The Amazing Spider-Man - Page 4

Has anyone else noticed just how dark this transfer is? A lot of reviewers have commented on how "dark" the film looks, but while I realise a lot of the film is set at night, I'm certain it wasn't this dark in cinemas. It was my favourite film of the summer and I saw it 3x in 3D (one of those at the London BFI IMAX) and once in 2D, and every screening was dramatically brighter than the 2D Blu-ray. It honestly looks as though someone has turned the contrast right down on my display, dulling even the brightest highlights and making nighttime scenes downright murky. If I turn up the contrast on my calibrated Pioneer KURO to maximum it looks much better, but it's troubling that I should have to do this.

Here are some screencaps from the Blu-ray.com review:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

And here are some screencaps of the same scenes from the trailer:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

As you can see the difference is not subtle. Now I suppose one might argue the trailer does not represent the finished film, but speaking objectively, the trailer is pretty much a 100% match to what I saw several times in cinemas - even the 3D version which was surprisingly bright and colourful. And subjectively speaking I much prefer the look of the trailer, in which the cinematography looked gorgeous. On 2D Blu-ray, not so much.

For further evidence look no further than the BD menu, in which the clips used are much brighter and look great. Sure, they might have been tampered with - but what does that tell you? If the people at Sony who made the menu thought the transfer could do with brightening why release it that way? I think someone at Sony cocked up - I'm just surprised there's nothing online about this besides pretty much every reviewer saying the film looks "dark". To me, that darkness is not intentional. Anyone else agree?

Yes, perhaps the trailer caps are a little on the bright side. That might be to do with the way they were capped, I'm not sure. But even so, I'm sure they are closer to what I saw in theatres. And anyway, I'm not suggesting that the trailer caps are 100% accurate to the theatrical look. I'm suggesting that the 2D BD is on the dim side - distractingly so. Even though I lurk here regularly, I've not made a single post in years - my disappointment in this release has caused me to dig out my user details and seek answers. Check all your copies. I don't have the tools to prove it with charts and numerical values, but there's not a hint of anything approaching peak white in this transfer. Even the credits are dim, a bit like the Fellowship of the Ring extended release but without the green tint. As I've said, it's like someone turned the contrast right down. The film was really attractive in all the screenings I saw - colourful, even - and I think something has gone badly wrong in the transfer to Blu-ray.

Just look at this shot of Gwen. I know she's supposed to be hiding in a dark cupboard, but you can barely see her. Or this shot of Spidey on the bridge. Those lamps on the right hand side of the image are supposed to be the main light source in that shot (besides the moon) and they are nowhere near what I would call "bright". And this scene is supposed to be taking place in bright morning sunshine. Why do their clothes and faces all look so underexposed? Finally, I'm not sure why Spider-Man looks so surprised in this shot. It's supposed to be blinding but just doesn't look that way to me.

What do others think?

A little? Come on, there's no black on them, brightness is completely effed up

OK, so the trailer is too bright. Perhaps I should not have brought it into this, as it's not an accurate reference. But that doesn't mean that the Blu-ray isn't too dim. Please realise that I'm not suggesting they made poor artistic decisions with the lighting, exposure and grading of the film - I'm suggesting that it's not designed to be as dim as this, that someone messed up in the transfer. We can argue how dim it was in cinemas - having seen the film four times in three different cinemas, one of them full IMAX, I would never describe it as "dark as hell" - but that's not going to prove anything as everyone's subjective experience is different. Different cinemas use different projectors and different projectionist, and errors (or cost cutting measures) can creep in, making experiences wildly different from one screening to the next. So, ignoring the fact that every trailer, TV spot, promotional image and theatrical screening I saw had a higher contrast image, what can we do to objectively test it? I would suggest looking for peak luminance values in shots where there's a bright light source, like the sun, headlights, etc. Also the credits and opening Columbia logo might be a good test, or indeed the Marvel logo at the start of the film (as these last two should theoretically be similar if not identical to other Sony/Marvel films). I've done a little testing using the eyedropper tool in Photoshop and I cannot find a single luminance value above 210. That's what, 25 lower than maximum? So we're only getting about 89% of the potential contrast, if you go by that logic. It's The Fellowship of the Ring extended edition all over again - but without the green tint. Just look at the credits on The Amazing Spider-Man - nowhere near white. I just cannot fathom why they would cut off peak luminance at 210.

I mean, seriously. Objectivity aside... does THIS look like properly exposed skin tone to you, bearing in mind they are in a brightly lit laboratory with an illuminated ceiling, surrounded by white walls and reflective surfaces?

Or does THIS look like a stunning final shot to end the film with? The moon is out in full, not a cloud in the night sky... and yet it looks like a dim bulb, about to go out, and the details on Spider-Man are just barely visible. Doesn't look right.

