AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Gangs Of New York comparison with REMASTERED version update*PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gangs Of New York comparison with REMASTERED version update*PIX* - Page 11

post #301 of 513
1/31/10 at 11:46am
We should all send them mail for doing the right thing. Support like that will ingrain a sense of what should be done all the time.
Reply
Reply
post #302 of 513
1/31/10 at 11:47am
Wow - looking at the new caps and it does look nice. What's funny is that comparing the old BD to the DVD, it still was noticeably better to that. Maybe that's why some reviews weren't bad - they probably felt as long as it was better than the DVD, it was acceptable.
Reply
Reply
post #303 of 513
1/31/10 at 11:49am
I'd sure like to see Patton given this treatment. The fact that it was redone is heartening.

Art
Reply
Reply
post #304 of 513
1/31/10 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujay View Post

We should all send them mail for doing the right thing. Support like that will ingrain a sense of what should be done all the time.

Yep. and i will tell them that now I will buy a copy and not just netflix it. That's why I wouldn't buy Gladiator, even when it was $9.99 at one point.
Reply
Reply
post #305 of 513
1/31/10 at 12:25pm
You couldn't pay me to take that Gladiator 'Sapphire Series' release.
Reply
Reply
post #306 of 513
1/31/10 at 12:35pm
Thread Starter 


Reply
Reply
post #307 of 513
1/31/10 at 12:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujay View Post

We should all send them mail for doing the right thing. Support like that will ingrain a sense of what should be done all the time.

Or tell them, "Hey, it's okay to release a ****** version, because when re-release the proper edition about a year later, everyone will buy it again! Score one for easy profit!"

Of course, that's am exaggeration, but I'm really struggling to justify re-buying it after being burned on the first edition. It just doesn't seem right that a studio should be allowed to fix what they know was broke, and charge us in the end. Even a small coupon as a gesture to admit the screw-up would make this easier.

This isn't just a double dip with some new features, this is what should have been done in the first place.

That said, damn does this look good. I really want to see some of those sites that reviewed the original positively, and defended it, try and backtrack now.
Reply
Reply
post #308 of 513
1/31/10 at 1:48pm
It's great to see Gangs of New York finally be presented as the gray overcast film it was in theaters. The old transfer was so obnoxiously bright and color boosted it felt like a different film.

There is hope for other transfers. Imagine a Gladiator release where the whole movie looked as good as the extended scenes, a Dark City that doesn't look like plastic, a non cgi version of Patton...
Reply
Reply
post #309 of 513
1/31/10 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujay View Post

We should all send them mail for doing the right thing.

I'll do you one better -- I'm going to BUY this blu ($$$ tends to get everyone's attention.)

I didn't purchase the first BD release, not because of PQ, but because I find GONY to be "lesser Scorsese." Having said that, the new transfer is gorgeous and I'm certainly willing to send a message that quality will be rewarded.

Now give me the theatrical cut of AMADEUS with less DNR!
Reply
Reply
post #310 of 513
1/31/10 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

It's great to see Gangs of New York finally be presented as the gray overcast film it was in theaters. The old transfer was so obnoxiously bright and color boosted it felt like a different film.

There is hope for other transfers. Imagine a Gladiator release where the whole movie looked as good as the extended scenes, a Dark City that doesn't look like plastic, a non cgi version of Patton...

Properly re-released original Star Trek movies would be nice too.
Reply
Reply
post #311 of 513
1/31/10 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

You couldn't pay me to take that Gladiator 'Sapphire Series' release.

Yep, I remember when it was selling for $10 on Amazon and I was still, "hell no!"
Reply
Reply
post #312 of 513
1/31/10 at 2:09pm
Great movie which needs to be done right!
Reply
Reply
post #313 of 513
1/31/10 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir View Post

Properly re-released original Star Trek movies would be nice too.

Indeed but I think all the "best it ever looked" and "it looks fine to me" comments from the clueless crowd will keep that from happening.

