As Good As It Gets (1997) (Limited to 3000 Copies) - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 109 Old 06-27-2012, 04:41 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 42041 View Post

Yeah, I also remember this big hubbub over West Side Story a while back, over one dissolve, which was by most accounts a fine disc otherwise... can't for the life of me remember who spearheaded that whole thing wink.gif
Funny how negativity's always okay when it's your negativity, or it's your standards something doesn't measure up to.

Well now you see what you do? I know others do. The WSS brouhaha, as you well know, was about a MISTAKE made on the Blu-ray transfer. Not a small mistake, either. As Good as it Gets has no mistakes - there are no incorrect fade to blacks in the transfer, there is no shimmering, there are no mistaken dupe sections. See what I mean? Transparent is right. You dance, you try to make comparisons that are not apt - they are two entirely different things. What IS that called on the Internet? Someone help me out smile.gif
IanRW likes this.
haineshisway is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 109 Old 06-27-2012, 05:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Well now you see what you do? I know others do. The WSS brouhaha, as you well know, was about a MISTAKE made on the Blu-ray transfer. Not a small mistake, either. As Good as it Gets has no mistakes - there are no incorrect fade to blacks in the transfer, there is no shimmering, there are no mistaken dupe sections. See what I mean? Transparent is right. You dance, you try to make comparisons that are not apt - they are two entirely different things. What IS that called on the Internet? Someone help me out smile.gif
Which we have your word on, and not much else. You saw it on film, you know all about how it should look, it looks 100% perfect, Grover Crisp wouldn't put out anything less.... but you must realize the average person here has little reason to accept any undemonstrated assertions of expertise/discernment/authority/Crispness on this matter?

It must occur to you that some people feel whatever they see in the transfers you defend, like clipped highlights/EE/softness/whatever, are also obvious mistakes or lapses of quality made in converting a film presentation to a video one? That perhaps they find that stuff as bothersome as you find the screwup of Saul Bass's titles and whatever else plagues the WSS disc? The "stop-obsessing-over-minutia-and-watch-the-movie" crowd could certainly accuse you of nitpicking, as WSS got largely positive reviews and looked suitably sharp and HD. Now if you have some well-reasoned arguments for why those people's complaints are misguided, that's great, but ad-hominem and bare assertions of expertise don't count for much, and that has been a lot of the rhetoric in these discussions.
KMFDMvsEnya likes this.
42041 is offline  
post #93 of 109 Old 06-27-2012, 05:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
That example is rather trivial to adopt such a draconian policy of not being open about his departments work. If his ego so easily bruised by such a minor encounter it is a wonder he dares leave his house.

Realistically does he frequently have such interactions, highly doubtful. It is not as though he is prominent figure like the stars featured in the films his department works on. In the case of interacting with the community there are plenty of measures to address truly deviant posters on various forums. Assuming he really is such a delicate flower, which I doubt, AVS, HTF, or BR.com moderators would take care of anything out of line.

The more justifications I hear the less impressive things sound.

A job I had if one's temperament was so sensitive to such human silliness, you would quit within a day or two.

Amazingly a tent pole musical title could have issues yet miraculously a less prominent comedy could not possibly have any errors, such as periodically clipped/bloomed visual information due to some contrast changes. Both studios have varying track records, some phenomenal work as well some lack luster releases, with plenty of decent to great releases in between.

I recall similar arguments with the original Gladiator release. The easily placated proclaimed everything was perfect and no one would dare screw up such a blockbuster, let alone release it to the masses. Tons of rationalizations and justifications for each and every issue were brought up, thankfully reason ruled and a proper transfer was released.

That said I do not think AGAIG has been as poorly treated as that first Gladiator transfer but the contrast changes does periodically causes visual anomalies.

42041, concise and accurate comments, bravo.

Best Regards
KvE

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #94 of 109 Old 06-27-2012, 06:46 PM
 
haineshisway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
And you think Grover Crisp or anyone in his position would want to deal with this? Sorry, you're on your own, boys.
IanRW and RUR like this.
haineshisway is offline  
post #95 of 109 Old 06-27-2012, 08:14 PM
Senior Member
 
reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laserfan View Post

I really like the reds, too. Did I mention the reds? As in Jack Nicholson's shirt, and Helen Hunt's dress. Wow.

