News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

Leonard Norwitz over at DVDBeaver had a 2-part scoring scale (see http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews34/bad_santa_blu-ray.htm), wherein there's a number to represent how faithfully the image represents the 'theatrical experience' - or rather, perhaps more usefully, how faithful it is to the original presentation; and another to represent how good it is in absolute terms [like your Gladiator and EFNY scores].

You could do that, and perhaps add a third scoring for your personal feeling about the image? I would prefer that to a single score that has to take everything into account, and loses some specifics in translation.

Hope that helps.

(Posted on Monday, June 6, 2011 at 7:56 PM)

Michael,

I think when there's doubt about the condition of the materials, then I'm not sure a numerical score helps in the circumstances, and a more qualified review listing the pros and cons would seem fairer (a la Gary Tooze on Beaver_ - as you've raised, what more could have been done?

But then in turn that raises the question - how can one find out what the conditions of the materials were? We judge labels' ouput on the material that they have available and they're creative decisions stemming from that. They may also be limited by time constraints, budgetary concerns, demands from the licensors etc.

Personally I'd scrap numeracy altogether - it just does not allow an opportunity for fairness.

I think your problem with M is that you're viewing Torsten's release in isolation, when you really need to see how it stacks up against Criterion's and MoC, to see how much better the version is. I think Robert Harris on Home Theatre forum has compared this against the Criterion and commented that it has better stability; you could act as a counterpoint by buying or requesting a screener from MoC and then compare to see the differences. I'm not sure whether you're region locked but you should ideally check the Criterion as well.

(Posted on Monday, June 6, 2011 at 8:37 PM)

My own take has also been that the rating applies to transfer. I've always hated it when reviewers mark down PQ because they dislike a film's cinematography. Some films are supposed to look dull and lifeless; conversely I hate the look of Tony Scott's recent efforts, say, or the Transformers movies - but would never use that as a means to denigrate the transfer *if* they were faithfully rendered.

Likewise older films which are in a less than perfect state. For example, the likes of Italian titles made during the war years (Visconti's Ossessione, say, or Rossellini's Rome Open City) don't have great surviving elements. So it's a case of how well those elements have been transferred. Similarly the British documentaries the BFI have been putting out as extras or as part of themed volumes or their recent L'Age d'or disc. The bottom line is always whether the best obtainable materials have been used and how well they are transferred.

The other aspect worth considering is that I'm sure the vast majority of visitors to Land of Whimsy come to *read* about the transfer, not simply to look at a rating out of 10. I'm also sure that some know how strict you are with approaching Blu-rays and DVDs and may therefore calibrate the rating to their own stance; ie. if they're not as stringent then they may add a mark or two. On top of that, you provide enough information and enough screengrabs to further this lack of need for ratings (or at least to make them considerably less significant). This info and these images should be enough to back up a high rating for M, if of course it deserves one.

(Posted on Monday, June 6, 2011 at 9:12 PM)

My two cents:

1. As ANTNIELD suggested, I get the most out of your full-blown reviews, the ones that walk a potential viewer through the strength and weaknesses of a given release. I get even more out of these reviews--often find them invaluable--when they include image comparisons across different releases of the same film (I've pointed more than one person to your image comparisons for the Mondo Vision Zulawski releases, e.g.).

2. In addition, the inclusion of a two-part scoring system, one that includes both an "absolute" value (something akin to the scoring system you currently use in your HD Image Quality Rankings, i.e., the best- looking images regardless) and a "relative" value that takes into consideration any extenuating factors (age of film, availability of quality materials, etc. etc.). I think careful readers/viewers will be able to make discerning decisions based on these two levels of grading/review, and will certainly understand, in general, that a film from 1931 is apt to look qualitatively different from a film made in 2011.

(Posted on Monday, June 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM)

Mark me down as one who'd be okay with there being two ratings - but also favors your always extensive write-ups over a number every time.

I get why review sites tend to rank everything with a number: They get kick-backs from affiliate sales and free screeners from studios, and being less than positive or transparent could bork up both ends of the system. But when you cover mainstream fare alongside genre obscurities and rough 'round the edges classics, it gets pretty difficult to use the same sliding scale. Should The Evil Dead get the same ranking as The Godfather? The level of restoration is surprisingly similar, but the latter will always look - objectively speaking, anyway - a hell of a lot better than the former.

Perhaps the two best categories would be "Materials" and "Transfer"?

The former could go over the ups' and downs' of the source materials - 16mm vs 35mm, DI versus IP, what have you. I tend to think anything that's sourced from anything but the negative is no longer "10" material. If the negative no longer exists and we're looking at a 2nd gen print with a few scenes sourced from dupe elements - hey, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it should instantly get a top score just because you've rescued the one surviving print left and made it as less-ugly as humanly possible.

