As Good As It Gets (1997) (Limited to 3000 Copies) - Page 2

They are not "converting" it from a dvd to blu ray.

Contrast boosting, clipping, and appears a smidge cooler color temp. Yup new master.

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cap1=11553&cap2=11561&art=full&image=4&cID=1110&action=1&lossless=1#vergleich
Goodbye clouds, dynamic range, and peoples foreheads.

Brighter is better mantra strikes again.

It clearly has better detail but rubbish contrast changes. Seems that nearly every catalog title these days receives moronic modern clipped contrast.

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 6/20/12 at 8:11am

Better, but nothing to get excited about and, certainly, not worth the price.

I would rather neither, but I'll take contrast boosting over the nasty EE on my HD DVHS recording.

Tom

The contrast boosting is just pathetic.

I'd have purchased this as a $10-15 catalog release from Sony. As a $30 movie-only release that will never be on sale, I have about zero interest.

The contrast boosting is mild compared to other titles I've seen (I'm still looking at you, Ghostbusters). It shouldn't happen at all, but As Good As It Gets is far, far from unwatchable.

Watched AGAIG last night. Thought it looked fantastic.

whether it was the lenses used or filters, I was a bit dissapointed with the transfer- hardly any film grain

I guess I'll be waiting for a cheaper import given the lackadaisical transfer Sony did for this exclusive.

Do you think there should've been a lot of grain? By the 90s DPs had very fine-grained film stocks at their disposal, if they chose to shoot a movie that way.
Regardless, the captures look merely okay to me, TT is making it pretty easy to avoid their releases these days.

you're probably right

but someone dropped the ball on this one. Its contrast boosted

It's just awful...two examples >>>

Memento:
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?lang=en&art=part&x=541&y=163&action=1&image=2&cID=944&cap1=8399&cap2=8409&lossless=&gamma=#vergleich

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=part&x=199&y=126&action=1&image=1&cID=944&cap1=8398&cap2=8408&lossless=#vergleich


Pulp Fiction:
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?art=part&x=426&y=237&action=1&image=3&cID=637&cap1=3069&cap2=3187&lossless=#vergleich

Would you have liked them to add some grain for you? The grain that is present is the grain that was on the negative. Is that not good enough for you? I don't get it. Please explain.

How do you know? From screen caps? How do you know the problem wasn't on the DVD transfer and that it now is correct. How do you know anything without having seen the disc?

How do you know what is visible is indeed accurate original grain?


How do you know he is wrong? How do you know that the BR is correct?
How will the picture quality magically change from a screen cap to watching a rapid succession of screen caps?
Even though the DVD is not accurate either it is ironic that even at a lower resolution various details are clearly present due to not having the contrast bloom out and clip certain information.

If it were DVDBeaver quality screen caps you might have a point but CAH are typically spot on.
Unfortunately I do not have any solid reference to provide to support my assertion but in my film schooling experience this, along with many other 'improved' catalog titles, is not accurate to the sensibilities of its time. Clearly not as egregious as some others but still not representative of how it really should look.

Find it strange that Fright Night seemed to have turned out so well but not with other titles. Quite inconsistent.
Also peculiar is those most vehement against the usage of screenshots for evaluation are not above using and praising them when confirming their own bias. The moment anything casts their decrees into doubt then suddenly those who use them to gauge the veracity of their reviews are castigated as ill informed arm chair extremists.

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 6/21/12 at 12:55pm

Well, I'm not one of those people - I hate screen caps, period. Have you actually seen this disc? It would appear not. I have. I also know how Grover Crisp operates and he does not normally do what to you "appears to have had a low-pass filter applied". But if one of us has seen the disc and one hasn't, it's a rather lopsided discussion, I'm afraid, and one of us is speaking from a position of viewing and one is basing what they are saying on a screen cap. In the end, I'll go with what I know Sony normally does on their transfers, and I'll go with what I'm seeing on the disc itself, which is a transfer that looks like the film looked.