I would love to hear that Scorsese had something to do with the remaster. With some exceptions directors should have way more input on how their films are presented on BD.
Reply
Reply
post #314 of 513
1/31/10 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post





Interesting shots. The original release screen cap has a brighter look to it like contrast is pumped higher? It seems as though it actually reveals better detail. I am looking at the wooden shakes on the roof, the painted lettering on the signs, like paint chips and cracks and they are more detailed and visible in the original version. Ok, don't all get on my ass and think I am claiming the original is better, because I am not making that claim and don't believe that to be the case especially after seeing the original caps and all the complaints about how poorly the transfer was done. I haven't seen either, except what I have seen on HBO or what ever channel it was and it looked awful there. I am simply saying going by the caps it looks like the original in that shot has better detail.
Reply
Reply
post #315 of 513
1/31/10 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Well I meant it as a good thing. Shoulda used
Reply
Reply
post #316 of 513
1/31/10 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

Interesting shots. The original release screen cap has a brighter look to it like contrast is pumped higher? It seems as though it actually reveals better detail. I am looking at the wooden shakes on the roof, the painted lettering on the signs, like paint chips and cracks and they are more detailed and visible in the original version. Ok, don't all get on my ass and think I am claiming the original is better, because I am not making that claim and don't believe that to be the case especially after seeing the original caps and all the complaints about how poorly the transfer was done. I haven't seen either, except what I have seen on HBO or what ever channel it was and it looked awful there. I am simply saying going by the caps it looks like the original in that shot has better detail.

The question becomes which one is correct. The old release doesn't look natural in regards to contrast to me. Not all shadow detail is always intended to be seen.
Reply
Reply
post #317 of 513
1/31/10 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

I would love to hear that Scorsese had something to do with the remaster. With some exceptions directors should have way more input on how their films are presented on BD.

Though I can't find hard data on this, note that this remaster comes pretty fresh on the heels of Scorsese going public with this statement in November: http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu...credible-17482; I suspect when videophiles like ourselves caught wind of this, we flooded him with our feedback on the Blu-ray travesty of one of his own works and Mr. Scorcsese made a quick, strongly worded call to Disney...
Reply
Reply
post #318 of 513
1/31/10 at 3:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkcohen View Post

The question becomes which one is correct. The old release doesn't look natural in regards to contrast to me. Not all shadow detail is always intended to be seen.

"Not all shadow detail is always intended to be seen"....Excuse me while I play devil's advocate here, but you seem to be making excuses why there is less detail in the "correct" version. While the old release doesn't look natural IYO, my point is about detail and DNR. Weren't the claims that DNR was over used so detail was scrubbed? I thought that was the main point of contention when complaining about the digitally processed DNR waxy look.
Reply
Reply
post #319 of 513
1/31/10 at 4:05pm
...
Reply
Reply
post #320 of 513
1/31/10 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filmmaker View Post

Though I can't find hard data on this, note that this remaster comes pretty fresh on the heels of Scorsese going public with this statement in November: http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu...redible-17482; I suspect when videophiles like ourselves caught wind of this, we flooded him with our feedback on the Blu-ray travesty of one of his own works and Mr. Scorcsese made a quick, strongly worded call to Disney...

link says "page not found" can u try and link again? I would like to read this.
Reply
Reply
post #321 of 513
1/31/10 at 4:12pm
Hugh - where are you seeing the extra detail? The contrast is totally different on the old version, which makes the differences between light and dark parts of the wood a lot more obvious, but I'm not sure there's actually more detail there.

Also, the function of the shot is to show Brendan Gleeson, not the background. Which one do you think looks most likely to be correct? To me the original looks like something shot on digital video, and you can certainly make out finer detail on his clothes in the new version (and the small white squares on the check pattern don't look like they're glowing any more!).

Edit: Mr Pereira got there first!
Reply
Reply
post #322 of 513
1/31/10 at 4:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

link says "page not found" can u try and link again? I would like to read this.

Remove the ";" from the end of the URL and it should work fine.
Reply
Reply
post #323 of 513
1/31/10 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiggles View Post

Remove the ";" from the end of the URL and it should work fine.

