sigh. Have you seen Die hard in the theater. It was filmed very soft and "oily" (best way I can describe it) on purpose. It does a great job of mimicing the original film. Understand directors intent before you start looking at how high a movie should be in the highly over rated tier model.
-
Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.
Buena Vista's and others latest round is unimpressive. (Mini review)
So we're finally getting some of the classic Disney action flicks and other movies on Bluray. Crimson Tide, The Rock, Con-Air, Die-Hard, etc.
I was thrilled when they all arrived and I quickly inserted the discs, hit play and prepared myself for visual/audio orgasms.
I wasn't too concerned about the uncompressed PCM only 5.1 audio but it should have been a red flag for how these were made. As you see I quickly saw that folks over at the duplication center merely threw in the master, hit play, record and walked off for a coffee break.
Sure I appreciate them not having to apply Dolby Digital compression to the master audio track and giving me uncompressed 5.1 Sure I appreciate the 1080p resolution. But what I didn't appreciate was the absolutely ZERO modern day post processing before or while they did the transfer!
Die Hard especially is guilty of this. The movie sounds pretty good. SoundFX are dynamic, dialog is clear but the movie looks like a fourth generation transfer from 16mm! YUK. And it's not because Panavision lenses and the film at the time were that soft. I have seen movies OLDER than these look better thanks to post processing/remastering.
The Buena Vista ones are not as bad but they don't *pop* that is for sure.
I guess maybe we can hope for a special edition or something.
Armageddon was never released anamorphic on DVD. Not even the Criterion one. So I looked forward to not only seeing it 2:35:1 but in HD. But now I am worried that it too will be a PLAY-RECORD-GO-GET-COFFEE transfer. :\\
I was thrilled when they all arrived and I quickly inserted the discs, hit play and prepared myself for visual/audio orgasms.
I wasn't too concerned about the uncompressed PCM only 5.1 audio but it should have been a red flag for how these were made. As you see I quickly saw that folks over at the duplication center merely threw in the master, hit play, record and walked off for a coffee break.
Sure I appreciate them not having to apply Dolby Digital compression to the master audio track and giving me uncompressed 5.1 Sure I appreciate the 1080p resolution. But what I didn't appreciate was the absolutely ZERO modern day post processing before or while they did the transfer!
Die Hard especially is guilty of this. The movie sounds pretty good. SoundFX are dynamic, dialog is clear but the movie looks like a fourth generation transfer from 16mm! YUK. And it's not because Panavision lenses and the film at the time were that soft. I have seen movies OLDER than these look better thanks to post processing/remastering.
The Buena Vista ones are not as bad but they don't *pop* that is for sure.
I guess maybe we can hope for a special edition or something.
Armageddon was never released anamorphic on DVD. Not even the Criterion one. So I looked forward to not only seeing it 2:35:1 but in HD. But now I am worried that it too will be a PLAY-RECORD-GO-GET-COFFEE transfer. :\\
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Die Hard is from Fox, not Disney. Also, it has DTS-MA audio, not PCM. And if they're accurately reproducing the original theatrical experience, I see no reason for them to go back and add a sharpen filter or some ******** like that. Edge enhancement is a BAD thing. And considering its' age, I thought Die Hard looked pretty good on Blu-ray.
Just watched The Rock last night - and the presentation was fantastic. It's really cool that Disney brought along all of the supplemental material from the Criterion release and stuck with the director approved master for the transfer.
Just watched The Rock last night - and the presentation was fantastic. It's really cool that Disney brought along all of the supplemental material from the Criterion release and stuck with the director approved master for the transfer.
Okay I am sorry. I will never post a review ever again. I am obviously not qualified.
a review is fine if you get facts straight and you understand the history of the film. Otherwise just say "I didn't like it cuz....". You made it sound like the studios did a bad job transferring the movie. The only way you can know that is if you know how the film was shot and what directorial intent was utilized on said film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelsmack /forum/post/12801828
Okay I am sorry. I will never post a review ever again. I am obviously not qualified.
a review is fine if you get facts straight and you understand the history of the film. Otherwise just say "I didn't like it cuz....". You made it sound like the studios did a bad job transferring the movie. The only way you can know that is if you know how the film was shot and what directorial intent was utilized on said film.
The Rock and Con Air both look really good on Blu-ray considering their age. Die Hard not as good as them but still pretty good for its age.
go away, you don't know jack
![]()
-Gary
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelsmack /forum/post/12801501
SoundFX are dynamic, dialog is clear but the movie looks like a fourth generation transfer from 16mm! YUK. And it's not because Panavision lenses and the film at the time were that soft. I have seen movies OLDER than these look better thanks to post processing/remastering.
go away, you don't know jack
-Gary
I thought CON AIR looks pretty damn good. ROCK as well. ROCK was the best i've ever seen it (had the laser, non-anamporphic DVD, Criterion).
DIE HARD was so typical John McTiernan back in the day. Soft, anamorphic look. Remember that crappy VanDamme Hockey movie? Forgot the name. Looks just like it.
DIE HARD was so typical John McTiernan back in the day. Soft, anamorphic look. Remember that crappy VanDamme Hockey movie? Forgot the name. Looks just like it.
Embarrassing post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pixelsmack /forum/post/12801501
So we're finally getting some of the classic Disney action flicks and other movies on Bluray. Crimson Tide, The Rock, Con-Air, Die-Hard, etc.
I was thrilled when they all arrived and I quickly inserted the discs, hit play and prepared myself for visual/audio orgasms.
I wasn't too concerned about the uncompressed PCM only 5.1 audio but it should have been a red flag for how these were made. As you see I quickly saw that folks over at the duplication center merely threw in the master, hit play, record and walked off for a coffee break.