Sony's track record is impressive relative to other major studios but hardly spotless. Now if they say a title has received a modern restoration or remaster, I know it'll be excellent. But that's not exactly what happened here, where some mystery meat video master was offloaded to a third party distributor.

What does Grover Crisp have to do with this title? Doubt he supervises all their releases in great detail, especially if Sony proper is not releasing it.
Sony does not have a spotless track record and has indeed tweaked films to their detriment. Ghostbusters and Run Lola Run are but a few that come to mind.

It does appear filtered or an old scan that has been repurposed, which happens far too often.

I would like to see the BR but I do not personally enjoy the film to the degree of paying $30+ for it. Rental certainly, ownership $10 max.

The screen shot debate is asinine. What is the viewer doing but watching screen shots observed in rapid succession?

As I mentioned before most will praise screenshots that affirm their bias and reject those that debase their bias. Which is why many lazy shill reviewers so vehemently disregard screen shots when those shots cast doubt on their supposed observations. Especially obnoxious are the reviewers that expect every film to look like a Pixar movie with the display set to torch mode.

Best Regards
KvE

You "doubt" he supervises all their releases in great detail. I think I can stop responding to you now because you clearly know not whereof you speak. You make with the snappy suppositions based on nothing. I don't care what others do in terms of screen caps - I loathe them and never base anything on them. So, yes, it's an asinine debate but not for your reasons, I'm afraid.

Grover Crisp is hands on on EVERY transfer - no old transfers are used EVER. He will, in fact, not license or issue anything that hasn't been newly done and to his satisfaction - so, I hate to burst your little fantasy bubble, but you're quite wrong. I don't don't care what this "appears" like - you haven't seen it and therefore any comments you make cannot be taken seriously. See it and then post, although from your posts I'd say that you are predisposed to think what you think.

Best regards,
HHW

And you know this how? As I said in another post, Mr. Crisp will not license out any title until it's ready for Blu-ray and by ready for Blu-ray I mean up to the standards he deems necessary, and given his track record, I think those standards are pretty high.

It is a reasonable assumption that he may not have the time to directly supervise each and every film Sony owns that are being mastered. What is evident is that he is greatly involved with various prominent titles and their restorations.

Do you know first hand that he is indeed involved with every single transfer or any specific source to verify that claim? Otherwise it is all conjecture.

As others have mentioned there have been plenty of releases where the ball was dropped or intentionally changed to cater or pander to a particular crowd.

My suppositions are reasonably well informed, years of film school tends to imbue knowledge on the subject; more so than many but I freely admit not as extensively as those that work in Hollywood.

As mentioned prior I would like to see it but the price of entry is not worth the effort for me.

Plus after years of viewing properly taken screen shots being perfectly indicative of the much vaunted 'In Motion' test I know it is a perfectly viable and objective method of evaluation.
Of the films I own on BR I cannot think of one case where properly captured screenshots were not accurately reflective of the images in motion.

I am sure we are all awaiting with baited breath on your proof that GC personally supervised AGATG and how the transfer was handled. Until then it is nothing more than snappy suppositions to declare that everything is as it should be.

Best Regards
KvE

The conjecture, I'm afraid, is all yours. I DO know for a fact, yes. Film school is a fine thing and it's nice to know you attended one. If you had ANY knowledge of film stocks and what these films should look like you'd know just how good this transfer is. But you don't, I'm afraid, but then again you haven't seen the transfer. You can wait with all the breath you have in you - I am telling you what I know - Mr. Crisp supervises ALL of the transfers - whether you like them or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Unlike you, I do know the film stocks of the various eras, have dealt with them, seen them, been in a transfer room, seen DNR and edge enhancement applied and seen exactly what it does and how much application it takes to do what it does. The titles that are licensed to Twilight Time are the titles that Mr. Crisp deems ready for Blu-ray release. You being an Internet type will, of course, denigrate whatever you are told - it's typical, unfortunately. Believe what you will, believe that the screen caps are accurate (they're not, really and certainly the DVD on this title was horrible), and those of us who know what the film looked like and who are very aware of how John Bailey shot his films of that era, and those who just know what a good transfer is, will enjoy the film. It's easy to sit in your house and make with the proclamations but you and others like you do a great disservice to good work, based on your having looked at screen caps. I don't actually know of anyone else who would make a statement that screen caps look exactly the same as images in motion because you know what - they don't. Perhaps you should re-enroll in film school.

