Why so different?
Did they change the colour timing of the entire film?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bad Blu-ray transfers.
- Thread starter George Oscar Bluth II
- Start date
- Status
Did they change the colour timing of the entire film?
Speed Racer is to Blu-ray what The Matrix was to DVD.
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
I'm sure saving private ryan didn't translate well to blu ray, but i haven't seen it for a few years now.
and Matrix looks pristine on BR as well
It's a pretty good transfer. I don't think it belongs.
What? The blu-ray transfer is marvelous. Why would it not translate to blu-ray?
Wasn't too happy with the transfer of Escape from New York which Optimum put out here in the UK. Here's it compared with the region 1 release from MGM (Images courtesy of DVD Beaver). In both images, he UK Optimum release is the lower image, and MGM being the top. I'm doubtful I needed to point out which is which though.
I think I remember hearing Optimum phased that release out with a better looking one, I can't remember for sure though. Someone may be able to clear that one up for me.
I really need to replace my copy with a better release...
EDIT: Here's and even better look. Hover your mouse over the image to compare. caps-a-holic Comparison
I think I remember hearing Optimum phased that release out with a better looking one, I can't remember for sure though. Someone may be able to clear that one up for me.
I really need to replace my copy with a better release...
EDIT: Here's and even better look. Hover your mouse over the image to compare. caps-a-holic Comparison
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
the fucking worst.
almost unwatchable.
There's more air brushing in the 2010 Predator release than all of 2015's Victoria's Secret covers combined.
Fuck it, i'd still watch Predator no matter how it's presented to me. Best action-movie of all time.
I love how there's still a heap of grain in that image despite the lather of vaseline. You really can't win so why bother?
That was the way it looked in theaters. The epilogue was something that was added in the U.S. Release because they didn't want to have an ambiguously depressing ending for the fragile American audiences. I know the UK theatrical release had a different (original) ending but not sure on if the UK bluray still does
| Praxis |
Banned
I hated that film, but it does look nice I guess.
2001 A Space Odyssey has a sublime BR transfer
Chinatown does, as well
| Praxis |
Banned
One of the best, I'd also put the remaster of Jaws up there too. That film looks incredible now. To me anyway.
Jaws looks much better than modern movies, at times.
In terms of bad transfers, I would actually consider Lowry's stuff to be bad. Their proprietary grain removal process does a great job at preserving detail while removing grain, but it still results in artifacts. Not Predator levels of disastrous, but the layer of warping and still grain underneath the added fake grain drives me nuts. It just has a weird and unnatural look. It was one of the multiple problems with the transfer for Alien*. It looks even worse without the readded grain. Their Bond stuff doesn't have any grain and the actors sometimes have this odd halo around them. Granted they're not the worst out there, but the do at least tarnish what are otherwise great transfers.
*As controversial as this is to say, I don't think Alien is a great transfer--just an above average one. There are some problems outside of the DNR too. There is both white and black crush, as well as geometry issues. Further there may or may not be some cropping issues, but it's hard to tell. All the previous version have each had their own different levels of cropping, so I don't know which is actually right. Of course these things may bug some people more than others. At least Aliens turned out better. The DNR artifacts only show up a couple of times, but are otherwise unnoticeable. The changes with the color grading have been controversial, though I'm fine with it.
There's a solution to this that doesn't involve ruining good transfers with excessive DNR. People can just use the noise reduction features on their TV, Blu-ray player, AVR, or video processor. They can even use them all at the same time if they're so inclined. This way eveybody gets what they want.
*As controversial as this is to say, I don't think Alien is a great transfer--just an above average one. There are some problems outside of the DNR too. There is both white and black crush, as well as geometry issues. Further there may or may not be some cropping issues, but it's hard to tell. All the previous version have each had their own different levels of cropping, so I don't know which is actually right. Of course these things may bug some people more than others. At least Aliens turned out better. The DNR artifacts only show up a couple of times, but are otherwise unnoticeable. The changes with the color grading have been controversial, though I'm fine with it.