Sure I appreciate them not having to apply Dolby Digital compression to the master audio track and giving me uncompressed 5.1 Sure I appreciate the 1080p resolution. But what I didn't appreciate was the absolutely ZERO modern day post processing before or while they did the transfer!
Die Hard especially is guilty of this. The movie sounds pretty good. SoundFX are dynamic, dialog is clear but the movie looks like a fourth generation transfer from 16mm! YUK. And it's not because Panavision lenses and the film at the time were that soft. I have seen movies OLDER than these look better thanks to post processing/remastering.
The Buena Vista ones are not as bad but they don't *pop* that is for sure.
I guess maybe we can hope for a special edition or something.
Armageddon was never released anamorphic on DVD. Not even the Criterion one. So I looked forward to not only seeing it 2:35:1 but in HD. But now I am worried that it too will be a PLAY-RECORD-GO-GET-COFFEE transfer. :\\
Embarrassing post.
Dude these movies are OLD. They're not gonna have that POP you're looking for. Not every movie can be like Pirates of the Caribbean. Might as well accept it now.
By the way, there are plenty of brand new movies that look like total garbage. For ex I watched '28 Weeks Later' last night. Looked downright average. You'd think the movie was 10 years old or something.
By the way, there are plenty of brand new movies that look like total garbage. For ex I watched '28 Weeks Later' last night. Looked downright average. You'd think the movie was 10 years old or something.
that was because they shot it on a camcorder that only allowed I believe a 720x526 resolution on it. Directors intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdhender /forum/post/12802369
Dude these movies are OLD. They're not gonna have that POP you're looking for. Not every movie can be like Pirates of the Caribbean. Might as well accept it now.
By the way, there are plenty of brand new movies that look like total garbage. For ex I watched '28 Weeks Later' last night. Looked downright average. You'd think the movie was 10 years old or something.
that was because they shot it on a camcorder that only allowed I believe a 720x526 resolution on it. Directors intent.
Sudden Death. But wait, that wasn't directed by McTiernan.
You are thinking of 28 Days Later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul nyc /forum/post/12802114
I thought CON AIR looks pretty damn good. ROCK as well. ROCK was the best i've ever seen it (had the laser, non-anamporphic DVD, Criterion).
DIE HARD was so typical John McTiernan back in the day. Soft, anamorphic look. Remember that crappy VanDamme Hockey movie? Forgot the name. Looks just like it.
Sudden Death. But wait, that wasn't directed by McTiernan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormraper /forum/post/12802410
that was because they shot it on a camcorder that only allowed I believe a 720x526 resolution on it. Directors intent.
You are thinking of 28 Days Later.
I understand your frustrations but your impressions on these excellent titles is wrong. Die Hard-1 looks soft and hazy because of the filming style. Rock and Con Air looks and sounds terrific. It was better than newer releases to an extent. The LFE on The Rock is way too deep and can ruin your Subs if you cook it overtime.
Sudden Death. But wait, that wasn't directed by McTiernan.
Crap, You're right. It was Peter Hymes (sp). But had that soft, vaseline lens look like DH.
I have watched the Rock and Con-Air and I think both are a vast improvement over the previous SD incarnations. I've watched Die Hard 1 and currently watching Die Hard 2 and so far I think these look fairly clean. I would think that the 3 stars received from High Def Digest are a little on the low side. I would give these both another half star to put them as 3 and 1/2 out of 5.
You dont want a better transfer man. You want to direct the movie yourself.
The Director's vision is what I want on the disc, always. No DNR, No EE, and No matrixing from mono. Kudos to Sony for releasing 20 million miles in color and black and white btw.
Buena Vista is pretty much the studio to look to for top notch transfers.
The Director's vision is what I want on the disc, always. No DNR, No EE, and No matrixing from mono. Kudos to Sony for releasing 20 million miles in color and black and white btw.
Buena Vista is pretty much the studio to look to for top notch transfers.
New line is doing a damn fine job too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowrage /forum/post/12805531
You dont want a better transfer man. You want to direct the movie yourself.
The Director's vision is what I want on the disc, always. No DNR, No EE, and No matrixing from mono. Kudos to Sony for releasing 20 million miles in color and black and white btw.
Buena Vista is pretty much the studio to look to for top notch transfers.
New line is doing a damn fine job too.
I've heard good things about Rush Hour 3 (PQ-wise, that is) and Shoot 'Em Up is just fantastic (easily deserves the Tier 0 rating) but Pan's Labyrinth suffers from over-use of DNR. Hopefully, we won't see too much of that from them from here on out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormraper /forum/post/12805907
New line is doing a damn fine job too.
I've heard good things about Rush Hour 3 (PQ-wise, that is) and Shoot 'Em Up is just fantastic (easily deserves the Tier 0 rating) but Pan's Labyrinth suffers from over-use of DNR. Hopefully, we won't see too much of that from them from here on out.
Word. Shoot 'em Up and Pan's Labyrinth = immaculate.
That said, using DTS:HD MA is bothering me. I was hoping that Fox was just experimenting with it and would eventually go to TrueHD but it seems that's just not going to happen and New Line seems to be following suit.
Bring on the Panny BD50.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wormraper /forum/post/12805907
New line is doing a damn fine job too.
Word. Shoot 'em Up and Pan's Labyrinth = immaculate.
That said, using DTS:HD MA is bothering me. I was hoping that Fox was just experimenting with it and would eventually go to TrueHD but it seems that's just not going to happen and New Line seems to be following suit.
Bring on the Panny BD50.
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
940 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
514 Replies
bass addict
401 Replies
Recommended Communities
