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 4

post #91 of 763
While not as annoying as the botched Fog HD DVD import, this clinched it. Monsters HD will win out again for me. (Now at MPEG-4)

Thanks Xylon.
post #92 of 763
im watching the movie right now and next to Crash on BD this is certainly the worst HD movies I own on either format. I look at the screen shots and have to remind myself that one is supposed to be HD. If we did this comparison with any "average" HD DVD/BD to its same DVD there would be no question of a difference.

I am sure without labling which screen cap is which most of us would not be able to tell which is the HD version and which is the SD version...and thats just not right.

The audio really sucks too.
post #93 of 763
I thought the audio sounded fine even though I was listening to it via 2 channel PCM. (using Dolby Pro Logic II)
post #94 of 763
I just watched the Blu Ray version of this movie last night and the extras tonight. Previously I owned the Superbit version.

After watching the making of/visual effects documentaries, does anyone believe that Coppola wanted this movie to look extra sharp? He used a camera from the early 1900's for filming scenes to get a certain "look". He refused to use any kind of effect that wasn't used around "when the book was published". It was also filmed all in one building, just like silent era movies.

Maybe the softness of the movie was directors intent???

If you haven't watched the extras on this disc, it is a treat. This is the first time I personally have ever seen them.
post #95 of 763
Actually he only used that "camera from the early 1900's" for one 30 second scene. When Vlad is walking through and first sees Mina in the streets of London.
The rest was shot on 35mm using regular modern arriflex cameras...

"Camera
Arriflex 535

Laboratory
Technicolor (prints)

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm

Cinematographic process
Spherical

Printed film format
35 mm

Aspect ratio
1.85 : 1"


He may have indeed wanted a "soft" look but it's not because of the camera itself.
post #96 of 763
I can buy that FFC wanted a kind of soft dreamlike quality to his film but the lack of definition we're seeing is kind of troubling. You'd expect even soft 35mm to have more detail than we're seeing. The previous HD transfer was also mushy as well. Was it that soft in the theater?
post #97 of 763
Thread Starter 
post #98 of 763
Thread Starter 
post #99 of 763
Yep, in the BluRay the moonlight is not blue anymore and his robe doesn't match how it looked earlier, it looks kinda purple. And the flame from the torch looks green!
post #100 of 763
Come now Dave, I'm certain the gospel like long lost answer print had green fire instead of orange... except of course in the scene where it's now white instead of orange...

I guess it's possible that every print we've ever seen has been a little off, and certainly the Blu-Ray is sharper and more natural looking than the Superbit, but Zeotrope has some 'splaining to do here.

Definitely finding a Superbit copy now. How sad is that...
post #101 of 763
I posted a new thread on my thoughts on this release(due to my complete opposite thoughts), I am very impressed to put it short

-Gary
post #102 of 763
I was also impressed with the Blu Ray. I traded my Superbit back in for credit. I don't care how this version compared to previous versions because it's the best one I've seen yet. (I had a 2 different DVD versions)
post #103 of 763
Gary, I think many people have issues that the director/studio have packaged a new film under the old name and told us that our past experiences with BSD are invalid or foolish.

While any changes to a 15 year old film are highly subjective, I and some others feel that it's just different now-- in some places better, in some places worse. Your new thread seemed a bit harsh on people like me.

Will I ever watch my Superbit or Criterion version again? Nope, it's just too inconvenient to switch players. But I also keep in mind that the version now in my Panny BD10 is a new and different creature.
post #104 of 763
Indeed. Gary, I and several others here are hardly from the "Make our HD films look like Crank!" school.
I just would like to know why a good 1/3 of the film now looks radically different from before. If the whole film had looked different I could buy the "the old print didn't look right argument" but when some scenes look EXACTLY the same colorwise and brightness wise to the previous DVD and Director approved LD transfer but then many scenes look radically different where what was once blue is now green and what was once colorful now looks like B+W, something's up.
It's revisionist. Nothing wrong with that but at least be up front about it. They just said, oh, all the old versions including the theatrical prints were wrong. Some of us are skeptical.
post #105 of 763
the reason I started another thread was that there are no threads praising the title, only trashing so thats all that anyone will see, but it got the axe so no biggie, I was replying to comments I have seen in many threads that go like" is this as bad as Dracula" "Dracula is the worst BD yet" I mean really? WTF?

Nathan, I was not speakng to those concerned with changes

Dave, I understand your point, I think this is just another case of a director updating his work to what he now wants it to be seen as, I have no problems with this release as it comes from the folks that know what it should look like or should I say how they "now" want it to be seen

-Gary
post #106 of 763
Cool, man. I do hear ya.

post #107 of 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by vancouver View Post


The audio really sucks too.


the 5.1 PCM track is one of the best on the format, the score is lush, bass is tight and precise, dialog is good



-Gary
post #108 of 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Murrell View Post

I was replying to comments I have seen in many threads that go like" is this as bad as Dracula" "Dracula is the worst BD yet" I mean really? WTF?