Your comments have no place in this thread. biggrin.gif
reanimator is offline  
post #96 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 12:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Watched it last night. As far as I'm concerned it does not look like a new state of the art transfer. It's quite watchable, but it lacks HF detail, looks too smooth, has questionable contrast boosting at times (yes, the clouds are gone in the car shot) and even sharpening artifacts. For the price asked and with no supplements beyond a trailer the price performance ratio is mediocre at best.
mhafner is offline  
post #97 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 05:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 3,770
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

the price performance ratio is mediocre at best.
Ah, yes, "price performance ratio". I knew there was something (else) important missing from this discussion. Sheesh. rolleyes.gif
Laserfan is offline  
post #98 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 07:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
It is a perfectly valid evaluation point, in fact nearly every review includes such an assessment variable.

Or is the issue that everyone should just unquestioningly praise any title by virtue of being released on BR as though it were mana from heaven?

mhafner appears to have made a reasonable and fair assessment.

Best Regards
KvE

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #99 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 11:56 AM
 
haineshisway's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Now, I will preface the comment I'm about to make with that I know in advance that the usual suspects will denigrate it, belittle it, ask for links, ask for proof, none of which matters to me and is a game I will not play. Those here who know who I am and my history know that I do not post anything that is false - so those who choose to believe can and those who don't want to can go on blithely living in Fantasyland.

I now have heard about the transfer - definitively. It's new. It was supervised by DP John Bailey and done with his usual team of telecine people. So, it would seem to me that this transfer is perfect in terms of being what the director of photography thinks it should be. I know the experts will poo-poo it and not believe it, but, again, those who know me will know that I do not post anything like that until I know it for a fact. I think the responses to this will be predictable, but I thought the information was worth sharing.
haineshisway is offline  
post #100 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 12:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
junglalien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
DVD Talk review. 4.5 of 5 stars.
Quote:
As Good As It Gets looked quite good on DVD (especially by 1998 standards), so it's no surprise that the Blu-Ray looks even better. Presented in its original 1.78:1 aspect ratio, there are virtually no digital issues (pixellation, noise, edge enhancement) to be found anywhere. The film's natural, slightly muted color palette is represented well, image detail is strong and a natural layer of film grain has been preserved. Visual presentations like this are created with purists in mind; As Good As It Gets isn't a flashy film by any stretch, but this looks to be an faithful representation of the theatrical experience.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/56849/as-good-as-it-gets-limited-edition/
junglalien is offline  
post #101 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 01:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fookoo_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Liked: 55
I it is the usual story. If you liked the film and want it on BR, then there is no other option, for now. I have the standard dvd, that is good enough for me.
fookoo_2010 is online now  
post #102 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

It was supervised by DP John Bailey and done with his usual team of telecine people. So, it would seem to me that this transfer is perfect in terms of being what the director of photography thinks it should be. I know the experts will poo-poo it and not believe it, but, again, those who know me will know that I do not post anything like that until I know it for a fact. I think the responses to this will be predictable, but I thought the information was worth sharing.
Sure, I can believe it John Bailey might have supervised it recently. But the bolded part does necessarily not follow logically.
I mean, did Sony approach him and go "here's camera negative, a 4K scanner, the Colorworks facility and its ace colorists at your disposal" or did they go "we have the budget to scan the color-timed IP on that machine in the corner over there, just let us wipe the dust from it first"? I read some interview with him in the ASC magazine where he expressed frustration that he wanted to finish some recent chick flick photochemically, but the studio mandated he do a 2K DI. This is a business and clearly DPs don't always get what they would consider perfect.
KMFDMvsEnya likes this.
42041 is offline  
post #103 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 03:30 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 42041 View Post

Sure, I can believe it John Bailey might have supervised it recently. But the bolded part does necessarily not follow logically.
I mean, did Sony approach him and go "here's camera negative, a 4K scanner, the Colorworks facility and its ace colorists at your disposal" or did they go "we have the budget to scan the color-timed IP on that machine in the corner over there, just let us wipe the dust from it first"? I read some interview with him in the ASC magazine where he expressed frustration that he wanted to finish some recent chick flick photochemically, but the studio mandated he do a 2K DI. This is a business and clearly DPs don't always get what they would consider perfect.

As I said. There is no winning. Sony is in the business of doing new HD transfers of all their titles - they are doing it methodically and I'm sure one of the main reasons is to have them for broadcast purposes on Sony HD and for eventual use digitally. Grover Crisp is, as I have said, as good as it gets. People always point to several Blu-rays from the very first wave as proof that it's not always stellar over there - but those were done before this began happening. If John Bailey was involved in this transfer at Sony, that is good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone, but alas, it isn't and never will be - no one will ever admit they were in error or that the look of the film on this Blu-ray is what its DP wanted and approved. And so it goes. I've stated the necessary information - that the usual suspects were not going to have any of it was expected. There have, however, been an equal if not larger number of people who think the transfer is top-notch. Hence, horse racing.
haineshisway is offline  
post #104 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 07:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1396848/as-good-as-it-gets-1997-limited-to-3000-copies/90#post_22175055
Ok, OZ. We will not question the man behind the curtain with all the blustering smoke and mirrors.

