Jaws - Robert Harris review (see post #1 for link) - Page 12

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

It's only present as a lossy track.

Amen to that.

I've been watching Jaws almost continuously since I first saw it in '75. Probably seen it...I dunno...70 times? Even when I was young I tape recorded the audio when it was broadcast on TV and used to listen to the movie
as I went to sleep. I just saw it again in the theater as well. I'm familiar with the movie and sound and I enjoyed the added spaciousness of the newer mixes.

BTW, as I've mentioned earlier in the thread I'm such a life long fan I'm taking my family to Martha's Vineyard in a couple weeks. Unfortunately I'll just miss Jawsfest, but to make up for it it looks like we are arriving
right in the middle of an actual real-life "Jaws" summer, with great whites having come into Cape Cod, attacking swimmers, closing of beaches...the whole bit. Like living the movie...

Surely just using the exact same disc at the US would save money???

I do hope you pause to eat and sleep regularly.

What are you, twelve?

No. I turned 32 today, in fact. What can I say? I get off on your magnificently arrogant asides.

It is best to simply ignore him. Rarely does he provide any insightful or meaningful comments; mostly parroting corporate spin and regurgitating anything that affirms his bias.

Nor conducts any degree of mature discourse, usually relies on straw-man arguments, false equivalences, misrepresentation, and ad hominum attacks, etc. Never mind his dubious appeals to, supposed acquaintanceship with, certain authorities.

>

Now a more interesting comment is by R. Harris over at HTF on the hot topic of DNR.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957188

Though personally I do not wholly agree with his comment it does provide some illumination to his criteria for what falls in or out of acceptable usage of DNR.

My criteria is the application of DNR should be minimal and should not affect fine detail, nor change the characteristics of the originating film stock. Ideally it should be used in removing certain visual flaws such as dirt or print damage but 'managing grain' to the point of what remains is blotchy residual grain is unacceptable.

When Universal leaves things alone in their releases can look fantastic, Serentiy, Dune, or the Bourne series spring to mind. Whereas say Apollo 13 or The Thing looked great on a former HD format were later 'improved' for the BR release with DNR or some contrast boosting and EE.

FoxyMulder brings up a intriguing point in regards to the usage of DNR, some studios are generally more subtle in its application whereas others seem to habitually error on the side of excessive.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957317

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 8/2/12 at 1:39pm

Well, not really. lol. They're "attacking" idiots who go 1/3 of a mile off-shore and surf in areas where the ever-increasing seal population happens to be thriving. They're not "coming into" shore and the beach closings are precautionary measures because of fools like these swimmers/surfers who ought to know the only place you could get bitten by a shark is where the seals are...which is at the tip of Cape Cod and off-shore for the most part...but if it makes you feel like you're living life dangerously, go right ahead.
Edited by DM2006RI - 8/2/12 at 1:29pm

Don't ruin my Jaws moment, please.

ETA:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/02/air-patrols-reportedly-search-for-great-white-sharks-off-cape-cod-beaches/


Edited by R Harkness - 8/3/12 at 8:39am

I wonder what transfers RAH refers to where the DNR work is beneficial/transparent. Obviously if the DNR isn't visible I'm not gonna see it, but from all the restorations I've seen, these digital "corrections" are a zero-sum game. If you remove lots of grain, you replace it with visible artifacts. And if there's not a lot of grain, why bother it? And if you remove grain and re-grain it, like what is ostensibly the case with Aliens... uhh, I don't get that at all.

For me, the sad result of all these fancy digital tools is that I tend to prefer seeing older prints over "digitally restored" prints/DCPs/blu-rays. I'll gladly take inconsistent colors, opticals, and dust but a consistently analog picture over one where the analog inconsistencies have been replaced with digital ones like smeary, slow-mo grain or opticals that just take on a different form of ugly.

Well, yeah, but it's fun to spar with him.

GREAT question from Foxymulder there, and a gracious answer from RAH in the HTF Jaws thread. Between that reply and his original post, we can surmise that Jaws' grain may not resemble what's on the neg, but it does resemble that of a release print, the grain having been manipulated to reach that point, in conjunction with the filmmaker's supervision. Confirms what the "doom and gloom" brigade have been saying about there being DNR, and all on the basis of looking at a few caps. Whaddaya know.

Does the DNR affect the viewing experience? I haven't said as much because I'm only looking at caps, and I'm not in a position to know since I haven't seen the Blu-ray. But those in the know seem very pleased. And RAH's answer to Foxy only brought up another question: if these high resolution scans are exposing things - even grain itself - that wouldn't have been seen in the theater, then what look do you go for when mastering it? Do you leave it be, or do you alter some aspects in keeping with the more forgiving confines of the theatrical experience? Something like Total Recall's new transfer is very much in the former category, revealing a grainy, thin-looking negative that seems to have had the minimum of digital intervention in bringing it to Blu-ray, unlike the older transfer which had much more (indeed, too much) contrast, visible grain reduction and more consistent colour correction.

Knock it off guys...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/322696/a-few-words-about-jaws-in-blu-ray/60#post_3957348

Interesting comment, although with Universal's track record I doubt they are attempting to emulate an ideal theatrical release print. If it were the case the picture would be softer with perhaps the contrast pumped a little bit.

Setting the bar of quality to replicate a theatrical print seems rather low, it is valid point for discussion though to which generation should be used for release.
My preference is for the HD transfer to be the closest and highest quality generation. OCN quality for me would be ideal but with some judicial digital massaging to iron out certain visual aspects that were never intended to be seen. I do not sentimentalize certain visual flaws, such as visible wires or in the case of Raiders the reflection in the safety glass, those sort of things are free game.

Just not Lucas levels of revisionism, which unfortunately far too many people falsely equate appropriate digital restoration and tweaking with his foolish shenanigans.

Should be interesting see the results of Jaws myself later on.

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 8/2/12 at 4:48pm

You do what is necessary to re-create the look of what was seen in the cinema, regardless of how much work is involved. If you've read any of the post over at HTF, DNR does not equate to a loss of resolution, when performed properly.

Grain reduction and equalization was performed on the Godfather films, as we worked from four different and disparate types of elements, to create a cohesive viewing experience equally what was seen in theaters. Every film. Take that back. Every shot and sequence has its own problems. You work with the best technicians at the best post facilities, and do what you can. Wait until you see Lawrence.

BTW, Foxymulder always has good questions.

RAH

I'd be surprised if your friend's print still had any color. Even the SP prints c. 1981 are going or gone.

No, I'm not saying that the release is "no good." I'm saying that my perception is that what Universal was striving to reproduce was that look of a final release print, to avoid people calling the film "grainy."

In a "perfect world, " I'd be very pleased with Universal's final product.

RAH

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).

I get that about DNR. I've been worshipping at your altar over at the HTF for 10 years. Yet I haven't said that the detail in Jaws seems to suffer for it, just that the caps betray the slightly bland look that DNR (plus a hint of sharpening?) usually brings to the party. But I've yet to view the disc, so I'd better keep my nose out of here until then.

If I can express one piece of advice, it's don't take caps seriously. Look only at the disc.

RAH

Don't get it? It's for 'modern viewers' natch. As for Aliens do you have confirmation that it was re-grained besides the director in salesman mode?

I just noticed Ralph Potts' review.

Something I find confusing; if Universal did such a good job creating the brd version of this film, then why did they do such a poor job with The Sting?

I have no idea what you viewed in the cinema, at what resolution, format, projection, etc.

One film has nothing to do with the other. Potentially different staff, post facilities, and last but not least, learning curve.

RAH

There's no HD-DVD version of Jaws to show otherwise of course.