realized their mistake (especially after seeing the revenues that could be made from home video down the road), and used improved stocks for mastering processes by the time the 90's rolled around. The new problem is digital workflow which is largely 2K. That means you likely would see diminishing returns from higher resolution formats.

So, there is a lot to be gained from creating 4K scans from movies from certain eras, particularily the 50s and 60's when there were still plenty of films being made with large, high quality and fine grained stocks.

Unfortunately, just like with TV, the 70's and 80's was a bad timeframe for content. Cheaper was chosen over quality, which is why some TV series likely will be stuck in SD video forever.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #367 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 08:57 AM
Member
 
TylerAfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

The 1st is too blu; I like the color palette on the second cap (IMO, the wash around the 'shark' that lOOks really white/for some funny reason the second cap lOOks too have better depth as well/butt that very well may be me being EDweird).

Do I recon a slight zoom?
TylerAfx is offline  
post #368 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Geoff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Swanage, Engerland
Posts: 2,326
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

If certain studios choose to "dumb down" the OCN in favor of making it look like a theatrical print, then it stands to reason that we'll hit the wall of diminishing returns much sooner with higher resolution formats. Is it then logical to assume that the inevitable 4K format will be wasted on catalog films from said studios? As evidenced by Jaws, Universal (or specifically Spielberg in this case) thinks that too much original detail detracts from the viewing experience... for 1080p. What then, 4K?
I don't like where this is going.

I dunno about "not liking where this is going", but you raise an excellent point. With all the waffle about a 4K future, movies are still routinely being finished in 2K and with much-vaunted 4K 35mm restorations being mastered to ape a softer theatrical look, is unmolested 4K anything more than a fancy preservation technique for some movies?

Before anyone accuses me of being negative, let me state that getting movies to look how the filmmakers want them to look IS NO BAD THING (Friedkin's temporary insanity aside), it's just come as a surprise - and I'll admit to some naiveté on my part - to hear that 35mm movies in 4K may not always be the splendiferous technical wonders that they've been touted as.

Edit: Sure, I read Grover Crisp's comments about the neg of Taxi Driver holding less than 4K of information, so not every 4K master will be eyeball-****ingly awesome, natch, but I always thought that'd be due to the limitations of the source instead of the image quality being actively, um, tweaked. Crisp also mentioned that although they wanted to preserve the look of the film circa 1976, it was still being presented with a "cleaner and fuller" image than release prints of the time. As RAH said in the HTF thread, it's all a matter of taste.
Geoff D is offline  
post #369 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 03:49 PM
Member
 
TylerAfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/FILM/DVDCompare6/jaws.htm

confirmed zoom-in in every frame..
TylerAfx is offline  
post #370 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 04:15 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mark Booth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Beautiful California
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerAfx View Post

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/FILM/DVDCompare6/jaws.htm
confirmed zoom-in in every frame..

What the heck are you talking about? The framing might be slightly tighter than the previous NTSC releases but it's pretty much identical to the previous PAL release. Most TVs will crop it more than the difference you see in those screen shots.

Mark
Mark Booth is offline  
post #371 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 05:01 PM
Senior Member
 
LordAwesome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I can't see any zoom-in. MAYBE 0.0001% on the right, but nothing to give a damn about.
LordAwesome is offline  
post #372 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Partyslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordAwesome View Post

I can't see any zoom-in. MAYBE 0.0001% on the right, but nothing to give a damn about.

LOL, that's it. I'm canceling my pre-order.
Partyslammer is offline  
post #373 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 06:50 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mark Booth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Beautiful California
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

LOL, that's it. I'm canceling my pre-order.

biggrin.gif

Mark
Mark Booth is offline  
post #374 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 06:58 PM
 
haineshisway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerAfx View Post

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/FILM/DVDCompare6/jaws.htm
confirmed zoom-in in every frame..

Confirmed? I don't think so. The nuttiness here is unbelievable. And so are the Beaver's caps, which do not resemble this transfer in any way.
haineshisway is offline  
post #375 of 754 Old 08-03-2012, 10:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,787
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Confirmed? I don't think so. The nuttiness here is unbelievable. And so are the Beaver's caps, which do not resemble this transfer in any way.

Agreed, it is common knowledge not to trust Beavers screen caps.

At any rate, I am so excited for this and am very happy with Universal. They have botched many catalog titles, but not this one...
ack_bk is offline  
post #376 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 07:42 AM
Member
 
TylerAfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
..and those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. (Nietzsche)

Its not like I tell you will notice when viewing. To me it matters as you loose resolution, image information that IS there getting cropped away. Also clarity won't increase when zooming, be it only 1 percent. (In this specific case it might be up to 3 percent image space). Else it looks spectacular biggrin.gif
TylerAfx is offline  
post #377 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 09:08 AM - Thread Starter
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
spectacular? You lost me there.
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #378 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 11:13 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mark Booth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Beautiful California
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerAfx View Post

..and those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. (Nietzsche)
Its not like I tell you will notice when viewing. To me it matters as you loose resolution, image information that IS there getting cropped away. Also clarity won't increase when zooming, be it only 1 percent. (In this specific case it might be up to 3 percent image space). Else it looks spectacular biggrin.gif

1%? Hilarious! LordAwesome was closer with his 0.0001%!

rolleyes.gif

Mark
Mark Booth is offline  
post #379 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Partyslammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerAfx View Post

..and those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. (Nietzsche)
Its not like I tell you will notice when viewing. To me it matters as you loose resolution, image information that IS there getting cropped away. Also clarity won't increase when zooming, be it only 1 percent. (In this specific case it might be up to 3 percent image space). Else it looks spectacular biggrin.gif