“I now have heard about the transfer - definitively. It's new. It was supervised by DP John Bailey and done with his usual team of telecine people. So, it would seem to me that this transfer is perfect in terms of being what the director of photography thinks it should be. I know the experts will poo-poo it and not believe it, but, again, those who know me will know that I do not post anything like that until I know it for a fact. I think the responses to this will be predictable, but I thought the information was worth sharing.”
For the sake of discussion we accept this unreferenced and unsubstantiated narrative. The supervision of the telecine process in of itself does not guarantee he also worked on the master that would be used for the BR.

Assuming he was involved throughout the whole process that does not negate the possibility of changes enacted by him. In fact there is plenty of current precedence of filmmakers changing their work, ranging from mild to drastic, for new transfers that end up on BR.

An egregious example of the Director making terrible choices but thankfully rectified by the DP is “The French Connection”. Or a minor but no less absurd is the aspect ratio revision by the DP of “The Last Emperor” who now claims that he always intended all his films were framed to be 2.00:1. The new framing clearly was not always his original intent.

When the original filmmakers are involved in the changes of their own work, for better or worse, it is a different scenario than decisions made by individuals who were not part of the initial creation of the film. Especially obnoxious when a fool hardy studio DNRs or contrast boosts other peoples work without their input.

If JB was indeed in fact involved, a boutique distributor would be remised not to mention the DPs involvement and supervision of the mastering of the transfer; it is an excellent selling point for its intended market.

“I know the experts will poo-poo it and not believe it, but, again, those who know me will know that I do not post anything like that until I know it for a fact.”
Except for the past week you did not know for a fact who supervised the creation and progression of the transfer but you asserted as though it were the case anyway. Which casts all your unsubstantiated assertions as dubious.

“As I said. There is no winning.”
When you make claims that cannot be verified apart from your word, of course any sensible individual will rightfully be skeptical of the validity of those statements.

“Sony is in the business of doing new HD transfers of all their titles”
Except when they don’t or repurpose an old transfer and ‘improve’ it with revisionist changes. Such as with Ghosbusters when the DP had approved one transfer used for the anniversary DVD but was later changed without his involvement for a new DVD release and later found on the BR.

“People always point to several Blu-rays from the very first wave as proof that it's not always stellar over there - but those were done before this began happening. If John Bailey was involved in this transfer at Sony, that is good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone, but alas, it isn't and never will be - no one will ever admit they were in error or that the look of the film on this Blu-ray is what its DP wanted and approved. And so it goes. I've stated the necessary information - that the usual suspects were not going to have any of it was expected. There have, however, been an equal if not larger number of people who think the transfer is top-notch. Hence, horse racing.”

Some of the examples mentioned were not at the dawn of BR and even then there were plenty of fantastic transfers from all the studios. The problem arises when some over eager folks ‘improve’ things by changing the image. The reason I have brought up certain transfers is because they are the most notorious and adequately rebuke some of your comments.

Such as many long time reviewers have an extensive history of praising lackluster work that they would not admit to until in rare cases superior transfers were released that irrefutable proved them wrong. Afterwards there was plenty of backpedalling and saving face rationalizations.

Or the fact that their criteria for quality video are the lack of grain and contrast that pops even if it is all incorrect.

There is another recent example I could delve into that supposedly did not use DNR, least of all with the live action portions of the film even though those filmed elements have no visible grain at all and now has rather pasty and plasticene qualities in appearance. Rather miraculous trick that one.

I recall several major cases throughout human history when the majority has been resolutely wrong, do I need to recount them? The point is there are reviewers that have no clue about film and simply rely on their own preferences. No grain, ‘inky blacks’, and contrast that pops.

Back to AGAIG, is it an atrocity? No. The main point has always been that there have been adjustments made to the image; regardless of who made those decisions things have been changed and in several instances it has resulted in formerly visible information to be gone now.

Again there are several people, whom profess not to weight much merit with screen caps, who own the disc, seen it in motion and they also note the issues you refuse to acknowledge.

