or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Universal 100th Anniversary releases
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Universal 100th Anniversary releases - Page 3

post #61 of 223
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post


This is why the general rule is NOT to pre-order anything from Universal.

Exactly, they have cried wolf way too much.
post #62 of 223
i normally preorder no catalog releases from universal... but i do have all quiet on the western front preordered... hopefully there will be a review with screenshots up before it's too late to cancel

if not i'll return as defective then find everyone responsible and drag them up a rocky hill by a sensitive part of their anatomy
post #63 of 223
I pre-ordered To Kill a Mockingbird because a) it was for the quite reasonable price of £9.99 and b) it has to be better than the non-anamorphic DVD I currently have.
post #64 of 223
Dragonheart in March:

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=8047

I have the HD-DVD and it has the best pq of the Universal HD-DVDs I got but I did not care for the movie at all. If ony Cat People looked as good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

well, it does sound like they're scanning at 6K, going from the Arriscan machine in the video and the asinine statement about scanning at "three times the resolution of the film".

Funny, other Universal titles were scanned in at 2K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PRO-630HD View Post

I for one have no issues with keeping the grian levels consistent throughout the film. Harryhausen pictures are a great example of the picture looking stunning one minute and then horrid as if watching the film through a fog of mosquitos. That is why pictures with a proper budget shoot opticals on Vistavision or 70mm to avoid that very issue.

I disagree, as far as I am concerned evening grain at that level is the devil's work.
post #65 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heimlich View Post


ugh grain management, i couldn't listen to the rest

and please tell me how scanning at a higher res increase teh amount of grain, i mean come on, what grain there is there is and scanning at 10000000MP a frame won't magically create more! utterly ridiculous, give me little faith

and sure it may get bigger during an optical push in but so what, once you avg and mess around with it you just make it look worse than the big grain did and people lived with it when it first came out, he chose to do optical push ins and was ok with it

we saw how much 'better' BTTF trilogy and the second JP film looked....

OTOH, it IS true the basic scanning with direct lighting actually can make grain look a lot more apparent than it really is. If you use a simple direct lighting scanner you will find that the scans have the grain too apparent compared how the film would look projected. If you don't do a little grain management you will end up with more than would be natural but....

....a scanner with diffused lighting helps tame that a lot though (although anything other than wet mount will probably emphasize it a touch too much, but it is now down to the point you don't have to bother with it much and if you are scanning first gen negatives that would have less grain than the theatrical release print so a trace extra grain from diffused scanning would still not overdue it compared to a theatrical presentation).

I guess they probably don't wet scan but one would hope they at least use diffused light scanning. maybe not....
one would have hoped they would have never used simple USM mega-halo sharpening or at least used version where you can tune the white and dark overshoots and yet hollywood used that simple, lowest end, worst sharpening algorithm for video releases for years and years.
post #66 of 223
That Universal video worries me - so they are pretty much promoting DNR and other dodgy processes if I'm not mistaken?

And at 1:30 - oh let's just manually delete this and that.... hmmm

Oh well I guess it couldn't be worse than what they were doing back during Gladiator original BD - where they only deleted PART of the arrows not all of them Universal did the transfer for that IIRC.
post #67 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heimlich View Post


Hey! They didn't mention the all-important Edge Enhancement stage. No Universal title would be complete without it.
post #68 of 223
Two things jumped out at me warning signs: Grain scrubbing (DNR) for optical push ins and the image stabilization during the walking scene (Out of Africa). First, the before image carried much more detail. Instead, the after effect was a blurry mess. Let that grain come forth! Second... if the director of Out of Africa wanted the walking scene to be smoother, he would have used a steadycam or put down some track. Clearly he wanted something else. The film was good enough to win 7 Oscars as it was.

All in all, it seems that they are doing some good work, but I fear they're fixing some things that aren't broke.
post #69 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

That Universal video worries me - so they are pretty much promoting DNR and other dodgy processes if I'm not mistaken?

Were you expecting a more real Universal telling? Say like:

I grabbed the old DVD master and blew the dust off of it. Next I went for a coffee and used the master as a coaster, then I went to the washroom stall with it in my pant pocket. Afterwards I inserted the master and cranked the DNR & EE to 11 and Voila! A new digitally restored master! I wont tell you where I inserted it.

Now it's on to the QA which consists of drunken/high executives who gave a thumbs up without even looking at it. If a newbie executive asks cannot we do better?', he is immediately admonished by the other executives for thinking about spending money that would of gone to them as bonuses instead.

Finally encoded it using settings set years ago then I throw it in the bin with all the other newly digitally restored masters and go find me a $10 hooker.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_danger View Post

The film was good enough to win 7 Oscars as it was.

Yes but studio executives and technicians are much smarter and more talented.
post #70 of 223
I knew it yesterday when I popped TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD in that there was something "off" with the transfer. It's not a dealbreaker IMO like, say, Out of Africa, but very clearly Universal put some filtering on there because the image does not appear untouched. Oddly though, at certain times it looks really good...a mixed bag.

I agree with the Beaver's assessment that for under $20 it's enough of an upgrade over the DVD to warrant a purchase, but be forewarned if you're hyper-sensitive to anything less than a pristine image.
post #71 of 223
"Managed" my ass, it looks like the entire film got a medium DNR pass.

So first we have to suffer through ancient, rubbish HD masters for years, and now we can look forward to this whenever a film is "lucky" enough to be deemed worthy of a "restoration"? F U, Universal. F U.
post #72 of 223
All we are going to see is a nice 100th Anniversary banner on every single Blu-ray this year and nothing more unless Universal have invested serious money into restoration.
post #73 of 223
post #74 of 223
Looks like ****. Typical Universal. $600,000 "restoration" huh?

