Jaws - Robert Harris review (see post #1 for link) - Page 13

Digitally projected I assume? Should look similar to a quality HD home video setup in my experience.

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.

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).

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?

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

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.

Do I recon a slight zoom?

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.
Edited by Geoff D - 8/3/12 at 2:44pm

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

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.

Mark

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...

..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
Edited by TylerAfx - 8/4/12 at 7:49am

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



Mark

Worst backpeddle ever.

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..

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.

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?!?!

"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!!!
Edited by BIG ED - 8/6/12 at 1:39pm

Have Universal done so in this case?

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.


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).