or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Official AVS Blu-ray Disc Reviews › Jaws (Blu-ray) Official AVSForum Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jaws (Blu-ray) Official AVSForum Review - Page 2

post #31 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan4081 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

The movie is a classic, but your review for the PQ and AQ is ridiculous. Don't let your love for this film cloud your judgement when it comes to evaluating the film on a technical level. The film doesn't look, or sound amazing. The studios did a decent job with the lousy 70's film stock source material they had to work with.

Then I guess everyone else who has actually seen this Blu-Ray have been giving ridiculous reviews also.
A couple quotes from some other reviewers:
From Hometheaterforum:
'Color looks accurate. At least to my eye, dead-on perfect.
Densities from the Cineric immersion scan of the OCN, are terrific.'

'....sounded superb -- created with a light and intelligent hand. A wonderfully immersive experience'

'Image - 5
Audio - 5 (On a scale of 1 to 5)
Very Highly Recommended.'

From Blu-ray.com:
'In my hardly ever humble opinion, this is certainly one of the finest high definition presentations of a Universal catalog release we've seen during this centenary year, which many readers of course will say is damning with faint praise.'

'This Blu-ray is simply stunning in all categories. A top notch restoration and transfer supervised and approved by Spielberg himself are augmented by a bevy of fantastic supplements (though it would have been great to have had a Spielberg commentary on this release). Highly recommended'

From Hi-Def Digest:
Video: 'Overall, this is a magnificent and splendid presentation of a great classic.'

Audio: 'Credit has to go to the engineers who worked on this because it's brilliant'

'As one of the most anticipated titles to hit Blu-ray, Spielberg's classic film arrives with a spectacular, reference-quality audio and video presentation that will more than satisfy movie lovers everywhere'

spot on smile.gif
post #32 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Jaws is Jurassic Park under water, and JP is essentially Jaws on land. But I'm baffled how a single shark can be so much more terrifying than a '40 dinosaur..

um, no... Jurassic park is jaws on an island.
post #33 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

The film doesn't look, or sound amazing. The studios did a decent job with the lousy 70's film stock source material they had to work with.

So you've seen the blu ray version ?
post #34 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

The movie is a classic, but your review for the PQ and AQ is ridiculous. Don't let your love for this film cloud your judgement when it comes to evaluating the film on a technical level. The film doesn't look, or sound amazing. The studios did a decent job with the lousy 70's film stock source material they had to work with.

Funny, how every review that I've read is praising the video and audio quality. I guess all of these reviewers are letting their love for the movie cloud their judgment, even though they are willing to slam other classics on a daily basis when a studio screws up. rolleyes.gif
post #35 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan4081 View Post

Then I guess everyone else who has actually seen this Blu-Ray have been giving ridiculous reviews also.'

The video quality is very soft overall and DNR has been applied. Where is the grain?


I don't see anything reference about this shot.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=7547&position=3
post #36 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEastSide View Post

Funny, how every review that I've read is praising the video and audio quality. I guess all of these reviewers are letting their love for the movie cloud their judgment, even though they are willing to slam other classics on a daily basis when a studio screws up. rolleyes.gif

You really think this is reference material that will show off the best that Blu-ray has to offer in terms of Video and Audio quality? You really think the perfect 100 score for Video and Audio is justified?

On a technical level the film looks very bland and it's rather soft. It's not like this Blu-ray is a revelation like some other restorations we've seen (e.g. Ben Hur, The Leopard French Edition).
Edited by emgesp - 8/3/12 at 7:35am
post #37 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

You really think this is reference material that will show off the best that Blu-ray has to offer in terms of Video and Audio quality? You really think the perfect 100 score for Video and Audio is justified?
On a technical level the film looks very bland and it's rather soft. It's not like this Blu-ray is a revelation like some other restorations we've seen (e.g. Ben Hur, The Leopard French Edition).

Others who have seen the blu ray disagree:
From hi-def digest review:
The image is crisp and beautifully detailed.

From blu-ray.com review:
Of course, the picture still comes with a few age-related issues, like soft edges in certain scenes, but on the whole, the transfer is fantastic with spot-on contrast and stunning clarity into the far distance
Black levels are true and often sumptuous in several areas with excellent delineation of the various gradations and small background objects hiding in the shadows
The color palette receives a generous boost without feeling artificial, especially in the bold primaries.
The video displays sharp, distinct definition in the hair and clothing of the cast, revealing wrinkles and pores in the faces of actors
Overall, this is a magnificent and splendid presentation of a great classic.
post #38 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

The video quality is very soft overall and DNR has been applied. Where is the grain?
I don't see anything reference about this shot.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=7547&position=3

That's a screenshot that has been compressed and resized which even says that underneath. Watch the movie first because you're making yourself look silly with these kind of statements.
post #39 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

The video quality is very soft overall and DNR has been applied. Where is the grain?
I don't see anything reference about this shot.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=7547&position=3

You mean the screenshot with this disclaimer below it?