You know, when the movie studios throw a bitch fit about piracy, I don't feel sorry for them one bit. When they piss away money like this, they deserve it.

That's at least 30,000 people buying the movie at $20 to cover the costs of the DNR scrubbing.
post #75 of 223
LOL Blu-ray.com gave the transfer a 5/5!!!

Unbelievable.
post #76 of 223
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DM2006RI View Post

LOL Blu-ray.com gave the transfer a 5/5!!!

Unbelievable.

I believe it from them
post #77 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by DM2006RI View Post

LOL Blu-ray.com gave the transfer a 5/5!!!

Unbelievable.

I'd be worried about the sudden increase in competency if they didn't.

In other recent news, they gave the new transfers of Star Trek The Next Generation 4/5
post #78 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by DM2006RI View Post

LOL Blu-ray.com gave the transfer a 5/5!!!

Unbelievable.

Yeah- about as 'unbelievable' as complaining about a review of a transfer the complainant hasn't seen yet.
post #79 of 223
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdrev...ockingbird.htm
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/To-Kil.../34352/#Review

Now we know what Universal Grain Management means, Wipe It Out!',

Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiontail60 View Post

Looks like ****. Typical Universal. $600,000 "restoration" huh?

You know, when the movie studios throw a bitch fit about piracy, I don't feel sorry for them one bit. When they piss away money like this, they deserve it.

That's at least 30,000 people buying the movie at $20 to cover the costs of the DNR scrubbing.

I think you mean $60 "restoration". Just half a days work.
post #80 of 223
I don't have a proper display at the moment, but looking at them on my lil' laptop I think the shots look good for the most part. If the hideous DNR is restricted to a couple of shots here and there and the rest of the movie isn't a mess of smeary slow-motion grain, I'd be much less offended by that than the hideous sharpening and blown-out contrast of most of their transfers.
post #81 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiontail60 View Post

I'd be worried about the sudden increase in competency if they didn't.

In other recent news, they gave the new transfers of Star Trek The Next Generation 4/5

Yep I was going to post the same thing - they are definitely nuts.
post #82 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by XxDeadlyxX View Post

Yep I was going to post the same thing - they are definitely nuts.

I hope they excludes Kenneth Brown
post #83 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdrev...ockingbird.htm
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/To-Kil.../34352/#Review

Now we know what Universal Grain Management means, Wipe It Out!',



I think you mean $60 "restoration". Just half a days work.

It looks like they did a new scan and then filtered it to remove grain. It's not the worst thing I've seen but it's still a shame. It HAS to be a new scan because it looks nothing like a dated master slapped with DNR. Also, there doesn't appear to be any EE.
post #84 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfan123 View Post

It looks like they did a new scan and then filtered it to remove grain. It's not the worst thing I've seen but it's still a shame. It HAS to be a new scan because it looks nothing like a dated master slapped with DNR. Also, there doesn't appear to be any EE.

I disagree, it's probably been re-filtered from an old DVD master something, as I have mentioned in previous posts, Universal has done many times. I do not have the Mockingbird BD but I do have the Untouchables and from the images and what DVDbeaver has written they seem quite silimar except this one is slightly less waxy.
post #85 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patsfan123 View Post

It looks like they did a new scan and then filtered it to remove grain. It's not the worst thing I've seen but it's still a shame. It HAS to be a new scan because it looks nothing like a dated master slapped with DNR. Also, there doesn't appear to be any EE.

Yeah, it's definitely new. The screenshots don't look awful but I am still really dissapointed. It looks like Psycho. Why go through the trouble of 4K scanning when all you are going to do is put the electronic zap on it?
post #86 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post


Yes but studio executives and technicians are much smarter and more talented.

The silly thing is these geniuses are delaying releases and wasting money ruining things. Maybe some of the cowboy techies they have are trying to find ways to justify more pay and longer working time so come up with all of these fancy 'fixes' and maybe the execs know not a thing about film and come up with some questionable study about people love watercolors so they can prove they are the executive who bring new selling points and sales.

I find it amusing but sad that some of the titles deemed not worthy of any effort have been the ones that have looked the best on blu-ray (assuming you can tolerate some dirt and scratches) since they tend to have no EE and no DNR or other monkeying around and if they were lucky enough to have been scanned on decent equipment and just had the slight processing that needs to be applied to counter non-wet scanning then they tend to look better.
post #87 of 223
Thread Starter 
In this thread people and dubious web sites get taken in by universal again
post #88 of 223
Universally Filtering away High Definition detail!!!

I am not remotely surprised that the DNR Status Quo remains in full force as an "effective" remastering tool at good old Universal.

Unfortunately those reviewers who do understand the importance of retaining grain frequently get snookered by the presence of filtered residual grain and mistakenly believe detrimental filtering has not been applied; while in reality it has.

Too bad there simply is not enough informed people to cause enough back lash to force Universal to capitulate on this wretched practice which completely defeats the point of high resolution scanning.

Not even factoring their penchant of EE to compensate for the loss of fine detail and 'improve' whatever remaining detail there is.

Now the actual complementary digital restoration tools such as flicker stabilization or print damage restoration are really the only things needed. Not the digital patina of lost visual fidelity.

DNR = Non-HD

Best Regards
KvE
post #89 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

If the hideous DNR is restricted to a couple of shots here and there

It's not.
post #90 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

Yeah- about as 'unbelievable' as complaining about a review of a transfer the complainant hasn't seen yet.

Actually I have seen it. Got it in their press mailing the other day. What's your problem?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Universal 100th Anniversary releases