My bad...fixed.
Reply
Reply
post #324 of 513
1/31/10 at 6:10pm
Anyone that doubts the serious problems that digital noise reduction creates, need look no further than the caps provided by Xylon here. Check out the excellent texture and high-frequency content visible in the skin of the new transfer, compared to the older, DNRed transfer. Disney should be commended for recognizing the mistake they made and rectifying it so soon. If only other studios learned from their example...
Reply
Reply
post #325 of 513
1/31/10 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

....Disney should be commended for recognizing the mistake they made and rectifying it so soon....

I'll reserve my praise until such time that they announce I can trade in my original, excremental copy for the fixed version.
Reply
Reply
post #326 of 513
1/31/10 at 7:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

With some exceptions directors should have way more input on how their films are presented on BD.

My guess is the royalties on video releases aren't deemed to be worth their time to bitch at the studio about presentation.
If this was important to filmmakers they wouldn't negotiate the rights away.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

"Not all shadow detail is always intended to be seen"....Excuse me while I play devil's advocate here, but you seem to be making excuses why there is less detail in the "correct" version. While the old release doesn't look natural IYO, my point is about detail and DNR. Weren't the claims that DNR was over used so detail was scrubbed? I thought that was the main point of contention when complaining about the digitally processed DNR waxy look.

The main problem, IMO, was the EE.
I though the original release showed a lot of detail.

And, yes, there are quite a few contrast-haters around here.

Kram Sucal mentioned the new release is more accurate to the original theatrical he saw.
I defer to him in this matter (although it would be nice to hear from MS on this).
Reply
Reply
post #327 of 513
1/31/10 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira View Post

I actually have some Super-35 framing charts for DOGMA around here somewhere, if I can get them scanned I'll put up some JPEGs so you can see what I mean.

I just watched Dogma a few minutes ago... great transfer... great movie! Would love to see the framing charts!
Reply
Reply
post #328 of 513
1/31/10 at 9:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

Interesting shots. The original release screen cap has a brighter look to it like contrast is pumped higher? It seems as though it actually reveals better detail. I am looking at the wooden shakes on the roof, the painted lettering on the signs, like paint chips and cracks and they are more detailed and visible in the original version.

That's because of the edge enhancement gone wild. The stuff behind the character is out of focus and SHOULD be blurry, but the wide unsharp-mask radius is increasing the acuity of the background. If you look where the camera is IN focus, you'll see the new version reveals much more fine texture... for example, the pattern on his necktie and the texture of his skin. And personally I find that discussing A/B differences in color and contrast is pointless outside of a calibrated viewing environment and without knowing what the "proper" look is.

here's what happens if I apply EE to the remastered version and boost contrast to level the playing field: http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4113/eed.jpg
as you can see, there's a lot more detail there.
Reply
Reply
post #329 of 513
2/1/10 at 5:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Indeed but I think all the "best it ever looked" and "it looks fine to me" comments from the clueless crowd will keep that from happening.

Oh please.
"Clueless" hardcore Trekkers who've actually seen the films dozens of times theatrically...

Quote:


I would love to hear that Scorsese had something to do with the remaster. With some exceptions directors should have way more input on how their films are presented on BD.

Well, if you venture outside this forum you'd find out that Scorsese was indeed directly involved with the remaster.
Reply
Reply
post #330 of 513
2/1/10 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

Interesting shots. The original release screen cap has a brighter look to it like contrast is pumped higher? It seems as though it actually reveals better detail. I am looking at the wooden shakes on the roof, the painted lettering on the signs, like paint chips and cracks and they are more detailed and visible in the original version. Ok, don't all get on my ass and think I am claiming the original is better, because I am not making that claim and don't believe that to be the case especially after seeing the original caps and all the complaints about how poorly the transfer was done. I haven't seen either, except what I have seen on HBO or what ever channel it was and it looked awful there. I am simply saying going by the caps it looks like the original in that shot has better detail.

the reason boosted contrast might look more detailed is because the contrast is boosted

doing so takes the details that were always there and makes them stand out more (usually at the expense of losing detail in the shadows and highlights of the image)

the original technically has less detail because of the boosted contrast (and DNR) but tricks you into thinking it has more than it really does
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Gangs Of New York comparison with REMASTERED version update*PIX*