There's a solution to this that doesn't involve ruining good transfers with excessive DNR. People can just use the noise reduction features on their TV, Blu-ray player, AVR, or video processor. They can even use them all at the same time if they're so inclined. This way eveybody gets what they want.
Actually I don't think 2001 looks all that great, it looks a tad too soft, considering the source is 70mm...you can't tell me that's what it's supposed to look like. As far as releases of catalog titles go, Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia decimate 2001.
Ben-Hur is seriously crazy good looking.
Avatar, more like.
Speed Racer looks nice enough, but it's a 140-minute movie stuck in a single layer BD.
Ben-Hur is seriously crazy good looking.
Avatar, more like.
Speed Racer looks nice enough, but it's a 140-minute movie stuck in a single layer BD.
Not sure if I would go so far and say that they are bad, more "like inaccurate to the original experience", since they mostly offer good viewing experiences. Although some of the digital fuckery is excessive and I do wish they were more faithful in their endeavours.
That's quite the opinion, can't say that I fully agree either. The DNR is more aggressive compared to Alien (due to a noisy negative) and I'm not entirely sold on the colour scheme. Though Aliens had the bigger upgrade, I still think Alien looks better. But that could just be my opinion on the films colouring my opinion on the technical presentation.
2001 looks very good, no question about it, but it isn't amazing. It might be because it utilises a VC-1 encode rather than an AVC one (i.e. utilising a lesser compression codec). But I think it should be pointed out that 2001 is a fairly "old" disc all things considered (from 2008 compared to Lawrence from... which came out in 2012).
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
I'm sure I remember it being bad. Maybe I'm wrong doe.
Yeah, many of WB's transfers from back then aren't great. Like I mentioned earlier, The Matrix movies also look really soft. They just look plain shitty to be honest.
Maybe WB will release a 4K BD of 2001 and truly blow us all away.
Hey if Universal can (allegedly) fix Spartacus, then everything is possible.
DNR and edge enhancements are hardly the biggest issues of TDK's transfer though.
Why so different?
It is not uncommon at all, that trailers have different colors, framing, takes or even scenes than the final movie.
When the trailers are being made, the edit of the final movie is often not locked down.
That's true. Maybe "bad" is too strong of a word. What errors are better or worse is subjective after all. Alien looked incredible on DVD. It was prorbably one of the best looking transfers on the format. Going to Blu-ray, the upgrade wasn't as dramatic as I had hoped. Aliens, on the other hand, was mind blowing.
I can't say if there's any real difference in the aggressiveness of the DNR. IIRC, Lowry's process removes all grain by default, so I don't know how it's going to affect differences. The grain in Alien is much finer than that in Aliens. I wonder if that makes it easier or more difficult. Either way, with how it was shot and the copius amounts of grain they added after the fact, I personally found the artifacts to be much less noticable in Aliens.
The funny thing is, when you don't use any artificial sharpening (like edge enhancement) and scan at 4K or higher, the grain is much finer and less noticeable anyway. Even more so when you use better source elements. Completely degraining the film at this point is just made all the more ridiculous when your adding fake grain back to it afterwards.
Don't forget it's not just the compression codec, but the bitrate as well. 2001 was released on HD DVD around the same time, so it's encode was hamstrung. 2001 also had some ringing, so edge enhancement might have been used too. I don't know what resolution it was scanned at though (I'll have to look it up). Lawrence, however, was scanned at a very high resolution--I want to say it was even higher than 4k.
EDIT: From what I could find, it seems 2001 may have been at 4K, though I can't confirm it. Lawrence, however, was scanned at 8K.
BossDarkseid
Member
Yes they did fix it, and to the point that the JP release actually used the same transfer.
The fixed version uses this cover:
Do you have any idea if that's region free (in my dreams) or at least available on a Region 2/EU/UK? I thought about getting it and ended up watching a few eps online but much like my recent watching on FMA:B for the first time, if I enjoy something I prefer to buy it physically and imo FMA:B's visuals need to be in HD. Even watching it on Netflix HD is all I've seen it in so I have no comparison to make.