Now we have devolved to being snarky and ad hominem attacks.

I am familiar with how film actually looks like and this transfer is decent but not accurate. Never mind the contrast changes are not representative of how it most likely looked back when it was first assembled and released.

Again where is your proof that this is how John Bailey intended his film to look or that GC supervised and approved it?

I have no qualms to admitting being incorrect, simply require some viable evidence.

If the dynamic range of the contrast were always intended to be blown out back then, even the imperfect DVD would replicate that characteristic as well. The reality is that sort of aesthetic was not as commonly used as it has in the past decade. Same for cooler color temps and/or retiming to T&O.

Transfers that are well done I praise or do not raise any objections. Those that appear to have issues I do comment on.

Examples of where Sony did things correctly such as Taxi Driver is excellent with no complaints. An older release The Fifth Element, the reissue is vastly superior to the original release. In those cases the screen caps were representative of the final products.

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 6/21/12 at 5:57pm

I'm gonna say it one more time - you have not seen this transfer. There is NOTHING in this transfer that wasn't as it was. There is no discussion here. Sorry. "How it most likely looked" - so, on top of not having seen this Blu-ray, you apparently haven't even seen the film projected. So, exactly how would you know how it looked? It's amazing how expert someone can be without actually having seen this film projected or its transfer. I have not attacked you. I have questioned how you have the temerity to say anything without having seen this disc.

I have seen enough of John Bailey's work projected in theaters to know what his work looks like. I also know what James Brooks likes. I'm going to leave it to you because there is simply no winning here - it's like having a discussion with a wall and a wall without knowledge of the item being discussed. I just feel that someone has to step up and defend work that is good from those who decry it. When someone makes a statement, "I am familiar with how film actually looks like (sic) and this transfer is decent but not accurate." Again: You have not seen the transfer. The End.

From Robert A. Harris:

One of Mr. Nicholson's more interesting character studies, James L. Brook' As Good as it Gets, is given a quality treatment by Columbia for it's Blu-ray premiere via Twilight Time.

Color, densities, shadow detail, and image stability all fall into line for a quality product.

Finally a new release of a catalog title that holds up in projection.

From the HTF review:

The 1.78:1 1080p transfer is outstanding in every respect. The images are highly detailed, with solid, accurate colors, outstanding shadow detail and excellent contrast. There are a few close-ups which are slightly on the soft side, but this appears to be as it was intended by the director.

From the Bluray.com review:

As Good As It Gets is presented on Blu-ray courtesy of Twilight Time with an AVC encoded 1080p transfer in 1.85:1. This is yet another really nice looking high definition presentation culled from the Columbia assets catalog, with beautifully saturated colors and excellent sharpness and clarity. Fine object detail is often exceptional and many of the exterior location shots provide great depth of field. The film feels just a little dark at times, with contrast perhaps not pushed quite as far as some would hope, which leads to some minimal loss of shadow detail in some interior and night scenes. That said, there doesn't appear to have been any excessive digital tweaking (if indeed much of any at all), giving this presentation a very natural filmic quality. The elements are in excellent condition all the way through the film. This continues Twilight Time's generally superior track record in releasing high quality high definition transfers.

Funny, not only does he not think there has been contrast boosting, he feels it wasn't pushed quite far enough. We can't ALL be wrong.
Edited by haineshisway - 6/21/12 at 7:44pm

I don't. But okay, let's say he approved it... what standards does he deem necessary, and what resources does he have, for a movie that the studio he's employed by obviously doesn't give a rat's ass about? It's obvious to me that this is not on par with Sony or TT's best efforts, no amount of silly and illogical anti-screenshot rhetoric will make this look like Taxi Driver or something, and that's fine, but it makes me quite comfortable not shelling out the $35.

but i do hAVE THE DISC

there is contrast boosting because the DVD has details that are no longer there on the Blu ray. I do accept that the lack of film grain may be accurate, ill give you that . I think the transfer is very nice and I love the audio upgrade , just for a Sony catalogue title , i wasnt expecting the contrast tweak
Edited by filmoreXXX - 6/21/12 at 8:46pm

This is a rather unfortunate transfer.

