AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Jaws - Robert Harris review (see post #1 for link)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jaws - Robert Harris review (see post #1 for link) - Page 4

post #91 of 778
4/10/12 at 4:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

When did I say I was going to do anything like that over Jaws?
I said it looks like the sky version, and it does.
I meant in general over Universal's usual crap.
Also reading is fun, jumping to conclusions is not.

WHAT looks like the Sky version? Certainly not the new transfer of Jaws, which no one on ANY board has seen.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #92 of 778
4/10/12 at 5:12pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

WHAT looks like the Sky version? Certainly not the new transfer of Jaws, which no one on ANY board has seen.

ANY? that's an odd definitive statement..... odd that I knew the specs before release also.....
What can I talk about, well I saw the restoration video and screen shots and that LOOKS (you know the difference between looks and is right?) like the Sky version down to the colour on the windows now matching.
Do you have a date for the restoration so that you 100% know it is premiering on disc?
Why did I take you off the ignore list?
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 778
4/10/12 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

ANY? that's an odd definitive statement..... odd that I knew the specs before release also.....
What can I talk about, well I saw the restoration video and screen shots and that LOOKS (you know the difference between looks and is right?) like the Sky version down to the colour on the windows now matching.
Do you have a date for the restoration so that you 100% know it is premiering on disc?
Why did I take you off the ignore list?

Since you don't seem to be able to curb your attitude, just put me right back on. Really.

Specs are one thing - the transfer itself as it will appear on the Blu-ray disc is something wholly other. You haven't seen it. Period. When it's released and you buy it, then you can put yourself on your 1080 video and talk about it to your heart's content. August is a ways away, you know?
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 778
4/10/12 at 5:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

August is a ways away, you know?

"August? For Christ's sake, tomorrow's the Fourth of July. And we will be open for business. It's gonna be one of the best summers we've ever had. Now if you fellas are concerned about the beaches, you do whatever you have to to make them safe, but those beaches will be open for this weekend."

I'm sorry, I'll get back to work now.

Neil
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 778
4/10/12 at 5:22pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

Since you don't seem to be able to curb your attitude, just put me right back on. Really.

Specs are one thing - the transfer itself as it will appear on the Blu-ray disc is something wholly other. You haven't seen it. Period. When it's released and you buy it, then you can put yourself on your 1080 video and talk about it to your heart's content. August is a ways away, you know?

My attitude was serene, your's appears in mostly CAPS.
I think you should not read a post angry as you are projecting any attitude onto me.
If you want to contribute to my thread then fine, if not pop off and make your own if you have the info before me.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 778
4/10/12 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

My attitude was serene, your's appears in mostly CAPS.
I think you should not read a post angry as you are projecting any attitude onto me.
If you want to contribute to my thread then fine, if not pop off and make your own if you have the info before me.

No I'll leave it to you - everyone knows the deal. I wasn't aware threads actually belonged to people on these boards. Interesting.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 778
4/10/12 at 5:41pm
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007RM66G...29&camp=211189

But it is region B, out of Amazon UK, costs more, and comes out in September.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 778
4/10/12 at 5:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007RM66G...29&camp=211189

But it is region B, out of Amazon UK, costs more, and comes out in September.

Its in the OP
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 778
4/10/12 at 6:25pm
I always pluck some of the tines off of the steelbook spindle, so the disc comes out easier. Anybody else do that?
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 778
4/11/12 at 8:06am
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/04/...pielberg-more/

Info on the 4K restoration of the original negatives.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 778
4/11/12 at 8:42am
So to summarize the interview:

1. OCN @ 4K wet gate for scratch hiding.
2. Supervised periodically and in whole by Spielberg, but not Butler.
3. Went through "a little bit" of "grain management" because "the OCN needed it".
4. Color and contrast correction at Spielberg's request (lighter, darker, sharper?) "lightened opening scene because it was too dark originally".
5. "New" 7.1 mix upconverted from previously upconverted 2000 5.1 mix, not direct from original mono.

Definitely not a day one purchase for me... too much at stake. Will wait for reviews.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 778
4/11/12 at 8:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/04/...pielberg-more/

Info on the 4K restoration of the original negatives.

Ugh, "grain management". Why does the OCN "need" grain management? Were people walking out of the theaters in 1975 due to all the grain? Can anyone tell me when Universal has used it in a "positive" fashion?
And they're really color-grading based on a friggin' video tape?
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 778
4/11/12 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Ugh, "grain management". Why does the OCN "need" grain management?

If you want different shoots to match each other. Remember theatrical prints actually mask grain due to the generation issue.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 778
4/11/12 at 9:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

If you want different shoots to match each other. Remember theatrical prints actually mask grain due to the generation issue.

But he stated that they used the OCN after carefully examining all their options. Even scratched up, he indicated that was their only source of footage, so there wouldn't be a need to match the grain of other prints...
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 778
4/11/12 at 9:07am
Edited for OT
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 778
4/11/12 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

If you want different shoots to match each other. Remember theatrical prints actually mask grain due to the generation issue.