I have Bebop on Blu Ray and it looks ok. Nothing remarkable though. Steins Gate too, somewhere.
LoveCake
Member
I always check out the reviews on bluray.com so i have not bothered getting any films where the transfer is no better than the dvd version i have.
I know someone else has mentioned Ben Hur as looking great, it looks like it was films yesterday & i would like to mention Jaws (one of my top three films) i have the remastered version & it doesn't look like it was filmed yesterday, it looks like you are actually there, i also went to the cinema to watch it as well & it was simply stunning.
Good video here of how they remastered Jaws (but it's how they do most films i guess) Jaws - Blu-Ray Restoration Documentary & others Universal Centennial - Restoring the Classics - A Lifetime of Memories would love a job doing that sort of thing.
I know someone else has mentioned Ben Hur as looking great, it looks like it was films yesterday & i would like to mention Jaws (one of my top three films) i have the remastered version & it doesn't look like it was filmed yesterday, it looks like you are actually there, i also went to the cinema to watch it as well & it was simply stunning.
Good video here of how they remastered Jaws (but it's how they do most films i guess) Jaws - Blu-Ray Restoration Documentary & others Universal Centennial - Restoring the Classics - A Lifetime of Memories would love a job doing that sort of thing.
Not true. The reason for the vaseline look is because DNR(digital noise reduction) is applied. DNR removes film grain but leaves no detail in return and makes everything look waxy. In the early days of blu-ray it was used often because it was cheap than a proper remaster and studios didn't think people would care. Now it is hardly ever used. An upscale is when a SD picture is blown up to HD with proper HD elements.
Lack of doing your homework. The film was shot in standard definition at 480p, HD is literally impossible for it to achieve. The DVD is as good as it's ever going to look.
Debatable. Intentionally shitty of the distributor to put a standard-def movie on an HD format to get people to re-buy it for no actual benefit.
The issue's with the trailer, not the film. Colors in trailers are often pushed to the "teal and orange" to get more "pop" and get people interested. More often than not, the movie itself has much more natural color. Considering how strong the teal push is in the trailer, I'd wager the final film's color is what was actually intended.(Re: TDK trailer) Why so different?
In reference to the Predator shots, I think I know why they did that... it was for the 3D conversion. Film grain can't be accounted for in 3D, so it's far better to simply remove it. Now, that doesn't excuse it, it just sort of explains a possible reason why they pushed it so far. But there's two things they should have done differently: 1) Release the non-DNR version on Blu-ray in a proper HD remaster, particularly for the 2D release, and 2) Once the 3D conversion was done, put the film grain back. While the grain will wreck the conversion itself, it isn't necessarily bad for the final release if it's done properly and 3D is accounted for in the placement and coverage of the film grain. They just need someone in charge of the 3D that actually knows what they're doing, and is given the freedom to do so by the executives (yeah, fat chance).
For now, I'll stick with my Special Edition DVD, since neither Blu-ray really offers an improvement.
Not entirely true. The ending was shot after principal shooting was over, and it was done on regular 35mm. So those few minutes will actually look better on blu-ray, hah.
Can't find the interview with the head of Lowry that I'm looking for but the removal of grain isn't an inherent part of their process but one that they seemingly favour as do their clients. I think he said something along the lines of 'we think it makes for a brand new experience ... looks better than before ... our customers want and asks us for this'. But effectively everything that comes out from them is de-grained to some extent.
Re: Aliens and aggressiveness, the negative was apparently quite rough, and I saw more DNR issues in it than Alien hence that comment. I don't have an absolute factual basis for my opinion, but I'll throw Cameron's comments on the remaster:
"I just did a complete remaster of ‘Aliens’ personally, with the same colorist I worked on with ‘Avatar’. And it’s spectacular. We went in and we completely de-noised and de-grained it, up-rezzed it, color-corrected it end to end every frame. And it looks amazing. It looks better than it looked in theaters originally, because it was shot on a high-speed negative that was a new negative that didn’t pan out too well and got replaced the following year. So it was pretty grainy. We got rid of all the grain. It’s sharper and clearer and more beautiful than it’s ever looked. And we did that to the long version, to the “director’s cut” or the extended play. I call it the “FM Mix.” That’s dating myself!"