Best Regards
KvE

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #105 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 09:43 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 KMFDMvsEnya View Post

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1396848/as-good-as-it-gets-1997-limited-to-3000-copies/90#post_22175055
Ok, OZ. We will not question the man behind the curtain with all the blustering smoke and mirrors.
“I now have heard about the transfer - definitively. It's new. It was supervised by DP John Bailey and done with his usual team of telecine people. So, it would seem to me that this transfer is perfect in terms of being what the director of photography thinks it should be. I know the experts will poo-poo it and not believe it, but, again, those who know me will know that I do not post anything like that until I know it for a fact. I think the responses to this will be predictable, but I thought the information was worth sharing.”
For the sake of discussion we accept this unreferenced and unsubstantiated narrative. The supervision of the telecine process in of itself does not guarantee he also worked on the master that would be used for the BR.
Assuming he was involved throughout the whole process that does not negate the possibility of changes enacted by him. In fact there is plenty of current precedence of filmmakers changing their work, ranging from mild to drastic, for new transfers that end up on BR.
An egregious example of the Director making terrible choices but thankfully rectified by the DP is “The French Connection”. Or a minor but no less absurd is the aspect ratio revision by the DP of “The Last Emperor” who now claims that he always intended all his films were framed to be 2.00:1. The new framing clearly was not always his original intent.
When the original filmmakers are involved in the changes of their own work, for better or worse, it is a different scenario than decisions made by individuals who were not part of the initial creation of the film. Especially obnoxious when a fool hardy studio DNRs or contrast boosts other peoples work without their input.
If JB was indeed in fact involved, a boutique distributor would be remised not to mention the DPs involvement and supervision of the mastering of the transfer; it is an excellent selling point for its intended market.
“I know the experts will poo-poo it and not believe it, but, again, those who know me will know that I do not post anything like that until I know it for a fact.”
Except for the past week you did not know for a fact who supervised the creation and progression of the transfer but you asserted as though it were the case anyway. Which casts all your unsubstantiated assertions as dubious.
“As I said. There is no winning.”
When you make claims that cannot be verified apart from your word, of course any sensible individual will rightfully be skeptical of the validity of those statements.
“Sony is in the business of doing new HD transfers of all their titles”
Except when they don’t or repurpose an old transfer and ‘improve’ it with revisionist changes. Such as with Ghosbusters when the DP had approved one transfer used for the anniversary DVD but was later changed without his involvement for a new DVD release and later found on the BR.
“People always point to several Blu-rays from the very first wave as proof that it's not always stellar over there - but those were done before this began happening. If John Bailey was involved in this transfer at Sony, that is good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone, but alas, it isn't and never will be - no one will ever admit they were in error or that the look of the film on this Blu-ray is what its DP wanted and approved. And so it goes. I've stated the necessary information - that the usual suspects were not going to have any of it was expected. There have, however, been an equal if not larger number of people who think the transfer is top-notch. Hence, horse racing.”
Some of the examples mentioned were not at the dawn of BR and even then there were plenty of fantastic transfers from all the studios. The problem arises when some over eager folks ‘improve’ things by changing the image. The reason I have brought up certain transfers is because they are the most notorious and adequately rebuke some of your comments.
Such as many long time reviewers have an extensive history of praising lackluster work that they would not admit to until in rare cases superior transfers were released that irrefutable proved them wrong. Afterwards there was plenty of backpedalling and saving face rationalizations.
Or the fact that their criteria for quality video are the lack of grain and contrast that pops even if it is all incorrect.
There is another recent example I could delve into that supposedly did not use DNR, least of all with the live action portions of the film even though those filmed elements have no visible grain at all and now has rather pasty and plasticene qualities in appearance. Rather miraculous trick that one.
I recall several major cases throughout human history when the majority has been resolutely wrong, do I need to recount them? The point is there are reviewers that have no clue about film and simply rely on their own preferences. No grain, ‘inky blacks’, and contrast that pops.
Back to AGAIG, is it an atrocity? No. The main point has always been that there have been adjustments made to the image; regardless of who made those decisions things have been changed and in several instances it has resulted in formerly visible information to be gone now.
Again there are several people, whom profess not to weight much merit with screen caps, who own the disc, seen it in motion and they also note the issues you refuse to acknowledge.
Best Regards
KvE

As I said... no winning, and no point in discussion. You keep referencing armchair experts who have viewed the disc and note issues that I refuse to acknowledge - I refuse to acknowledge because they are not issues. You speak of adjustments - adjustments to the look of the DVD, which you automatically assume is correct? You see the problem, I'm sure. As you well know, what I have been saying for the past week was that I found the transfer accurate to the look of the film and that I saw none of these "issues." I said I knew it was a new transfer, which I did. I did not say John Bailey supervised it because I did not, at that time, know it. I have said it now. You will continue to do what you do and you may do it by yourself now.
haineshisway is offline  
post #106 of 109 Old 06-28-2012, 10:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KMFDMvsEnya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 1,200
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 45
And yet you keep coming back for more and continue to discuss it. Time and time again even after saying you wouldn't bother any further, repeatedly. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
1803a8a5-6e8b-45de-9782-0173c9c20662.jpg
You automatically assume that the DVD is incorrect and you have yet to provide any proof otherwise. It is a two-way street.
I did not disagree on whether it was a new transfer other than changes had occurred, mostly positive but also some draw backs.

