or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Enter the Dragon 40th Anniversary Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Enter the Dragon 40th Anniversary Blu-ray - Page 2

post #31 of 66
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post
You have all shamed our temple! mad.gifLeave this island and this sea, speak not of it and wipe it existence from your mind. Leave your access cards and take your Ultrabooks with you! biggrin.gif

 

Nice try, thanks for playing.

post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

Nice try, thanks for playing.

LOL...your response was magnificent, your skill is extraordinary and I was going to ask you to join us.
post #33 of 66
Hey tenthplanet... "it is like a finger pointing a way to the moon... DON'T concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory!"
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchu18 View Post

Hey tenthplanet... "it is like a finger pointing a way to the moon... DON'T concentrate on the finger, or you will miss all that heavenly glory!"

and....NEVER take your eyes off your opponent....even when you bow. smile.gif
post #35 of 66
Any comparison shots to the old release?
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhan View Post

and....NEVER take your eyes off your opponent....even when you bow. smile.gif
That's a given:).
post #37 of 66
confirmed... I received my copy last night.
colors are much more saturated and while the outdoor long shots looked very soft( a function of the original optics I am sure) the indoor stuff is very crisp and modern. sound is the best it's ever been... it's certainly sounds remixed and uncompressed AND... what seems to be subtly retimed (words seem to fit mouth movements much better as this entire movie was original dubbed) and filled in where there used to be no sound before. For example, the scene where Jackie Chan is taken out by BL... there was never a sound there before, now there is an appropriate cracking of bones.

post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

Any comparison shots to the old release?

>>>
http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cID=1716#auswahl
post #39 of 66
Screen caps from a poster on the blu-ray.com

The left image is from the old release. The right image is from the new one.

http://imageshack.us/g/1/10197598/
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhan View Post

Screen caps from a poster on the blu-ray.com

The left image is from the old release. The right image is from the new one.

http://imageshack.us/g/1/10197598/
I am very happy with the new color timing, going off those comparisons. A little more saturation than the older release and better contrast.
post #41 of 66
If you were expecting the same level or better detail then the first BD the caps-a-holic images are going to disappoint. Less detail, softer, white sky, lots of saturation, crushing blacks and gives the impression wb 'fixed' the aliasing by zooming in and filtering. A pick your poison choice.
post #42 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

If you were expecting the same level or better detail then the first BD the caps-a-holic images are going to disappoint. Less detail, softer, white sky, lots of saturation, crushing blacks and gives the impression wb 'fixed' the aliasing by zooming in and filtering. A pick your poison choice.

It is only fair to make such a judgement if you actually have both BRs and apparently you do not. Hence, your conclusion is not worth much, if anything.
post #43 of 66
Ownership doesn't matter, what matters is whether the comparison shots are authentic. If they are, then he's right. It's not impressive, we've seen far more detailed transfers for this type of film stock. It does, however, get rid of the pixellated edges on the original dog of a transfer.
post #44 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

Ownership doesn't matter, what matters is whether the comparison shots are authentic. If they are, then he's right. It's not impressive, we've seen far more detailed transfers for this type of film stock. It does, however, get rid of the pixellated edges on the original dog of a transfer.

And you are someone else who has not seen them side by side. Correct?
post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

And you are someone else who has not seen them side by side. Correct?
rolleyes.gif
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

Ownership doesn't matter, what matters is whether the comparison shots are authentic. If they are, then he's right. It's not impressive, we've seen far more detailed transfers for this type of film stock. It does, however, get rid of the pixellated edges on the original dog of a transfer.
May be Warner got a Darbee and ran the old HD transfer through it and boosted the colors to get what we see in the screen caps. smile.gif
post #47 of 66
New version definitely looks softer in those caps. Fortunately I don't sit close enough to notice the jaggies much, so I'll have to give the 40th anniversary edition a pass. Also the new version looks too saturated and contrasty.
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42Plasmaman View Post

May be Warner got a Darbee and ran the old HD transfer through it and boosted the colors to get what we see in the screen caps. smile.gif

Do your research. The Darblet doesn't affect colors at all, nor will it remove jaggies or other visible artifacts in a bad transfer.
post #49 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Do your research. The Darblet doesn't affect colors at all, nor will it remove jaggies or other visible artifacts in a bad transfer.
Dude... it was clearly a joke.
post #50 of 66
I now have both versions and the screen caps are fairly accurate in representing the few pros and considerable cons of either release. The new release turned out to be extremely hard to find at any retail store and I wound up getting it at list price (which I'm kicking myself for after viewing it) at Amoeba Records in Hollywood. If a viewer isn't familiar with the previous Blu-ray release, they might be forgiven thinking this transfer looks "great" as it's so sharp and vivid but it's obvious if one had seen any previous home video release that the contrast and color is jacked up to "Pulp Fiction" levels of near-cartoonish color saturation and a lot of detail is blown out or crushed. I will say as it's been mentioned in this thread already that the audio is actually the best improvement over any previous release that I've ever seen.

I really thought Warner Bros was starting to get it together on putting out decent catalog releases on Blu-ray. Not this time.
post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

And you are someone else who has not seen them side by side. Correct?