One can always argue this is artistic intent, but I don't believe for one second that the guy who shot such bold looking films as Pearl Harbor and The Rock got his hands on the RED Epic, came away with these images and declared them "the best I have ever seen". I think someone screwed up and I want to prove it because I hate how murky this film looks on Blu-ray, it's ruining my enjoyment of my favourite film of the summer. OK, so that's hyperbolic in the extreme but I've got to at least try to get to the bottom of it, ya know?
Edited by Omar McNulty - 11/28/12 at 5:28am

OK, perhaps I should have said "not a cloud covering the moon". But we can quibble over semantics and accurate description... what I'm really interested in is whether people genuinely think this looks right. Not "good", but "correct". As an editor who shoots and grades a lot of footage myself, and as a Blu-ray enthusiast who is satisfied with the majority of titles in his collection, this is one title that really bothers me in terms of image accuracy. I've just never heard of a correct transfer with luminance maxing so low. Why not make the peak whites go all the way up to 235? If I felt the transfer looked "right" to my eyes, trust me I wouldn't be bothered with numerical values like this. It's the fact it looks so murky, even in (supposedly) sunny outdoor scenes, that has got me looking for this evidence, and I'm hoping for a fix - or at least a definitive answer, if that's not too much to hope for.

Why make everything dark so that nothing is truly white but grey at best? Why is that?

It was better than I expected, good even. Really liked setting up the web in the sewer. I still like the original better, but kind of think one that was half of each would be the best.

I liked that they took it more seriously than Raimi did. Certainly a flawed film but given time and a better script, this series with Garfield as Spider-Man could end up being better in the end.

This is an entertaining, but deeply flawed film. It is not a good film, but it's not bad or even mediocre.

The wheels really start to come off at about 1:24 in, although the problems are evident well before then. This film's script is many re-writes and edits away from a smooth, tight narrative.

Spiderman is more like spiderboy: impetuous, irresponsible, and bent on vengeance more often than not. The villain is just laughable, almost embarrassingly implausible in conception.

Just another in a string of 2012 duds.

Well, he is a teenage boy. I'm not sure what your point is.

I thought this was an all-around solid Spider-Man movie, right up there with Spider-Man 2. Sure, there were liberties taken with the source material, and I don't think that either series has totally nailed the Peter Parker character, I thought they did a better job with Spider-Man himself, looking more like the comic book character in action. I was sorry to see the change in costume, but it wasn't horrible. The origin story could have been shortened, kind of like what they did with the second Hulk movie. We're familiar enough with the character at this point that the retelling was unnecessary and didn't add anything to the movie.

The Lizard was a mixed bag. I would have liked to see some of Conner's family introduced, and a little more focus on the Lizard's plans for domination. Maybe a little less time on Spidey's origin could have allowed for this to be more developed. While not as poorly done as the Goblin's design from the Raimi movies, I also would have preferred that the Lizard's face had been more true to the comic-version, rather than the flattened version we were given.

The good part was how the characters were handled. I liked Captain Stacey and how protective he was of his daughter. Flash was appropriately a good jerk. The relationship between Peter and Gwen was well-formed and felt right. Peter's nerdiness could have been emphasized a little more, though. We saw touches of it, which was good, and it was cool to see the return of the webshooters.

The look and sound of the film were just fine, not spectacular but more than adequate.

All-in-all, they did well enough with this movie that I'm eager to see what the do with the sequel.

Scott

Consider the people who never saw the first SM movies. It's all fresh to them.

Then I fail to see the problem.

This is slightly off topic, but are comics geared towards youth today?! Remember when you were 10-11, and you scraped together some change to get your favorite comic at the news stand, and you couldnt wait until that day in the month when you knew it was coming? Those days are gone . Long gone.

While others liked Spiderman or Hulk, my childhood hero was the Might Thor. The hammer, the super strength, this immortal kicking villains butts on earth. So I was very happy the movie got made, but I had fears they would ruin it like they did Galactus in the Fantastic Four movie. He's a giant cloud there . They did an okay job, my only complaint is the same one most have with this current generation of Marvel Studios movies. They are actor vehicles, where the actor gets 99% of the face time while the hero does only a cameo . Hemsworth not wearing the helmet and spending 90% of the movie NOT being Thor . He's cast off to earth and stripped of his powers. It was a clever way to give the actor the face time thats was probably written in their contracts . When Thor was actually Thor, it was good . Loki stole the show though.

The movie went on to make 180M in the US, and 450M total worldwide. I was shocked by yhis because Thor is a second tier character in the marvel heirarchy, yet his box office total puts him behind only Spiderman and Iron Man! So that guaranteed an immediate sequel. Started shooting in London, and looks to be twice as good as the original.

