or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Bram Stoker's Dracula comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bram Stoker's Dracula comparison *PIX* - Page 6

post #151 of 763
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post


The HD version I saw on cable over a year ago was reportedly an older transfer and looked to me just like the superbit color and brightness wise but with more detail.

Can you remember what provider and station this came from? From what you're describing this is my version of Dracula.


We haven't even got to the later parts of the movie where the difference in color timing, contrast and brightness will leave you scratching your head asking "huh?"
post #152 of 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

True, nothing beats a CRT, but that won't make the now green flames in the torch the right color again!


The CRT argument is for another day....but a CRT will not get rid of the ridiculously soft focus, washed out color, or lack of detail.

Guys, lets just be honest here, this transfer SUCKS. Period. Enough with the "directors intent" BS or whatever other mumbo-jumbo justification you try to come up with.

If it looks like a turd and walks like a turd....its s TURD!
post #153 of 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkwhite View Post

+1, much more detailed to me. I compared each picture by looking at his armor, the added detail is easiest to see there.

However, I hate the coloring. I just don't see how this is what was intended, if this is what was intended then he could have easily shot it this way in the first place. The Picture in the theater had a lot more color (over the top), and at the time THAT was what was intended. I think FCC caved to the critics that didn't like the coloring of the film. I think that's all this is, FCC second guessing himself, and what's worse is that the job appears to have been done poorly as evidenced by the green torch.

Agree 100%. I don't doubt that technically the BD has more resolution than the DVD. Of course it does. I don't doubt the film has always had a soft look and shouldn't "pop" on HD. I just don't like the revisionist color timing and possibly clipped blacks.

What's your take on the darkness of the film theatrically? We should always get a slightly better black level at home, but I'm of two minds as to whether the film is genuinely too dark now, or just suffering some Lowry-like syndrome in which they tried to remove the generational shift of the brightness and contrast created by the optical FX, and in leveling it out nearly blacked out a lot of FX.
post #154 of 763
Thread Starter 
Many people has asked me what is my process in doing this comparison threads. I would rather show you my desktop to see my workflow This is on a dual monitor Dell widescreen, Quad-core 2.4 ghz @ 3.2 ghz O/Ced. MPC playing mpeg-2 and AVC streams at the same time.

post #155 of 763
Thread Starter 
post #156 of 763
Thread Starter 
post #157 of 763
Thread Starter 
post #158 of 763
So I take it the moonlight was blue theatrically as well. That crazy Coppola. The shadows are even horribly clipped to dark blobs with no detail. Yuck.
post #159 of 763
Great stuff xylon! I am still most eager to see the infamous superimposed journal entry scene comparisons that Dave had pointed out. Please!!!
post #160 of 763
picked this up today but might not get to watch for a few days.. was only 21.99 euro.... which is quite cheap so i didnt mind taking a punt on it..
post #161 of 763
Nice work Xylon!

Look at the wonky arifacts in the background of the new BD... VERY digital and processed looking, like bad compression!







Although bluer, the SB looks much more natural.






BD




SB dvd
post #162 of 763
Every screen cap clearly shows that the BD has far more detail than the SuperBit version, and subtly more detail than the other HD versions. It was SHOT soft-focus and composited optically; what do you want them to do, reshoot the movie so it looks like Crank???

As for the color changes; this is obviously a matter of taste. For those of you who like the technicolor SB edition that's fine. I prefer the new darker look, but even if I didn't I would accept them because FFC went to great effort to achieve this look.

Whether he is responding the critics of the film release, or simply always hated the SB version (or a little of both) doesn't really matter to me. It's his film and I'm happy to watch it how he intends. If you don't like it, don't buy this version. But don't pretend like this transfer was somehow botched. It has more detail then other releases (and almost certainly as much detail as you're going to get) and greate lengths were taken for a year to get the color timing the way the director wanted.

That is all I can ask for.
post #163 of 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

Agreed Xylon. It was on OnDemand from Comcast in Berkeley.
And yes, I did watch some of the disc tonite. The scene with the vamp hunters in the train looks VERY desaturated EXCEPT for their faces. Like they digitally drained the color out of the rest of the shot. Makes it look like a badly colorized film.
Same with Mina seducing Van Helsing at the end. In the original film, the whole scene was awash in an amber firelight. The official book of the film looks the same. In the new BD, the color of the castle rock/walls behind the characters in now grey and the "fleshtones" of the characters now looks colorized. Like they took the original footage, took the color out, made it B+W then digitally added new color. Just looks odd.


Shots from book








SB dvd






BD






SB dvd





and BD



Since the color of the vamps lips in the above shot stays virtually identical and well saturated in the new BD, just seems to indicate some digital tinkering to make the rest of the face so destaurated..

Also posterization in her skin tone is a lot easier to pick out on the BD. Looks very badly compressed compared with the SB. Now maybe the coloring helped suppress this, but the BD looks like it was shot with a low quality digital camera! I noticed this phenomenon several times during the movie, but the caps here are a very clear example. Looks terrible!

On the SB it looks like firelight reflecting off her smooth, somewhat heavy (likely stage quality) make-up. The BD looks like it was processed to death...maybe oversharpened trying to put detail back after all the tinkering. Sorry, the old one looks better to me. Sad considering that's SD! Drain all the color and brightness out of the image and enhance it, expect an ugly result I guess.

Defend him all you want, but in my eyes Coppola, or whoever actually worked on it, ruined this film. Watching the BD was a depressing experience for me.
post #164 of 763
My pix were shot off my screen, not an actual screen capture and then reduced to 640x480 to post here so they are compressed but I was just taking these to show the color differences. Look to Xylon's much better pix to really see the full res. versions.
post #165 of 763
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoolpsyk View Post

Great stuff xylon! I am still most eager to see the infamous superimposed journal entry scene comparisons that Dave had pointed out. Please!!!