Screenshots are digital frames taken from the discs. So... yes, I have, in effect, seen them side by side.
post #52 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

I now have both versions and the screen caps are fairly accurate in representing the few pros and considerable cons of either release. The new release turned out to be extremely hard to find at any retail store and I wound up getting it at list price (which I'm kicking myself for after viewing it) at Amoeba Records in Hollywood. If a viewer isn't familiar with the previous Blu-ray release, they might be forgiven thinking this transfer looks "great" as it's so sharp and vivid but it's obvious if one had seen any previous home video release that the contrast and color is jacked up to "Pulp Fiction" levels of near-cartoonish color saturation and a lot of detail is blown out or crushed. I will say as it's been mentioned in this thread already that the audio is actually the best improvement over any previous release that I've ever seen.

I really thought Warner Bros was starting to get it together on putting out decent catalog releases on Blu-ray. Not this time.
So if I want the more natural picture I should grab the original blu ray or HD DVD of this, does that go with what you;ve seen.
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deviation View Post

Dude... it was clearly a joke.

It was a joke borne of ignorance and not funny.
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by FitzRoy View Post

Screenshots are digital frames taken from the discs. So... yes, I have, in effect, seen them side by side.

And you're viewing these screen shots on the same calibrated display that you would watch the movie on? Or you're viewing them on an off-brand LCD monitor with a 50:1 contrast ratio and laughably inaccurate colors that you picked up for $60 at Costco?
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post

So if I want the more natural picture I should grab the original blu ray or HD DVD of this, does that go with what you;ve seen.

It's a tough call. The old release despite the marginally better detail still looks kind of soft and dull and has been noted, is a really lousy, primitive transfer that looks almost like an upscaled dvd in some scenes. The new release has blown out detail, too much contrast and oversaturated color but frankly in my case using a custom setting on my 65" plasma with low saturated color and the black setting turned to "light among other things, it does look better. I should also add, I've never owned or seen the HD-DVD release of this movie, just the old laserdisc and 2 disc DVD release prior to the blu-ray release.

The price is the real sticking point - I would frankly wait for the price to dip down below $15 on the new release or just go for the old release which seems to be almost always on sale below $10. Neither version is worth more.
post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

If a viewer isn't familiar with the previous Blu-ray release, they might be forgiven thinking this transfer looks "great" as it's so sharp and vivid but it's obvious if one had seen any previous home video release that the contrast and color is jacked up to "Pulp Fiction" levels of near-cartoonish color saturation and a lot of detail is blown out or crushed.

So much bad information in this thread. Pulp Fiction has always been a very contrasty film. The movie was shot on slow film stock under intensely hot light specifically in order to give it that super-contrasty look with extremely saturated colors. That's a hallmark of cinematographer Andrzej Sekula's style. That's just what the movie looked like in theaters in 1994.

Just because one movie looks different than other movies doesn't mean that it's wrong or that it's been digitally molested. Not all movies are meant to look the same as one another.
post #57 of 66
Thread Starter 
Price can always be a sticking point. But if one could only have one, which one would you choose? 2007 BR or 2013 BR?
Edited by fookoo_2010 - 6/22/13 at 11:08am
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

It's a tough call. The old release despite the marginally better detail still looks kind of soft and dull and has been noted, is a really lousy, primitive transfer that looks almost like an upscaled dvd in some scenes. The new release has blown out detail, too much contrast and oversaturated color but frankly in my case using a custom setting on my 65" plasma with low saturated color and the black setting turned to "light among other things, it does look better. I should also add, I've never owned or seen the HD-DVD release of this movie, just the old laserdisc and 2 disc DVD release prior to the blu-ray release.

The price is the real sticking point - I would frankly wait for the price to dip down below $15 on the new release or just go for the old release which seems to be almost always on sale below $10. Neither version is worth more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post

So if I want the more natural picture I should grab the original blu ray or HD DVD of this, does that go with what you;ve seen.
Thanks, I think the 2007 blu ray and HD DVD share the same transfer. I'm thinking to watch the price on the 2013 blu ray , most Warner's do seem to drop in time. You have provided good food for thought.
post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

So much bad information in this thread. Pulp Fiction has always been a very contrasty film. The movie was shot on slow film stock under intensely hot light specifically in order to give it that super-contrasty look with extremely saturated colors. That's a hallmark of cinematographer Andrzej Sekula's style. That's just what the movie looked like in theaters in 1994.

Just because one movie looks different than other movies doesn't mean that it's wrong or that it's been digitally molested. Not all movies are meant to look the same as one another.

I saw Pulp Fiction numerous times during it's initial theatrical run right up to a few years ago and it *never* looked as color saturated as the Blu-ray release does. I don't disagree with your comment on how it was shot to achieve the look it (ideally) has, but the Blu-ray took it to almost ridiculous primary color levels.

BTW, what other "bad" information do you find in this thread... especially regarding the two ETD Blu-ray releases?
post #60 of 66
Down to 7 pound amazonuk
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Enter the Dragon 40th Anniversary Blu-ray