It got me interested in the comic again, so I went to a shop because I heard Thor started over again at issue #1. So I looked at price on the comic...3.99...3.99...plus tax ...are they NUTS ?! And the comic felt no thicker than the old comics ! Theres LESS story in it, its more about artwork now! You get lots of panels with NO dialogue, just art! Wow...I read there was a huge comics industry crash in the 2000s, and comics dont sell like they used to. So they're like compensating by overpricing everything and basically pricing young people completely out of their customer base! I'd hate to be that 10-11 year old today ! Its like buy this comic OR eat ! They've shifted their focus to the movie audience.

They sell paperbacks with storyline compilations. 30 bucks...30 bucks ...the paperbacks are what ahould be 3.99 ! And the thin comic should be a dollar, 1.25...I thought about getting the two Thor issues, but naw, theres no way I'm spending almosy $9.00 on two comics with just artwork and limited dialogue ! What happened to the comics industry?!

It's basically like you said. There was a crash, due to the over inflation of comics as "collectibles." I worked in a comic shop in the early to mid nineties, when Superman "died," and we did very well. Then with the start of Image Comics, we were selling hundreds of copies of those early issues, because people were buying multiple copies, and then you had all the gimmick covers, with holograms and foil and glow in the dark. So the industry killed itself. It stopped being about the content and was all about the gimmicks.
It's a shame because right now there is some great stuff being published, but like you, I can't spend $4 on a comic unless its something I have been anticipating. And I haven't bought a book in a long time.

Thats what happened. This is a grown persons product now . There used to be 3-4 shops in the area, now its only ONE. Fat Jack's Comic Cript is the lone survivor. I'm over that shock I got after looking a the prices there, and I still want those first first two Thor issues of the new run, and every new issue:). I'll have to search for some online merchants and see if I can get a discount on a package. I'm not trying to get robbed at a specialty shop .

The problems with modern comics boil down to catering to the movie industry because that's where the big money is now. The two major publishers (DC and Marvel) for all intents and purposes are basically publishing comics of franchise titles as promotional tie-ins to successful movies. Other big publishers like dark Horse are primarily publishers of movie and tv series licensed titles. The smaller independent publishers and creators are doing stuff with the ideal intent of their properties being made into movies or tv shows.

It seems no one can tell a proper, concise story anymore and the quality of art has exponentially dropped as hundreds of new artists find their way into the industry.

Well the first Walking Dead had a print run under 8000 copies.

Try Mile High Comics.

If you have the comic bug and feel like getting your monies worth, you may want to look into omnibuses. For example, the Simonson Thor Omnibus has about 36 comics in it and 1192 pages (better deals are out there, but it recently went out of print so the prices are climbing). I got into omnibuses after The Avengers was released and find that omnibuses provide the greatest bang-for-buck, and are nice collector items as well. Here's one for the Amazing Spider-Man fans.

The big Omnibus books have their pros and cons. Pros include the fact you mention that they contain well over 1,000 pages of stories and many of the Omnibus collections feature key runs of a particular series. The "remastering" of the original artwork in these archive editions can widely vary however, as especially for older comics, there only option is for scanning and cleaning up and recoloring the art directly off an old comic with mixed results as the original art or even a B/W stat is long gone.

Negatives vary depending on the person's tastes - Omnibus books are very heavy and cumbersome and because of the page count, often tough to lay flat to view the page art closest to the binding. The other big issue is the cost, especially after the title (quickly) goes out of print. Some of the more desirable books like The Fantastic Four Vol 2 and the two Frank Miller Daredevil collections run upwards of $300 on places like eBay.

It should also be mentioned that there's a few titles that have been released as oversized "Absolute" Editions (9 1/2" x 16") almost exclusively from significant comic runs published in the last 15 - 20 years like the Frank Miller Batmans, most of Alan Moore's stuff (Watchman, V For Vendetta, etc), the Sandman series and others. Since art from most of these books still exists or was worked on to some degree in the digital medium and exist as hi-res digital files, these books usually look spectacular. The newest "fad" is from primarily publisher IDW who are releasing "Artist Editions" of runs of a comic or particular artist' work scanned directly from the original b/w line art warts and all at actual size (usually 12" x 17"+).

I actually prefer the smaller, cheaper and easier to procure "Marvel Masterwork" editions which normally collect about 12 issues per book and run about $55 new for hardcover and about $30 for softcover. Art and color is the same quality as the Omnibus editions and you're more able to pick specific runs of a series with less filler, something that became a real problem in the 70's for Marvel.

I just watched tonite and around the 1:52 mark on the 3d disc, the sound goes out for about 10-15 secs. If I rewind and play again, the same thing happens. Is it a bad disc or do other people experience this too?