Well, I know that's the party line, but to date I've never seen opticals/dupes match original negative no matter how much DNR and sharpening they slather on. Instead of grain, you get digital mush, and it still looks like crap compared to the shots around it. If really you want them to match, you should recomposite the opticals or use a better source. Even in film projection, opticals from 70s films still clearly look like opticals, I don't really see it as an issue that must be dealt with.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 778
4/11/12 at 9:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

But he stated that they used the OCN after carefully examining all their options. Even scratched up, he indicated that was their only source of footage, so there wouldn't be a need to match the grain of other prints...

Yes but even the negative can have different amount of grain between shoots. When Blade runner was restored they removed and added grain on different shoots to match the footage.

But since im not working with the restoration my guess is as god as anyone else.
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 778
4/11/12 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Yes but even the negative can have different amount of grain between shoots.

Fair enough. I understand some variation, especially in reshoots... I just wish Universal could limit their "management" to only those situations.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 778
4/11/12 at 9:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Ugh, "grain management". Why does the OCN "need" grain management? Were people walking out of the theaters in 1975 due to all the grain? Can anyone tell me when Universal has used it in a "positive" fashion?
And they're really color-grading based on a friggin' video tape?

Not to mention I sensed just a slight negative implication towards grain...comments such as:

Grain removal is always a subjective thing.

When you're scanning an original negative and/or the different generations of materials that we might have to go from,grain is something that we just have to deal with.

Sometimes it is dealt with in a positive fashion, and there have been other times that, for whatever reason, there's been a negative [reaction] acheived for too much grain reduction.

And this is not even talking about the encoding process of the Blu-ray where it seems most of Universal's damage happens.

Let's see what happens.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 778
4/11/12 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

Fair enough. I understand some variation, especially in reshoots... I just wish Universal could limit their "management" to only those situations.

Nukes and DNR filters, both need careful handling.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 778
4/11/12 at 9:33am
Just watched the cabin scene with the different light levels outside the windows. Will be interesting to see how that comes out
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 778
4/11/12 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Yes but even the negative can have different amount of grain between shoots. When Blade runner was restored they removed and added grain on different shoots to match the footage.

But that happens with any movie... it's quite apparent in theaters as well. Is there really a need to fix the grain variations resulting from the original photography?
For all that guy's claims otherwise, I really don't buy that reproducing the original film is much of a priority over there. Universal Home Video: saving films from the sins committed by their cinematographers
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 778
4/11/12 at 10:26am
Edited for OT
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 778
4/11/12 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Universal Home Video: saving films from the sins committed by their cinematographers

I still prefer this solution over resuing older masters filled with videonoise a restored with DNR.

Remember with a 4K master you have a 4 pixel (2*2) tolerance for the 1080P encode. So the end result can look real good on BD.

Dont take this that I defend grain removal, just that I will not cry wolf until I have seen the end result.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 778
4/11/12 at 10:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I still prefer this solution over resuing older masters filled with videonoise a restored with DNR.

Remember with a 4K master you have a 4 pixel (2*2) tolerance for the 1080P encode. So the end result can look real good on BD.

Dont take this that I defend grain removal, just that I will not cry wolf until I have seen the end result.

Agreed. This studio has jaded me lol, but maybe this one will turn out quite well. I wonder if E.T. is going through a similar process.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 778
4/11/12 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

I still prefer this solution over resuing older masters filled with videonoise a restored with DNR.

Remember with a 4K master you have a 4 pixel (2*2) tolerance for the 1080P encode. So the end result can look real good on BD.

Dont take this that I defend grain removal, just that I will not cry wolf until I have seen the end result.

What a radical thought - waiting to actually see the end result. I'm with YOU!
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 778
4/11/12 at 11:41am
haineshisway and dvdmike007:

I suggest you both drop it and move on....if you can't then you won't be able to participate in this thread.
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 778
4/11/12 at 12:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

So to summarize the interview:

1. OCN @ 4K wet gate for scratch hiding.
2. Supervised periodically and in whole by Spielberg, but not Butler.
3. Went through "a little bit" of "grain management" because "the OCN needed it".
4. Color and contrast correction at Spielberg's request (lighter, darker, sharper?) "lightened opening scene because it was too dark originally".
5. "New" 7.1 mix upconverted from previously upconverted 2000 5.1 mix, not direct from original mono.

Definitely not a day one purchase for me... too much at stake. Will wait for reviews.

The video said upmixed from the 35mm mono, not the 5.1
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 778
4/11/12 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

The video said upmixed from the 35mm mono, not the 5.1

Not what the article said. Either way, it's not the original lossless. :-(
Reply
Reply
post #120 of 778
4/11/12 at 1:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

Not what the article said. Either way, it's not the original lossless. :-(

Universal contradicting themselves is not making me very optimistic
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 › Jaws - Robert Harris review (see post #1 for link)