Sunday, January 31, 2010

Holy crap, they fixed Gangs of New York!

1:02 PM / Blu-ray / Comments10 Comments

Blu-ray

Clicky!

Once again, the "screenshots scientists" and everyone else who complained about the woefully sub-par first release have been vindicated. Now come on, Disney, do the decent thing and set up an actual disc replacement programme instead of expecting us to shell out for it again. Oh, and Paramount and New Line respectively, how about doing the same for Gladiator and Dark City?

Here are a couple of comparisons from AVS Forum's Xylon, the champion of screenshot scientists: [1], [2]. These have been saved with less compression than the blu-news.com ones and should be more reflective of the actual product.

 
10 Comments

1. CraigTheRave said:

Wierd. I clicked on that link of the comparisons and think the blu-ray original release looks VASTLY clearer and brighter than the new remaster. I'm not saying better, just clearer and brighter - perhaps these were artificial enhancements?

I am mainly talking about the image of the arm / pocket watch:

If however the remaster image is correct, then I can see that the edge enhancement or whatever (I'm no expert) seems much less prominent (such as the roman numerals on the watch), but overall the picture does seem to lack the detail evident in the first release (check out the wall) - whether this is an accurate represntation of the movie or not. Seeing the movie running though may give different results.

I liked Gangs Of New York even though I don't consider it a Scorsese classic, but I would like to see it again.

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 4:45 PM)

2. Author Profile Page Michael said:

The first release had detail? Not from where I'm standing. It was widely regarded as one of the absolute worst BD releases of all time: grubby, mushy, over-enhanced and digital-looking, without a shred of actual detail in it (ditto with American Psycho, where we had a similar situation where the grotty, edge enhanced earlier US release from Lions Gate was completely obliterated by a later Australian version from Sony Pictures, which substituted the artificial sharpening with actual detail).

It's certainly brighter, which I suppose might be a draw for some, though I've personally never subscribed to the notion that brighter automatically equals better.

Bottom line, to me the original captures (and the original disc itself, which I'll be pawning off ASAP) are an absolute eyesore, but these new captures look extremely nice and film-like. It's possibly the single greatest upgrade I've ever come across from one HD release to another. Not even the remaster of The Fifth Element, which many who reviled the initial release ended up drooling over, came this close to a night and day difference.

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 5:20 PM)

3. CraigTheRave said:

I admit to not having the eye for image quality that you do, but the images I've seen look lacking in detail, even though the new version, agreed does look more film like. I would like to learn more about 'what' to look for in image quality when watching blu-ray material. Could u point me in the right direction, a how-to website perhaps?

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 5:43 PM)

4. Ronny said:

The only negative thing that I see in the AVS forum link you provided is that the remastered blu ray looks a bit cropped on the right side in the comparison shots. Other than that, it looks gorgeous.

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:28 PM)

5. Vincent Pereira said:

The cropping is likely well within SMPTE guidelines. Since Super-35 filmed movies are designed to be optically printed, there are allowances for cropping not only top and bottom, but side to side as well. The actual frame area from perf-to-perf on Super-35 is almost 25mm (it's something like 24.89mm), but the 2.4:1 extraction "safe area" is 10mm X 24mm. It's possible that the old transfer was "opened up" and went all the way to the edge of the film, whereas the new one sticks to the actual 10mm X 24mm standard. I actually have some Super-35 framing charts for DOGMA around here somewhere, if I can get them scanned I'll put up some JPEGs so you can see what I mean.

Vincent

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:47 PM)

6. Vincent Pereira said:

CraigTheRave:

What you want to look for is ACTUAL TEXTURE in the screen-caps. Look at pores in the actors' skin, textures on clothing and fabric, etc. From a distance the old transfer "pops" because it has been artificially sharpened and the contrast has been boosted, but if you look at the actual details of objects, you'll see that the old transfer has almost NO real detail. It has hard edges around basic shapes due to the excessive and horrible processing, but real detail is all but gone. On the new transfer, you see real details and textures to objects.

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 10:50 PM)

7. Author Profile Page Michael said:

Vincent:

Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. There are instances in the old BD (and the DVD before it) where the very edges of the print actually become visible at the side of the screen (see http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=18042350#post18042350). Whatever the reason, the missing information on the new release compared to the old one is very small and not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.


Craig:

I think Vincent gave a very succinct explanation, and I don't think I can add to it in any way. Being able to tell the difference between a good transfer and a bad one is not something I've ever had to consciously train myself to do, so I wouldn't know where to begin in terms of advice.

(Posted on Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 11:06 PM)

8. Dom said:

Craig: Note that any brightness comparisons between the two images are merely relative, and you'd need an accurate color calibrated display to be sure you are seeing the true representation of what the image should/would look like on your home theater setup. So although the old image looks 'brighter' on your computer display, in a calibrated home theater setup the highlights will be blown out, as the contrast is far too high, whereas the new transfer will look far more natural compared with what was originally captured.

(Posted on Monday, February 1, 2010 at 12:17 PM)

9. Daniel Joseph Sardella said:

A lot of my friends watch their HDTVs with the contrast really high, the picture is so blasted out. It drives me crazy.
My g/f sometimes comments that the picture on my TV looks dark and I say, "that's how it's supposed to look."

(Posted on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:29 AM)

10. CraigTheRave said:

Some good advice. Thanks.

(Posted on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM)

 
Note: to combat spam and simplify site maintenance, all comments must be approved prior to appearing on the site. This is a necessary evil due to the volume of spam the site receives.

 
Archives
Categories
Recent posts