What timestamp is that?
post #166 of 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

What timestamp is that?


0:29:46

I am so interested in this, because on Dave's screen shots I kept thinking he must have his calibration off or something. But when I watched the BR, I was looking for this scene and then I almost missed it because I almost couldn't see the lettering and was looking for it! Of course the way my pj is calibrated could have something to do with it too, so I would really like to know what is on the discs.
Thanks so much.
post #167 of 763
while my calibration may not have been perect, if my calibration had been THAT off, you wouldn't have seen it on the DVD then either as I used the same player, PJ and settings

post #168 of 763
Shouldn't the BRD be more than just slightly better than crummy SD? They could've encoded the BRD at 540p (half of full HD) and the results would've been the same. In fact, I just tried it and they are pretty much the same. Almost no fine detail. Bogus.
post #169 of 763
Hey Xylon, Just wanted to say your shots are proper. I took some shots via PS3's output at 1080i, and they match up nearly perfectly (though mine have a slight tint of green which can probably be explained by the capture card).

Heres some shots for your own comparisons:



post #170 of 763
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dot50Cal View Post

Hey Xylon, Just wanted to say your shots are proper. I took some shots via PS3's output at 1080i, and they match up nearly perfectly (though mine have a slight tint of green which can probably be explained by the capture card).

Good job. The screenshots I post here at AVS should be as close as possible matching it with your properly calibrated sets. Not 100% but close.
post #171 of 763
I'd say pretty exact.

post #172 of 763
Glad to see the conversation...resurrected.

Now, how about that 0:29:46 timestamp?! lol!
post #173 of 763
Blacks are absolutely terrible on this release. Looking at the photo of the guy in the carriage, it's hard to even tell what the hell is going on. On the doc the scene is actually recognizable.
post #174 of 763
We seem to have 2 or 3 issues here:

1) Detail: I don't see how anyone can complain; there is clearly more detail in the BD than the SD versions. It's not like the first release of the 5th Element, which used mpeg2 with too little disk space, this is a high bitrate AVC encoding. The movie simply will never look like Crank, and that's a GOOD THING.

2) Color Timing: This is obviously subjective. I like the creepier atmosphere of the BD, but I can see how others would prefer the DVD color timing.

2.5) Black levels (clearly related to the color timing): A lot of people seem to be most disturbed by the change in black levels in the movie. Since Coppola approved it, it's again fine by me (and mostly responsible for the "creepier" feeling I get from this version) but I can certainly see why some would prefer to see more details. Also, there do appear to be occasional artifacts from the black-crush process. Too bad these movies aren't all mastered in 12 or 16 bit color depth, but it's the reality we are stuck with. I can't imagine noticing those artifacts at 24fps, but that's just me.

Conclusion: There are a couple of reasons why people may not like this transfer, but they seem to have FFC to blame, not SPE or the encoding artists. I cannot imagine that there is significantly more detail to be had form this movie, so people complaining about that are doing so out of unrealistic expectations, or a lack of perspective.

I want to say that this is not like many earlier BD releases and some more recent HD DVD catalog releases, where QC seems to have been the problem (Disney's Dinosaur jumps readily to mind), there was every bit of technology, space, and bandwidth available. The detail from the original is there, it's just a soft-focus movie that was composited optically. In many ways similar to Sleepy Hollow, which has heavy grain and is shot soft-focus in smoke-filled interiors; Warner has been bad-mouthed over how SH looks, but in point of fact it's a good representation of the original.
post #175 of 763
Thread Starter 
I am going to need some favor to AVS members who still sticks to science without any agenda. If you have the Superbit and BD versions can you take screenshots with your camera and using these timestamps? Just to make sure I'm not making any obvious error of some kind with my digital grabs.

Because this can't be fraking right


post #176 of 763
Thread Starter 
post #177 of 763
Thread Starter 
If this is verified by members then a lot of people or so called "experts" will owe Dave Mack a public apology.

So, how do we explain this? Very curious.

I have a few words about this BD transfer as soon as I get more screenshots in. I need to see this thru to the end.
post #178 of 763


Xylon, could you post a version that isn't expanded to pc levels? The pc levels function in the Haali renderer slightly clips black detail. Just to rule out that possibility because if it really does look like that then this disc is truly FUBARed.
post #179 of 763
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post



Xylon, could you post a version that isn't expanded to pc levels? The pc levels function in the Haali renderer slightly clips black detail. Just to rule out that possibility because if it really does look like that then this disc is truly FUBARed.

The BD version is untouched. Haali renderer is used. The DVD version however is expanded to 16-235. But here is the raw version of the DVD 0-255:






I dont use VMR9 renderer for BD anymore because it has that Chroma bug (check out my Terminator 2 PIX review). Anyways I'm open to suggestions but keep in my mind I have seen Dave Mack's screenshots from this timestamp and its very close. I'm kicking myself that I haven't seen it before.
post #180 of 763
What luma range setting is activated within Haali Renderer? There's PC (0-255) and TV (16-235) levels. Not sure which version you're using but on mine selecting TV (16-235) expands it to PC levels.

On a seperate note what YUV colorspace is selected within your Haali control panel? There's BT.601 and BT.709. If you're using Haali Renderer to play dvds and it's on BT.709 than that would explain the orange reds problem that's in a lot of your dvd captures.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Bram Stoker's Dracula comparison *PIX*