-Gary

Totally agree with you there.
post #109 of 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by rover2002 View Post

Are you sure this was remastered?

Yes. The DVD looks like... DVD. The HD looks like... HD. There is no comparison. The HD is soft but it's HD and far more film like than the DVD with its unclean edges and murky video look.
post #110 of 763
Again, while I understand the aversion to "revisionist filmmaking", the fact that the Blu-ray strongly agrees with the HBO and VOOM versions (which as far as I am aware both post-date the Superbit DVD, no?) suggests the interpretation is deliberate, or that the Superbit DVD is the one that is actually the one that is most revisionist, and is simply being accepted as the de facto standard amongst HT enthusiasts because it's the one they're the most likely to own.

I'm all for lush and vibrant color for eye candy, but I think if we really want to respect the work of the artists, then this newer interpretation is the one we should go with. Doesn't mean anyone has to like it better, but I see a lot of insinuation that the version on the Blu-ray was somehow a mistake; given the visual evidence in this thread, I think it's clear that it's not a singular change on just this version.
post #111 of 763
I have not yet watched the movie (it's sitting at home though!), but from these screen caps it's clear to me that the Blu-ray has substantially more detail and less artifacts than the Superbit DVD. The difference is more subtle with the broadcast HD, but that's to be expected. I like the changes in color timing, but even if I didn't I'd accept FFC wishes for how it should be timed, as it's his film and not mine.
post #112 of 763
Where's this detail some are speaking of or are these captures lying? Damn, Xylon, you did it again.

I'm surprised the HBO version is basically identical to the BRD, at least in this shot, even down to the green torch. Is there a HD broadcast that's not being discussed in this thread that has the blue moonlight?
post #113 of 763
I am also surprised to see this last set of screenshots look identical to each other, not including the Superbit of course. I'm curious to see more of the screenies. I saw this movie on HDNet Movies and I could have sworn it looked like the superbit as far as colors go. Maybe I missed something.
post #114 of 763
While all of the HD screen caps look substantially better than the DVD, on this shot (roof top Dracula) I agree that the HD shots are very similar...with the Voom image being very slightly softer (look at the highlights in his hair). I couldn't differentiate between the HBO and BD on this screen cap.

But why is that a problem? HD broadcasts should be as good as possible. I know that in many cases they are bit-starved, but clearly in this shot (notably with lots of black) there doesn't appear to be a problem with the HBO image. All of the HD looks good (as one would expect). In some of the images with more details the BD looks best, but it's never night and day with the HD material like any of them are compared to the DVD.

But again, how is that bad? They all look film-like in this instance, and that's what we want, right?
post #115 of 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Where's this detail some are speaking of or are these captures lying? Damn, Xylon, you did it again.

I'm surprised the HBO version is basically identical to the BRD, at least in this shot, even down to the green torch. Is there a HD broadcast that's not being discussed in this thread that has the blue moonlight?

Hiya Kram!

The one I watched was on comcast OnDemand and to me looked like the SB but just sharper. I wasn't actually looking for differences but I didn't notice any as dramatic as this either.
Another thing to note is that the LD resembles the DVD in regards to the colors more than the new BD and that transfer was approved by Coppolla.
post #116 of 763
I'm not sure what the source of the broadcast HD version I saw but it might've been HDNet. It was definitely not a "new" transfer though and I don't remember any of these wacky color changes.
post #117 of 763
me too. very odd.
post #118 of 763
The green torch...same colorist who did Luke's lightsaber on the Millenium Falcon and gave us various other strange colors amidts FX shots and explosions. Writing lost in shadow? Same guy who evened out the contrast while rendering Vader's lightsaber magenta.

Zoetrope inherited the "all changes (including reversed sound) are intentional" party line from Lucasfilm.

I think the way films are run through digital machines these days it boils down to (to mix nerd genres):

The needs of the many [shots] outweigh the needs of the few, or the one [shot].

Push a few buttons, send 'er through, bang you're done!

I AM curious what Star Wars will look like when we see it on HD disc. The DVDs were the first time Star Wars was brighter than Empire Strkes Back for me, and definitely the first time Luke was actually blonder in the second film. Again, I agree earlier transfers of SW were way too bright, but they went overboard darkening that one for DVD and changing the colors, much like Dra-cu-la.
post #119 of 763
Yep, say what you want but that is the only shot in the film where fire from a torch is green. before people were just saying, "your display needs to be calibrated..."

hmmm....
post #120 of 763
I actually thought Empire Strikes Back was brighter than it should've been. They really cranked up the green on Yoda.

Re: green torch

It's an interesting visual but I seriously doubt that's the orginal color or did FFC always intend to have it green but didn't have enough money to fix it?
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*