Worst backpeddle ever.
Partyslammer is offline  
post #380 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 11:54 AM
Member
 
TylerAfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Worst backpeddle ever.
Not at all, you got me very wrong then;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

1%? Hilarious! LordAwesome was closer with his 0.0001%!
rolleyes.gif
Mark

Read again, its minimum 3 %, 20+ pixel at the bottom, some 5 at the top, and a few at both sides, changing through various scenes.. I can remember releases where 4 percent zoom were more reason to discuss though. (The Fall UK BD was such a title for example..) But on the other side, there are always people who want to ignore things so they can be more happy. Its their good right. No offense meant. I am only slightly surprised at the tone and quality of some replies, as my expectation was to talk to pros here.

never stop learning I guess..
TylerAfx is offline  
post #381 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 03:29 PM
Senior Member
 
elario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 53
In motion the grain does not look right at all. Forget about screencaps; you'll need to see this in motion to see what im talking about.

What im seeing is not grain at all. Dark scenes in particular look very bad.
elario is offline  
post #382 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 03:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post

In motion the grain does not look right at all. Forget about screencaps; you'll need to see this in motion to see what im talking about.
What im seeing is not grain at all. Dark scenes in particular look very bad.

Correction, Universal calls that a feature.
wuther is online now  
post #383 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 03:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Exactly what I said when I saw it in be cinema, makes the beginning of the thread where people bought into the press release and videos of restorations look rather silly now....
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #384 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 03:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerAfx View Post

Not at all, you got me very wrong then;)
Read again, its minimum 3 %, 20+ pixel at the bottom, some 5 at the top, and a few at both sides, changing through various scenes.. I can remember releases where 4 percent zoom were more reason to discuss though. (The Fall UK BD was such a title for example..) But on the other side, there are always people who want to ignore things so they can be more happy. Its their good right. No offense meant. I am only slightly surprised at the tone and quality of some replies, as my expectation was to talk to pros here.
never stop learning I guess..

When Brody first gets in his jeep at the beginning and leaves his house look at the areal on it, does the tip vanish in the long shot as it moves in the wind?
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #385 of 754 Old 08-04-2012, 04:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIG ED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California Wine Country
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I sure wish "everyone" saw DNR (artifacts) the "same"; sure would make life EZ'r!
As I pointED out B4, B&W transfers are even worse w/even some of the best reviewers missing DNR artifacts.

Any one, besides Xylon (ha, ha!!), know how too best show the artifacts some are seeing?!?!

"I wonder if any of the releases had slipcovers though."
"Are these comfirmed to have slipcovers?"
"They look nice in those slips."
"This slipcover looks too good to pass up."
BIG ED is offline  
post #386 of 754 Old 08-06-2012, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
BIG ED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California Wine Country
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

[
"The new "Jaws" is still the Jaws-Jaws; its enhanced by the HD Blu-ray experience".
&
"... what you get is something in sight & sound, is something I didn't even get when I made the movie".
Steven Spielberg

So, don't be lOOking for the old "Jaws"; be lOOking for the "Blu-Jaws"!
Oh well, we got the Blu of a lot of our other fave flicks; just add this too the list.

Now, for HT fans, expect a treat! A brand new never seen nor heard in the theaters "Jaws"!!

EDitEDbyED:
it must have been a Blu moon for those opening night scenes!!! rolleyes.gif

"I wonder if any of the releases had slipcovers though."
"Are these comfirmed to have slipcovers?"
"They look nice in those slips."
"This slipcover looks too good to pass up."
BIG ED is offline  
post #387 of 754 Old 08-07-2012, 02:21 AM
sa
Senior Member
 
sa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordAwesome View Post

It pisses me off when some companies (ie, Disney) for some inexplicable reason drop the original mixes for Region B releases. mad.gif

Have Universal done so in this case?
sa is offline  
post #388 of 754 Old 08-07-2012, 03:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
dvdmike007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 8,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
dvdmike007 is offline  
post #389 of 754 Old 08-07-2012, 04:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Maxwell Everett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post

In motion the grain does not look right at all. Forget about screencaps; you'll need to see this in motion to see what im talking about.
What im seeing is not grain at all. Dark scenes in particular look very bad.

Looks perfectly fine to me in motion -- the png screencaps are very representative. Night scenes look good as well. Do you have a specific time code? I'm looking at the Blu-ray right now, and I'm seeing "normal" film grain... somewhat reduced, yes... but not at the expense of any crucial fine detail (facial pores, fabrics, text on signs, books, bottles, cans, etc. are still very much legible, for instance).

I believe the color negative motion picture stock Jaws was shot on (5254) had an intrinsically creamier, softer look. And, of course anamorphic lenses used in the 70s were not as sharp as today's anamorphics. I'm not really sure what some people here are expecting Jaws to look like. I saw a 35mm print of the film (not sure if it was an IP/answer print or a release print) at the Egyptian Theater last year and this Blu-ray blows that out of the water -- pun intended. IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

When Brody first gets in his jeep at the beginning and leaves his house look at the areal on it, does the tip vanish in the long shot as it moves in the wind?

It only becomes somewhat harder to see due to it's motion, swaying side to side... but it has more to do with the limitations of 24 frames per second film than any kind of DNR, if that's what you're getting at (ala the disappearing Gladiator arrows).
Maxwell Everett is offline  
post #390 of 754 Old 08-07-2012, 07:03 AM
Advanced Member
 
Greg_R_STL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis MO
Posts: 543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17

If those caps accurately represent the blu ray, I am happy as hell.
Greg_R_STL is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off