4K unfortunately isn't a magic bullet, and has some issues of its own (besides being expensive) but it does handle grain better.
Right, was there even dual layer blu rays back then? Can't remember and I'm to lazy to check it out.
I have no idea about the scan resolution for 2001, but regarding Lawrence, as per this New York Times article, it was kind of higher than 4K:
"Lawrence of Arabia was shot in 65 millimeter — nearly twice the width of a 35-millimeter frame — so its negative had to be scanned in 8K, creating 8,192 pixels across each line. But it is still referred to as a 4K scan because it has the same density of pixels, the same resolution across 65 millimeters that 4K has across 35 millimeters."
I guess I was mistaken. Nonetheless, they still have a tendency to use DNR way too frequently for my taste. Sounds like an interesting article though.
Yeah, I still remember the uproar his comments caused. After hearing "got rid of the grain", everyone panicked like we were going to have another Predator: UHE on our hands. Fortunately that was not the case. To tell you the truth, I didn't think Aliens could ever look as good as it did with even the best transfer and mastering. What we ended up with did look incredible. It's just that I still can't help but wonder if it could have been even better.
I also wonder what this might look like released on a 4K format. If it's like the transition from DVD to BD, then the old master's flaws might stand out more.
Of course 4K alone won't solve all of your problems, but it certainly helps. I really don't know if there are hard and fast rules to use for film restoration. If we go by the standard of a film looking just like it was projected during its first theatrical release, the bar is surprisingly low in some ways--especially with older films. Enough generations of film through the photo chemical process and poor exhibition habits could really degrade the quality. It one of the advantages for everything shifting to digital these days.
We could also go with the director's preference, but then there's the madness of Lucas and Friedkin. Maybe it could be their intent at the time the film was made, but that can be difficult to determine. The film itself could have degraded and changed in color over the years, so sometimes you have to rely on memory (which isn't always reliable on older films) or other released versions. I know for the Jaws BD, they checked previous home releases to ensure the color was consistent. It certainly can get tricky.
BD50s were around since at least sometime in 2006. My guess is they just wanted to make things easier with one encode for both formats. As for Lawrence, they may have just scanned it at 8K and then did the rest of the mastering at 4K. I don't know. I thought I read either an article or a forum post by Robert Harris talking about it. My memory's a little hazy on that one.
Johnny Ryall
Member
What they did to the French connection was absolutely gross
I wouldn't bother with Kai. Even ignoring some of the issues with the QTEC version, the Buu saga is so inconsistent with everything else visually. For reasons only known to Toei, they felt it would be a good idea to produce the show solely in 16:9, despite Kai's first run being in 4:3. Then they (unintentionally?) added a bizarre green tint to most of the episodes.
TheGamingBox
Banned
were those issues present in the japan home video release?
I checked the back of mine's box and it only says A. However according to bluray.com it says it's B compatible so I dunno...
I did some checking and this seems to be a fairly recent release: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00MFT0G80/
Not 100% sure it uses the same version as the re-release but it probably does. However, if you enjoy watching stuff in HD I have to tell you that Samurai Champloo was made in the SD era so even though it looks better than on a DVD, it's still an upscale.
Thankfully, Friedkin came to his senses later and we got a strong new Blu out of it. Still, from what I read about the original Blu, it's about the only time Popeye is ever going to look like an angel!
If you say so. The Blu-Ray accurately displays the film as the director intended. It also has lossless audio, and it can be had for under $10. If someone buys something without doing any research then that's on them.