'Disclaimer: Please note that this screenshot was captured at 1080p, resized to 720p and then compressed using JPEG to improve the loading time.
While it should give you a general idea of what a title will look like, it's not representative of the true quality that Blu-ray offers.'

Think I'll stick with the opinions of the people who have actually watched the Blu-Ray, not someone basing their opinions on a resized and downloaded screenshot.rolleyes.gif
post #40 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan4081 View Post

You mean the screenshot with this disclaimer below it?
'Disclaimer: Please note that this screenshot was captured at 1080p, resized to 720p and then compressed using JPEG to improve the loading time.
While it should give you a general idea of what a title will look like, it's not representative of the true quality that Blu-ray offers.'
Think I'll stick with the opinions of the people who have actually watched the Blu-Ray, not someone basing their opinions on a resized and downloaded screenshot.rolleyes.gif


Actually, when you register to become a member on Blu-ray.com you get to see 1080p files. You are seeing the 720p file because you are obviously not registered.
post #41 of 139
How did you evaluate the sound from a screen shot ?
post #42 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

Actually, when you register to become a member on Blu-ray.com you get to see 1080p files. You are seeing the 720p file because you are obviously not registered.

It doesnt matter. You are basing your ridiculous critique of the restoration on a single screenshot from a website whos own review
states:
'Of course, the picture still comes with a few age-related issues, like soft edges in certain scenes, but on the whole, the transfer is fantastic with spot-on contrast and stunning clarity into the far distance
Black levels are true and often sumptuous in several areas with excellent delineation of the various gradations and small background objects hiding in the shadows
The color palette receives a generous boost without feeling artificial, especially in the bold primaries.
The video displays sharp, distinct definition in the hair and clothing of the cast, revealing wrinkles and pores in the faces of actors
Overall, this is a magnificent and splendid presentation of a great classic.'

Besides that, you also stated above "The film doesn't look, or sound amazing.".
How you are able to judge the sound quality from a 1080p screenshot is still a mystery to me, but the reviewers I have read all agree that the sound is
amazing.
A couple quotes:
'This Blu-ray is simply stunning in all categories
Fidelity is superb and John Williams' towering score sounds magnificent. There's also a new clarity and precision to some of the foley effects ...'

'....sounded superb -- created with a light and intelligent hand. A wonderfully immersive experience'
post #43 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan4081 View Post

It doesnt matter. You are basing your ridiculous critique of the restoration on a single screenshot from a website whos own review
states:
'Of course, the picture still comes with a few age-related issues, like soft edges in certain scenes, but on the whole, the transfer is fantastic with spot-on contrast and stunning clarity into the far distance
Black levels are true and often sumptuous in several areas with excellent delineation of the various gradations and small background objects hiding in the shadows
The color palette receives a generous boost without feeling artificial, especially in the bold primaries.
The video displays sharp, distinct definition in the hair and clothing of the cast, revealing wrinkles and pores in the faces of actors
Overall, this is a magnificent and splendid presentation of a great classic.'
Besides that, you also stated above "The film doesn't look, or sound amazing.".
How you are able to judge the sound quality from a 1080p screenshot is still a mystery to me, but the reviewers I have read all agree that the sound is
amazing.
A couple quotes:
'This Blu-ray is simply stunning in all categories
Fidelity is superb and John Williams' towering score sounds magnificent. There's also a new clarity and precision to some of the foley effects ...'
'....sounded superb -- created with a light and intelligent hand. A wonderfully immersive experience'

I'm not basing my critique off one screenshot. I've seen many screenshots and they have all been rather consistent in quality.

Ben-Hur looks amazing, Jaws looks average. Calling Jaws reference material on a technical level is such an exaggeration. It looks decent for a 70's flick, nothing more.

Every Blu-ray that I thought looked great in screenshots always looked great when watching the actual disk. Unless the guys at Blu-ray.com tampered with these screenshots I know what to expect when I eventually watch the actual disk.
Edited by emgesp - 8/3/12 at 8:44am
post #44 of 139
So basically, you're saying Ralph's opinion is wrong.

You tell a lot of people that their pizza topping choices are wrong too? Travel the internet being a fun-sponge, pointing out how someone's opinion of a movie is foolish?

Where are you hanging out this weekend, cause I hate fun too! /sarc
post #45 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veeper View Post

So basically, you're saying Ralph's opinion is wrong.
You tell a lot of people that their pizza topping choices are wrong too? Travel the internet being a fun-sponge, pointing out how someone's opinion of a movie is foolish?
Where are you hanging out this weekend, cause I hate fun too! /sarc

He has every right to score a Blu-ray however he wants, but I think his A/V rating on this particular Blu-ray is crazy. He is basically saying this is reference material, which I believe is not the case in the slightest. Sound of Music is more deserving of a 100 than Jaws in regards to video quality.
post #46 of 139
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

The movie is a classic, but your review for the PQ and AQ is ridiculous. Don't let your love for this film cloud your judgement when it comes to evaluating the film on a technical level. The film doesn't look, or sound amazing. The studios did a decent job with the lousy 70's film stock source material they had to work with.

Greetings,

emgesp, thanks for posting. I have no problem with criticism either constructive or otherwise however I do ask that those offering it base their input on first hand experience. I have no problem with those who base opinions on screenshots as everyone is entitled to use whatever method they deem appropriate when making decisions about which films to buy or not. Personally I don't use them because capturing them isn't always representative of what I see onscreen.

As for your remarks regarding my review I find them baseless. You can't possibly expect me to accept a definitive statement/opinion from someone that hasn't looked at the same thing I have. You're also questioning my objectivity, maturity and experience as someone that has written well over a thousand Blu-ray reviews. If you disagree with my conclusions (for whatever reasons) I can accept that and am willing to listen. What I will not tolerate in this forum is the inflammatory tone with which you express it.

My advice would be to watch the disc and make a better informed decision. If you're not happy I am sure you won't have any problem reselling it.

This thread has been derailed enough. Thanks to everyone that has chimed in but let's move on.

Regards,
post #47 of 139
Awesome review, thank you! You single handedly got me excited about this release. I too saw this young and was freaked out (I also remember seeing Jaws 3D in theater). I haven't thought about this movie until now and after watching the youtube video of how they revitalized the film, I'm psyched! smile.gif
post #48 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Potts View Post

Greetings,
emgesp, thanks for posting. I have no problem with criticism either constructive or otherwise however I do ask that those offering it base their input on first hand experience. I have no problem with those who base opinions on screenshots as everyone is entitled to use whatever method they deem appropriate when making decisions about which films to buy or not. Personally I don't use them because capturing them isn't always representative of what I see onscreen.
As for your remarks regarding my review I find them baseless. You can't possibly expect me to accept a definitive statement/opinion from someone that hasn't looked at the same thing I have. You're also questioning my objectivity, maturity and experience as someone that has written well over a thousand Blu-ray reviews. If you disagree with my conclusions (for whatever reasons) I can accept that and am willing to listen. What I will not tolerate in this forum is the inflammatory tone with which you express it.
My advice would be to watch the disc and make a better informed decision. If you're not happy I am sure you won't have any problem reselling it.
This thread has been derailed enough. Thanks to everyone that has chimed in but let's move on.
Regards,

Fair enough. Though, I've yet come across a Blu-ray that looked outright superior to any screenshots provided by review sites. Maybe Jaws will be different, and perhaps the screenshots I've looked at are actually the DVD version upressed to 1080p. ( :
post #49 of 139
I had to do a double take when I saw the perfect "100" scores for audio and video. Not that I doubt it, I haven't actually seen the Bluray yet. I'm very excited to check out a classic that has apparently been given the modern day format treatment it deserves. I remember seeing this with my parents at the drive-in when I was a kid so I have fond memories of films like this as well as Close Encounters, Star Wars, etc. Being a kid of the 70's, it's awesome to see all of these great films again and looking better than ever. Ralph, thanks as always for your great reviews.
post #50 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Jaws is Jurassic Park under water, and JP is essentially Jaws on land. But I'm baffled how a single shark can be so much more terrifying than a '40 dinosaur..

And I've read that Spielberg said when he made JAWS that he'd already made the same movie earlier - "DUEL" smile.gif
post #51 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolcat4843 View Post

Jaws Film Restoration Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLWvXaeDzwU
Very cool!



As someone who wasn't around yet when this movie was released I don't have the same feelings as most of you guys, but as I've grown older I appreciate quality movies both current and classics.

I don't recall ever watching this movie unedited so I'm looking forward to seeing this release straight through in its entirety – the plus is the great A/V scores!!!
post #52 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

Fair enough. Though, I've yet come across a Blu-ray that looked outright superior to any screenshots provided by review sites. Maybe Jaws will be different, and perhaps the screenshots I've looked at are actually the DVD version upressed to 1080p. ( :

I haven't seen the actual disc yet either. But based on the screenshots I've seen (and, yes, I can see the 1080p ones at Blu-ray.com), I think you need these:

img.jpg

The screenshots are fabulous!

Mark
post #53 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

The movie is a classic, but your review for the PQ and AQ is ridiculous. Don't let your love for this film cloud your judgement when it comes to evaluating the film on a technical level. The film doesn't look, or sound amazing. The studios did a decent job with the lousy 70's film stock source material they had to work with.