Amusingly if the views of others do not reinforce your confirmation bias then they are disregarded as 'armchair experts' or some other derogatory coined term. What are reviewers but well armchair experts or couch. Perhaps a futon or lovesack. etc.

The credentials of quite a few reviewers do not include any professional film training or background apart from having opinions and writing well. Although some are lacking in that department as well. Those questionable reviewers have a track record of praising mediocrity and not responding professionally when caught in their errors.

There are a couple reviewers that participate in this forum I do not always agree with but I still have respect for them because they usually will back up their claims with evidence and references, not double talk with smoke and mirrors.

Best Regards
KvE

Politics is like a corral, no matter where you are you'll always be shovelling it.

KMFDMvsEnya is offline  
post #107 of 109 Old 06-29-2012, 05:42 AM
Administrator
 
Mike Lang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 12,081
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 381 Post(s)
Liked: 335
Move along guys...

Mike Lang
Administrator
Please use the report post button to alert staff to problematic posts. Never quote or respond to them yourself.
Join the AVS Club and help support the site. Help Support AVS Forum Sponsors.
Mike Lang is offline  
post #108 of 109 Old 06-29-2012, 08:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,211
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 400 Post(s)
Liked: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

I know, almost as crazy as the people who think you can't draw any useful conclusions from captures straight off the disc eek.gif

Are you certain that the person who grabbed the screen capture did it correctly?

Are you viewing the screen capture on the same display that you would watch the movie? Is your computer monitor calibrated? Is it even capable of displaying the full contrast ratio of the movie without clipping?

For that matter, does your HDTV/projector/whatever utilize any form of dynamic contrast adjustment?

I have not seen the As Good As It Gets disc and have no stake in this argument, but there are countless reasons why a screen capture may not represent what the disc looks like during playback on a calibrated HD display. And there are also very legitimate reasons why some viewers' displays may cause clipping in an image that doesn't clip on another display.

I choose to reserve judgment on a disc until I've actually bothered to watch it. Apparently, that's just too unreasonable to expect of anyone else on the internet.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is online now  
post #109 of 109 Old 06-29-2012, 11:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
42041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 3,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Are you certain that the person who grabbed the screen capture did it correctly?
Are you viewing the screen capture on the same display that you would watch the movie? Is your computer monitor calibrated? Is it even capable of displaying the full contrast ratio of the movie without clipping?
For that matter, does your HDTV/projector/whatever utilize any form of dynamic contrast adjustment?
I have not seen the As Good As It Gets disc and have no stake in this argument, but there are countless reasons why a screen capture may not represent what the disc looks like during playback on a calibrated HD display. And there are also very legitimate reasons why some viewers' displays may cause clipping in an image that doesn't clip on another display.
I choose to reserve judgment on a disc until I've actually bothered to watch it. Apparently, that's just too unreasonable to expect of anyone else on the internet.
Whoever does the Caps-a-holic captures does it right, from my experience. Blu-ray.com is also largely reliable, though sometimes their JPEGs are too compressed and in the past I've seen some caps that are slightly sharpened compared to the disc (Inglourious Basterds comes to mind). I try to get questionable captures corroborated between several sources before making any decisions.

I would hope anyone using screenshots to guide their purchases would be aware of these issues, and the limitations of what a still frame can tell you about a moving image. Many aren't, but that's life... don't tell me some people don't draw bogus conclusions from watching films just as readily, like saying some soft 70s anamorphic film looks DNRd, as the folks at DVDbeaver often do. My Kuro and my NEC IPS-panel monitor are both set up to display accurate 1080p images, and simply put, if I did not find caps to be a mostly reliable indicator of a disc's quality, I would have long since stopped using them as such. But I guess it's just too unreasonable to expect people on the internet to credit you even that much basic intelligence wink.gif
Most films I've complained about based on caps eventually find their way to my mailbox courtesy of Blockbuster, and I almost always see what I expect to see. Any false impressions I get from caps tend to be too positive if anything, since screenshots can't convey the presence of Lowry-ish temporal DNR very well, or at least I haven't developed a good eye for it. Here, I don't see any serious issues personally, I just don't see that Sony touch that sets it apart from some run-of-the-mill WB catalog release.

As per the moderator's request, moving on...
KMFDMvsEnya likes this.
42041 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