Also not sure if it's already been mentioned, but the Man with No Name Trilogy has had a rough time on Blu, especially The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. There's still no definitive transfer out for the film yet, which is unfortunate, as I've been waiting to watch it until there is.
Going off memory, the original release had pretty awful DNR, and there was a much better transfer released not too long ago, but it also has a completely different color timing applied. I also think both releases have some audio issues; I know the newer one doesn't have the original mono as an option. I know some people on enthusiast forums have been hacking together their own cuts using audio from overseas releases and whatnot.
Always fascinating reading about this stuff, and such a shame that many studios don't put in the work to preserve their films and do them justice.
TheGamingBox
Banned
i remember hearing a lot about how bad the sailor moon blurays were
https://www.reddit.com/r/sailormoon/comments/2m9j33/viz_release_video_problems/cm7ns6p
https://www.reddit.com/r/sailormoon/comments/2m9j33/viz_release_video_problems/cm7ns6p
We've had one, or several and they all die for lack of interest.
it's region AB, so it'll work in your region
I dont like you and your opinions.
RoyaleDuke
Banned
The original Blu-Ray release of John Carpenter's The Thing is fucking godawful, horrible artifacts and the color is off.
Actually, for a long time the only accurate version of that movie was the HD DVD release which I can confirm looks fantastic since that was one of the first(lol and last) HD DVD movies I bought when the format war between BR and HD DVD started, and I got the 360 add on drive super cheap.
That said they redid it somewhere a few years back and it's fine now.
Actually, for a long time the only accurate version of that movie was the HD DVD release which I can confirm looks fantastic since that was one of the first(lol and last) HD DVD movies I bought when the format war between BR and HD DVD started, and I got the 360 add on drive super cheap.
That said they redid it somewhere a few years back and it's fine now.
Man, people really like themselves film grain
How do film companies fuck up something so easy as an HD transfer? I just don't get it. DVD had it's size limitations so sometimes they chose the cheap option of having a low bitrate, but that shouldn't be an issue anymore.
Even more baffling is the visual difference between different release regions. We're way past the days of PAL/NTSC conversions where you had different resolutions, framerates, colour processing. You literally use the same transfer worldwide and they still fuck it up.
Example of a good Bluray transfer.. Blade Runner!
Even more baffling is the visual difference between different release regions. We're way past the days of PAL/NTSC conversions where you had different resolutions, framerates, colour processing. You literally use the same transfer worldwide and they still fuck it up.
Example of a good Bluray transfer.. Blade Runner!
Noisepurge
Member
to be honest it only looks like total shit in the beginning. When they are in the jungle it's a little better and more believable looking. But yeah, the 2010 transfer is clearly NOT an improvement.
Wow, I really need to see Ben-Hur. I bought it 2 weeks ago on BR but it's still lying at a friend's house.Ben-Hur is seriously crazy good looking.
Avatar, more like.
Speed Racer looks nice enough, but it's a 140-minute movie stuck in a single layer BD.
I also bought Titanic on BR and man does it look great. The extra's are also great. That is how you a do BR transfer.
I'm a huge sucker for extra's. Look at this list:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Titanic-Blu-ray/33024/#Review
#1 defender
Member
I own this release and it's region B friendly. Can't compare it to the original release, but this one while ok, doesn't look mindblowing either.
Not to mention, it's stuck with compressed audio, like many early WB Blu-rays.
NekoFever
Member
It differs per film. The Dark Knight Rises for instance still looked good in its 35mm sections. IMAX conversions look good on the big screen, but at a smaller scale on TV's the edge enhancement becomes a lot more distracting.
DNR and edge enhancements are hardly the biggest issues of TDK's transfer though.
I still wonder what people are smoking when they bring up TDK in threads about great Blu-ray transfers, since someone always does. Even if we ignore the colour timing, which might be a stylistic choice or a change between the time the trailer was cut and the final release, the Blu-ray looks awful. EE out the ass.
Noisepurge
Member
now he should give the same, or any, attention to putting Abyss on bluray! :E :E (And True Lies goddamnit)
- Status