The blown highlights are rather obvious. I don't know what makes anybody think that, somehow, highlights which disappear in screencaps will magically reappear when we see the movie "in motion". I really wish things worked that way. Life would be so much better if edge-enhancement, DNR and contrast boosting became mysteriously invisible when pictures moved. Alas, it is not so.

It's interesting that haineshisway feels comfortable quoting the blu-ray.com review to support his point.

Blu-ray.com reviewed Journey to the Center of the Earth and said, "edge enhancement is also quite noticeable in several sequences". Yet haineshisway saw fit to post an oft-quoted blog rant about there being absolutely no EE in that movie. But again, these things don't just disappear when pictures start moving.

Again, we are dealing with the Twilight Time "Halo" (no, not the EE halos in JTTCOTE).

Twilight Time has done some wonderful stuff. They are into me for a lot of money and I have even more of their BDs on order. But. let's be honest...every company that releases more than a few discs is going to have some great stuff and some bad stuff. It's no sin to be honest about pointing out the shortfalls. We can't dogmatically defend every release because we like the company or the guy who runs it. As Good As It Gets is...well...NOT as good as it gets. It's got problems. It's not a high end transfer. Oh well. It happens. That hasn't stopped me from pre-ordering COVER GIRL or THOSE MAGNIFICENT MEN....And it doesn't stop me from salivating over the upcoming release of BYE BYE BIRDIE.

But, let's just be reasonable. Pointing out obvious flaws in a TT release doesn't mean you hate your mother and you stomp on kittens. And just because your pal owns the company, doesn't mean you have to defend the indefensible.

Once more nothing has been provided that proves your bases. Appealing to R. Harris is a good start but he has been wrong before and far too many of the reviewers at BR.com are notorious for faulty evaluations. Some are quite vocal in being in favor of DNR to the point of waxiness and will rationalize and justify some of the worst applications. In addition to the preference of transfers that have had revisionist contrast boosting and retimings.

Accusing me of assumptions then making your own is an astounding double standard. In response to your erroneous presumption I have seen plenty of films projected from high quality prints and have observed and handled OCNs.

Since when has it become a prerequisite to watch a Blu-Ray on a projector to make an evaluation? Reviewers at BR.com do not all have projectors; some have rather curious display chains.

Now how long ago have you watched this film projected from a film print? Was it a release print?

Plenty will argue that recalling from long term memory such details would nigh be impossible. So that claim of having seen plenty of JB’s work projected and recalling them accurately is dubious by your rational against my familiarity of what contrast and timing trends were back then.

Have you seen the OCN or the master print?

By your premise unless you have access to a master print for reference your assertion that the BR transfer as being accurate is as flawed as mine, if not more so. Mine is at least an informed opinion of the general aesthetics of the time.

How come the DVD has more visual information in the highlights than the BR? I have not argued that the DVD is more accurate but the proof is in the pudding that contrast has been clipped to achieve a modern aesthetic.

Plenty of people, even actual experts, are easily snookered by the brighter is better affect. An analog would be remastered music these days. Often dynamics are crushed to 6 to 3 dbs of dynamic range, additionally the blatant disregard of avoiding clipping. Yet for years reviewers praise these distorted, flat, bloated, lifeless abominations. Does this make their flawed preferences correct? No it does not.

If you are truly concerned about the proper representation of JB’s work then you should be wondering why the contrast has been changed. Perhaps the enthusiasm of having of the release is blinding objectivity and causes ones memory to conform to the current presentation.

Best Regards
KvE

PS There are plenty of botched releases that have as many defenders. Oh say Gulliver's Travels, many positive reviews, even ones not planted by the company. Fact is that they did a horrendous job.

PPS No kittens where harmed in the creation of this post or prior ones.