Sorry, you haven't seen it. Therefore: Fail for you. You know nothing about film stock of any era, lousy or otherwise, other than what you've gleaned from message boards - that is painfully obvious.
post #54 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

You really think this is reference material that will show off the best that Blu-ray has to offer in terms of Video and Audio quality? You really think the perfect 100 score for Video and Audio is justified?
On a technical level the film looks very bland and it's rather soft. It's not like this Blu-ray is a revelation like some other restorations we've seen (e.g. Ben Hur, The Leopard French Edition).

I am biting my tongue in respect to this forum. BITING my tongue and you know how difficult that is for me. If a transfer replicates what the film looked like in projection when it came out, that is all you should ever need or want. Period. This will not be "reference" material for those who only watch movies from the last decade. The transfer looks like the film. What else would you have it look like, for heaven's sake. Let's recap here: I don't think I'll be incorrect when I say you never saw Jaws on its initial release, therefore you have no, let me emphasize, NO point of reference for what this film actually looked like. Strike one. Any softness perceived is inherent to the film as it was shot with diffusion filters - apparently you don't know about diffusion filters or the look that results from the use of them. Strike two. Most importantly, you have not seen this transfer. Period and strike three, you're out.
Edited by haineshisway - 8/3/12 at 2:08pm
post #55 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

I'm not basing my critique off one screenshot. I've seen many screenshots and they have all been rather consistent in quality.
Ben-Hur looks amazing, Jaws looks average. Calling Jaws reference material on a technical level is such an exaggeration. It looks decent for a 70's flick, nothing more.
Every Blu-ray that I thought looked great in screenshots always looked great when watching the actual disk. Unless the guys at Blu-ray.com tampered with these screenshots I know what to expect when I eventually watch the actual disk.

Let's recap here: Ben-Hur was shot on large format 65mm film. Different animal. Jaws looks more than decent for a 70s "flick" - it looks like it should look. Since you don't know what it should look like, your opinion, based on stupid screen caps, is completely irrelevant and, more importantly, silly.
post #56 of 139
Ralph, your review just sold me on Jaws. I was one the fence about pre-ordering it (after all, this is Universal here).

I just got my 119" Da-Lite HP screen installed and this will look amazing on it. Can't wait for the 14th!

Thanks for your review.
post #57 of 139
No matter how good your home theater is, there is one thing that it cannot recreate, and that is the sound of a movie theater full of teenage girls screaming at the top of their lungs.
post #58 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skimanfz1 View Post

No matter how good your home theater is, there is one thing that it cannot recreate, and that is the sound of a movie theater full of teenage girls screaming at the top of their lungs.

They should add something like that as a bonus gag audio track. ^_^
post #59 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

I am biting my tongue in respect to this forum. BITING my tongue and you know how difficult that is for me. If a transfer replicates what the film looked like in projection when it came out, that is all you should ever need or want. Period. This will not be "reference" material for those who only watch movies from the last decade. The transfer looks like the film. What else would you have it look like, for heaven's sake. Let's recap here: I don't think I'll be incorrect when I say you never saw Jaws on its initial release, therefore you have no, let me emphasize, NO point of reference for what this film actually looked like. Strike one. Any softness perceived is inherent to the film as it was shot with diffusion filters - apparently you don't know about diffusion filters or the look that results from the use of them. Strike two. Most importantly, you have not seen this transfer. Period and strike three, you're out.

I never said the Blu-ray of Jaws isn't faithful to the source material. I know about filters and different film stock. You obviously don't know what point I'm trying to make. I'm saying when it comes to judging it to other films of that decade, or older it doesn't impress on a technical level, faithful, or not. There should be separate scores in the video department, one part focused on how faithful the Blu-ray transfer is to the source material, and the second part how the Blu-ray looks on a technical level compared to other films.

If Ralph's scores in regards to Video and Audio are based purely on how faithful the Blu-ray is to the source material then I'm totally fine with it, but I'm sure he has reviewed other Blu-rays that were faithful to the source material and yet they didn't get perfect 100 scores. I'd personally rate the video quality somewhere in the 80's, but this is based off jpg/png files, which some of you insist is not replicating the quality of the Blu-ray, which I don't agree with. It looks pretty good for a 70's film, but not at all reference material.
Edited by emgesp - 8/3/12 at 6:24pm
post #60 of 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by emgesp View Post

It looks pretty good for a 70's film, but not at all reference material.

In other words, you want 'Jaws' to look like, say, 'Toy Story 3' before it can earn a score of 100?

Dude, you must go through life in a constant state of disappointment!

Mark
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Official AVS Blu-ray Disc Reviews › Jaws (Blu-ray) Official AVSForum Review