The latter could then be solely how said materials were handled - you could talk about compression issues, DVNR, signal noise or whatever else warrants a mention. Something like digitally re-created titles would probably go back to the former category, but scratch repair artifacts - though perhaos present because of the source - would be the result of the transfer work done by whatever company restored the print. I guess it's unfair to lump compression with restoration, but both are strictly technical means, and I can't honestly say that a video score needs a third ranking just to talk about wither or not there's any obvious artifacting.

With a system like that you could rate (just as an example) BLACK SWAN as a 8-10. "8" for the naturally grungy 16mm photography, "10" for the perfect handling thereof. Maybe the UK release of SUSPIRIA could get a 9-5, the former for the gorgeous quality of the print used, and the latter for the completely bombed out contrast. Perhaps TAXI DRIVER should be a 9-10, with one point deducted by default for the MPAA shenanigans that have forever made the climax look like chewed up brownish arsehole?

Of course, this two-part system does leave some interpretation open. You can't be 100% sure if something's a DI from the OCN or a 2k scan of several different vaulted IP without someone trustworthy telling you,and it's entirely possible that a gorgeous print was used and utterly destroyed via digital processing ("Friedkinized" or what have you). With more transparency between the labels and consumers this would be the absolute best way to rate image quality, but it involves some guess work that could come back and bite you on the rump if you're mistaken.

But if you want to abandon numbers all together, hey, wouldn't bother me. I'm hear to read your candid, detailed opinions because I think they're valuable, not average the final scores out on a spreadsheet or whatever. :)

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 1:49 AM)

Maybe do away with assigning a numerical score entirely and instead summing it up as "Recommended" or "Not recommended" and thus encouraging folks to actually read your full reviews and thus understand exactly where you're coming from?

Vincent

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 4:50 AM)

Stick with the absolute scale of 1-10. A film like M will never look as good as The International. That's okay with me.

Just describe what issues you see with the picture or explain how the restoration efforts, while admirable, can never fully measure up to a modern DI-sourced film.

You're over thinking this way too much.

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 4:53 AM)

How about keeping the numeric system but basing it more on the quality of the encode and on reasonable expectations given when, how, and on what the film was shot. In short, rating more on accuracy rather than qualites for demoing a home theater sytem. For example, I found that Warner's KING KONG was a very nice presentation, though obviously it doesn't look like GLADIATOR.

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 5:26 AM)

Just adding to the last comment...

Accuracy in itself is sometimes hard to determine as right or wrong as has already been mentioned, but there are always things that will stick out like a sore thumb, like what is seen in your capture from ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK.

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 5:34 AM)

@Chuckz,
You're not thinking about this enough!
Many new titles sourced from a DI don't look as good as older titles that have been properly restored from film elements (partly, I feel, because DI is a conveyor-belt process and can result in transfers that are adequate, and 'contemporary', but not as good as they could be).
Making things as simple as not looking 'as good as' just ignores all the mitigating factors we're trying to consider here.

I'm beginning to think just ditch the numerical system and explain. What's a numerical score 'for', anyway? Skim-reading? Who needs that?

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 7:41 AM)

I say stick with the system you already have (maybe use a 0 to 5 scale) and just go into detail when the need is there.

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 7:57 AM)

My vote is in line with Vincent. I don't think people who use this site are into instant gratification - a quick score and off they go. One of the strengths of this site is your considered reviews - which I think visitors to the site are happy to read. A summary at the end that doesn't have to conform to a numeric scale would work just dandy.

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 12:08 PM)

For my own site i use a transfer quality system, i try and look into how a film was made and the camera system used before i reach my conclusions, i'm not a fan of rating a film highly just because its eye candy and rating another poorly just because it's super grainy or filmed with the "ugly stick" look.

Obviously such a system requires guesswork at times but its preferable to the "Tier system" found at AVS where a film that has had a superb transfer can still find itself ranked lowly, to me that thread is just about eye candy, i still cannot believe how high they ranked Scary Movie.

Personally i have been thinking of just ditching a rating and going with something like Recommended or Not Recommended, you could list the good points and bad and just say not recommended or highly recommended or recommended with reservations at the end of your reviews.

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 1:21 PM)

I've never had a problem with your 10 scale rating system. Its relative to the material, how good this movie could possibly look. frankly said, I like that better that the tier system which only rates overall quality. Its obvious to me that a movie of 50 years of age in almost all cases is not going to look as good than a modern DI movie (which studios didnt screw up), I dont need a tier system telling me that.

(Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 5:48 PM)

PQ with respect to accurate reproduction / faithful presentation of source elements (need to rate down if the master is in bad shape) (1-100)

PQ in comparison to Reference / demo quality Blu-rays (1~100)

(Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM)