News|Movies|BD & DVD|Writings|Other

Great article!

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 4:13 AM)

Wow the Wild Side BD looks so much better.

There is so much harsh digital noise in the Arrow BD (no surprise really).

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 5:12 AM)

I remember reading an interview with one of the studio people who works on transfers, i may try finding it later but basically they said when you do a film scan you have to be careful because the scan can actually enhance the grain perhaps leading to this noisy look we see on these transfers.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 6:21 AM)

@FoxyMulder
Yes, although what's present on these looks more like noise (probably from an aging/improperly adjusted CRT machine) than the grain from the film itself.

All of this is just reasoned speculation, though. I'd love to know what those were scanned on.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 9:37 AM)

Great article from Kentai.

THIS specifically:

"2) They have some seriously poor or mis-calibrated scanning equipment,which is producing digital noise on top of an already badly focused image."

We ideally would have a telecine expert confirm this, but this seems especially plausible (except the phrase "digital noise"; it's analogue noise). An old, failing CRT in the telecine which is producing a poorly focused flying spot combined with old, failing (noisy) PECs offers a fairly bulletproof theory for why these titles look the way they do. The underlying image is out of focus and what's on top is electronic noise, not photographic grain.

That's the best guess we have, at any rate. I don't suppose we'll ever know exactly what causes that look, but it certainly isn't filmic.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 12:50 PM)

FoxyMulder, I'd have to agree that the pattern it has looks more like noise than enhanced grain. Have to read Kentai's article later today.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM)

The geometry and contrast strike me as far more stable than any SD CRT scan I've seen before, but I'll admit that the notion of a Blu-ray made in 2011 having anything to do with a CRT telecine never even crossed my mind!

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM)

I think they just over-sharpen the images (that would explain the "white dots"). Just try to sharpen the wild side release. Taking into account they have an uncompressed master. That would explain the "noise like quality". Anyway, if just run the arrow-tenebre screenthshot through a low-pass filter you get this ->

http://img7.imagebanana.com/img/nuhxcjhx/TENEBRE_LOWPASS.png

Look much, much more similar to what the wild side looks like. i was surprised myself.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 2:43 PM)

I think they just over-sharpened the whole thing (that would explain the "white dots" and the "noise like" quality as amount of noise the scanner generates would be amplified). Just try to sharpen the wild side release. Taking into account they have an uncompressed master and for the comparrision i had to work with at least 2 times re-compressed material (MASTER -> MPEG4 -> JPG!).

Anyway, if just run the arrow-tenebre screenthshot through a low-pass filter you get this ->

http://img7.imagebanana.com/img/nuhxcjhx/TENEBRE_LOWPASS.png

Looks much, much more similar to the wild side, imho. i was surprised myself.

Here the wild side sharpend (i won't work because most of what i can is sharpen the compression-artefacts but you'll get an idea)

http://img7.imagebanana.com/img/614gba1e/WILD_SIDE_SHARPENEND_TO_DEATCH.png

(sorry for my bad english and the double post )

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 3:01 PM)

Looks like there are all kinds of problems with picture quality on the blu-ray format. I have read dozens of complaints about Warner, Universal and other studios as well, not just studios that release Italian cult movies, and people seem to get so irritated by what they see that they can't enjoy their movies anymore. I've been tempted but I'm glad that I never bought the hype and stayed with DVD. At least I can still enjoy watching a movie instead of constantly looking for picture flaws and analyzing grain structures. It wouldn't surprise me if small companies like Arrow and BU stop releasing on the format anyway. With so many complaints and less people buying their product as a result, it's probably wiser and much cheaper for them to continue only with DVD and maybe digital downloads in the future.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM)

"It wouldn't surprise me if small companies like Arrow and BU stop releasing on the format anyway. With so many complaints and less people buying their product as a result, it's probably wiser and much cheaper for them to continue only with DVD and maybe digital downloads in the future."

I wonder if the compaints do really result in lost sales? The community of BD-transfer micro-analysers is probably pretty damn small, and I (for one) continue to buy these BDs despite the problems.

I don't really follow home video sales statistics, but from the little I've read it seems DVD sales peaked a few years ago (then started to fall off?), whereas Blu-ray continues to grow. I don't know how big a share of the overall market it has, though.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM)

@ Mr Mustard: Several of these technical problems may well be preventable through inexpensive process modification. I wonder if companies such as Arrow are aware of these masters' apparent deficiencies, and, if so, is a concentrated effort being made to pursue the restoration company responsible in an effort to bring about possible change?

Anyway, I would happily pay, say, double the price for a limited interest title if it meant that I did not have to buy the thing again a year or two down the line.

@ Phil Quail: I suspect a few online complaints, regardless of their merit, have little to no impact on overall sales.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM)

@Robert S: Good point, it is presumably no more expensive to produce a good transfer than a bad one (assuming the print/negative doesn't need extensive restoration in the first place). Most of these shoddy Blu-ray releases are the result of ham-fisted use of technology, not problems with the source materials.

Of course it becomes expensive if they have to withdraw a title then re-release it (not that that happens very often). In that case, the answer must be to get it right first time.

To be fair to Arrow, they did listen to comments about THE BEYOND and re-release it (even if the end result is still underwhelming).

Regarding the effect on sales, of course, we only have to look at many review sites - and the Cult Labs forum - to see robust defence of Arrow's (and Blue Underground's) Blu-ray releases. Apparently there's nothing wrong with them. ;)

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM)

@Michael

I have no doubt that blu-ray is an improvement over DVD for modern films but I'm mainly into cult movies from the sixties, seventies and eighties and have no interest at all in modern stuff. Apart from the fact that not a lot of these kind of movies are released on the blu-ray format, the two main companies that do release cult movies are BU and Arrow. To quote Kentai from his blog:
"Yes, these smeared, harsh, ugly HD transfers are all "better than the DVD", but if we have to compare it side-by-side to a decade old standard definition release just to be confident that it's a marginal upgrade, it's not fucking worth a $30."

DVDs may be garbage (although I'm still happy with it and enjoy my movies contrary to a lot of people who have blu-ray it seems) but apparently BU and Arrow release garbage on blu-ray as well, so why should I bother with replacing my DVD's for an improvement that is marginal at best?
Plus I believe that blu-ray will only have a relatively short live span. Digital downloads, streams and cloud based ownership are the future and will happen sooner than later for all media, including movies in HD. Bill Ludwig from BU actually says the same thing in his video interview on AVManiacs.

(Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 7:49 PM)

"...I believe that blu-ray will only have a relatively short live span."

Far longer than dvd surely? And imo, cloud-based ownership will never take off amongst the majority of people, much as the film or gaming industries would prefer it. Consumers/collectors much prefer to have tangible products in their hands or in their homes. And sorry, the difference between bd and dvd is FAR more than marginal, on at least 95% of all releases. It's like comparing vhs to dvd...

(Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 12:41 AM)

Downloads, streams and cloud-based ownership are not really that much about image quality. Of course that could change with bandwidths getting bigger and bigger. But with the cloud, mobile viewing comes into play which is becoming more important these days, with small displays and again optimization for bandwidth rather than quality. So I think physical formats like the Blu-ray disc will stay around for quite some time, at least as a product for home cinema enthusiasts and collectors. Should the general public at some point switch to streaming/cloud-based solutions, personally I wouldn't have a problem if physical formats then turned into a higher-priced product, focusing on quality for said enthusiasts.

(Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 8:45 AM)

Speaking of CL...

http://www.cult-labs.com/forums/160093-post49.html

(Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM)

"This guy is really thinking he's the cat's whiskers"

Doesn't "Kentai" directly translate to "whiskers of the cat"?

(Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 9:54 PM)

"Speaking of CL..."

"After all, the movie itself is all that counts. But I guess "Kentai" would prefer a great PQ over a great film."

I can't disagree with most of the chap's first statement, as a general principle. But I'd say the movie is what counts MOST, not ALL.

I would've stopped at one DVD of TENEBRAE if I didn't care about AV - instead of the six I've actually got... at this point the only reason to buy another version is to get a better presentation of the film.

(Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 9:58 PM)

Does anyone have Wild Side's Suspira or Inferno blu-rays?

It says the are in stock.

http://video.fnac.com/a3063335/Inferno-Blu-Ray-Leigh-Mcclosckey-Blu-Ray

http://video.fnac.com/a3063336/Suspiria-Blu-Ray-Stefania-Casini-Blu-Ray

(Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2011 at 10:29 PM)

DVDBeaver have added the Arrow DVD (not Blu-ray) to their Tenebrae comparison. It seems awfully bright......

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare5/tenebre.htm

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 12:27 AM)

"And to those saying to just sit back and enjoy the film rather than taking note of the transfer, most of us here already own the films. You're buying the Arrow Blu Ray for the visual fidelity."

^ A good cult-labs forum comment.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 12:30 AM)

Nope, cat whiskers would be "nekohige" [猫ひげ]. "Kentai" is a made-up kanji compound [拳態] - it's a word that doesn't exist in Japanese, but theoretically could. It basically means "Hard as Fists", and uses the first kanji that ends one of my all time favorite... well, anything, Fist of the North Star/Hokuto no Ken [北斗の拳].

It also uses a kanji from the word "Hentai" [変態], a word that means 'pervert' or 'aberrant', and the Western world and has a particular association with erotic anime, an artform I've always had a lot of affection for... so yeah, the handle is an oddly bilingual double entendre. Hope that makes... some, sense?

Anyway, Cult Labs (and AV Maniacs) can say whatever they like about me. I'm not critiquing labels in the hopes that they'll be my best friends forever; I'm doing it so that they might realize they're losing sales from people who actually care about how these films are being presented. I get it, Tenebrae isn't going to get the same level of restoration as The Sound of Music or Taxi Driver. That's fine! But for the love of Mattei's ghost, can't we at LEAST get the French transfer here? You know, the transfer that doesn't look washed out and super-noisy and just like virtually every other f**king Euro Horror title from Blue Underground and Arrow Video? Honestly, is it too much to ask that your transfer not suck substantially worse than the one that came before it? (Do I sound like I'm from Bizarro World when I say this? I'm making sense, right?)

I was (and, for the right price, still am), all in all, pretty tolerant of shitty DVDs. It'd piss me off when they were framed wrong or hard-interlaced or missing footage or had the wrong credits or whatever, but for the $10~$15 I usually dropped, I was still satisfied. Do you know why? Because they were still better than the mountains of bootleg tapes I'd otherwise have to sift through. I've bought all the Argento and Fulci films I've wanted on DVD, and if you want me to buy them again you're going to have to do better than shovel ugly, heavily processed prints out for full price. I already own two middling DVDs of Tenebrae and unloaded one of them ages ago, so trust me, I really don't need a below-par Blu-ray to sit next to them. I'm just not compromising anymore - not when you're asking me to buy the film for the second or third time, anyway. I certainly want to own these films in HD, so I'll keep pointing out what's wrong and hope someone out there's paying attention.

If people think I'm an OCD monster who eats kittens and farts demons... well, they're probably half right. But so what? Let me be miserable! If you're happy with the disc, the only reason you'd care what I have to say is because you already know in the back of your mind it's crap, but you don't want to say anything and lose favor with the cool kids who think watching Cat O' Nine Tails on the Blu-Ray Disc format is just the height of awesomeness.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 1:06 AM)

All these shoddy HD transfers are making me yearn for the days when labels created their own transfers and took care to put out quality products.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 2:05 AM)

"you don't want to say anything and lose favor with the cool kids who think watching Cat O' Nine Tails on the Blu-Ray Disc format is just the height of awesomeness."

Watching Cat O' Nine Tails on the BD format WOULD be the height of awesomeness... if it didn't look like someone swallowed the negative and shat out the resulting master.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 2:40 AM)

Sorry, that last post of mine was a failed attempt at a joke. Reading "This guy is really thinking he's the cat's whiskers" genuinely made me laugh out loud, and I felt obligated to make some kind of wisecrack about that here.

As for myself, I've gone through a few different stances on the issue of all that noise.

At first, I gave Blue Underground way more than the benefit of the doubt. I recognized that the grain in The Stendhal Syndrome and Django didn't look like anything else I'd seen on BD, but I rationalized that to myself as meaning that they were just doing it better than everyone else...that it was pure and untainted, and that's just what that sort of thing looks like. So, stage one: ignorance and fanboyism.

Stage two arrived when I came across the criticisms about BU's Italian releases here and on AVS. I stood by the gushing write-ups I'd done up to that point but acknowledged that others' criticisms may be completely valid. My stance was that if BU -- or someone else in the process -- was doing some kind of digital sleight-of-hand, it was working on me. I didn't call anyone out as "wrong!", and I tried to make an effort to see what a handful of eagle-eyed people I deeply respect were seeing, but I just couldn't. The short version: if what BU is doing is wrong, I guess I'm okay with it.

Stage three came around halfway through Cat o' Nine Tails. Obviously the screenshots floating around were nightmarish, but in motion, I was floored by how crisp and richly detailed the image looked...for a while. It hit me halfway through, though. My eyes adjusted, and then it was unmistakeable. From that point on, the movie was kind of painful to watch. Before, the noise gave everything a false impression of sharpness, and my eyes misinterpreted that as definition and detail. It took a big stack of movies for me to get there, but finally I was able to look past the noise and see just how lousy the presentation really is. If I were to rewatch Stendhal, Django, and the rest of the bunch right now, I'm sure my reaction would be a complete 180 from where it was months ago. I'm finally right there with the rest of you.

"Regarding the effect on sales, of course, we only have to look at many review sites"

Not that I'm telling you anything you don't know, but many, if not most, reviewers have no idea what they're talking about. (...and I say that as someone who gave Django and The Stendhal Syndrome pretty stellar reviews.) That's why I kind of laugh to myself when I'm reading threads on different message boards where people talk about "professional reviews" when, really, the reviewers for sites like blu-ray.com, DVD Talk, High Def Digest, and the like are generally just hobbyists like most everyone else on those forums. They know what they've picked up on message boards and from reading other reviews, but as far as any relevant professional expertise goes, it's a safe bet that's very few and far between. Showing off how much more you know than everyone is the digital equivalent of dick inches, so people who really have no clue what they're talking about speak with absolute authority anyway. It's frustrating because it's really not hard to be a good reviewer. Just seek out people who really do know what they're talking about and pay attention to what they criticize...to what they single out for praise. I consider myself to be a better-than-average reviewer, but that's after making my share of mistakes along the way and taking the time to try to genuinely understand what I'm writing about. The stumbling block for a lot of people is that they don't want to admit to themselves that anyone knows more than they do. Oh well.

Since the market for cult BDs is so small right now, even just a few prominent reviewers who were really critical of this practice could potentially move the needle in sales enough to make a difference. The trick is to get the right people to notice/care.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 2:43 AM)

@Neil Harrison
"And sorry, the difference between bd and dvd is FAR more than marginal, on at least 95% of all releases. It's like comparing vhs to dvd..."

If that is really the case then all these complaints seem a bit silly to me. Why would anyone complain about something that is supposedly so much better? The fact that people do complain so much tells me that the difference between DVD and blu-ray is really only marginal. I can't remember so much complaining about DVD. Sure there were some complaints about non-anamorphic releases on DVD but not as much as with blu-ray now. I do believe that a modern film, released by a big company that can afford thousands of dollars to make them look good, can look much better on blu-ray but for the cult movies I'm interested in that does not seem to be the case.

@Adam
"Since the market for cult BDs is so small right now, even just a few prominent reviewers who were really critical of this practice could potentially move the needle in sales enough to make a difference."

Since the market is small for cult blu-rays I believe that every sale lost hurts the likes of BU and Arrow. Big companies like Warner and Universal have a much bigger market share and can afford to lose some sales due to bad press but even small companies that are still only releasing in DVD are having problems keeping afloat. Just look at how many of them closed shop over the last couple of years. Keep on complaining and I'm sure that soon you'll have nothing to complain about anymore. I hope that BU and Arrow come to their senses and ditch blu-ray before that though. Apparently their blu-ray releases don't make people happy so the financially safe thing to do is only release on DVD which is much cheaper to produce I believe. Or go the digital download route which is even cheaper than DVD. That way everybody is happy. BU and Arrow stay alive, blu-ray fans have nothing to complain about anymore and people who enjoy cult movies can still enjoy them on DVD or digital downloads.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 6:38 AM)

DVD sales continue to decline and many out there would rather steal than pay for a download. These labels aren't going to stay alive that way. As far as being able to afford to put out cult movies that look good on the format, it's already been done before. Look at Evil Dead, or Inferno. The problem at hand is one that likely can be corrected.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 7:13 AM)

"Why would anyone complain about something that is supposedly so much better? The fact that people do complain so much tells me that the difference between DVD and blu-ray is really only marginal."

The complaints are about discs that *are* a marginal improvement rather than the world's difference that so many properly done releases have proven that there can be.

"I can't remember so much complaining about DVD."

There was. Also, bear in mind that at this point in DVD's lifespan, the average viewer likely didn't have an HDTV, and if he did, it was on the small side and almost certainly low quality. High-end projection rigs weren't even a blip on the map. Display tech is so much larger, so much more pervasive, and so much higher quality now. The smaller, lower-quality displays of years past did cover up a lot of problems that are so much more glaring now.

"but for the cult movies I'm interested in that does not seem to be the case"

When I look at something like Alien 2 by Midnight Legacy -- a movie no one's ever heard of, seemingly no one on the planet likes, and has several decades under its belt -- which looks breathtakingly, indescribably gorgeous in HD, I just can't buy the "but it's an old cult movie!" sob story. Really, a very, very large percentage of Blue Underground's releases have been very impressive; with a handful of other exceptions, it's the Italian titles that've been an issue. If you pick up BU's The Nesting next week, that's another case in point about how they can rescue a movie that's languished in obscurity for decades and really do it right. Follow Don May, Jr. on Twitter or Facebook to read about how much time and effort he routinely puts into Synapse's releases. For crying out loud, MGM's Blu-ray releae of Troll 2 is a knockout. What's being asked for here demonstrably is not unrealistic. In the case upthread, it's CLEARLY not unrealistic since a dramatically visually superior release of Tenebre already exists.

"Since the market is small for cult blu-rays I believe that every sale lost hurts the likes of BU and Arrow."

That's my point, really.

Buy the discs that are worth buying. Don't buy the discs that aren't. It's a business at the end of the day, so make a business case that quality matters.

"Keep on complaining and I'm sure that soon you'll have nothing to complain about anymore."

Eh, the same issues would crop up for people who want to stream these movies in HD.

I put my money where my mouth is. I have every single Blue Underground BD on my shelf, some of which I was admittedly sent to review but most of which I paid for out of my own pocket. (After all this, I'm not sure I'm going to continue with that.) Synapse is just getting started, but I have everything they've put out. I have my share of titles from pretty much everyone who's supported cult cinema on Blu-ray. Of that pool, the percentage of titles I'm truly disappointed with is fairly small. High-def cult cinema is hardly some kind of barren wasteland.

If you can't put out a really great looking disc of, say, Cat o' Nine Tails, put out a really great looking disc of something else. Come back to Cat when there's an opportunity to do it right -- when there's a larger market, when better elements can be unearthed, when another shop somewhere else in the world can help defray the costs, etc.

Being an apologist for a company's sloppy output doesn't do anyone any good.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 7:24 AM)

I really wish people would stop treating DVD as discredited currency - the fact is is that it is a perfectly acceptable format, particularly on lower-sized screens. Quite frankly, one of the disadvantages of blu-ray is the amount of division that has arisen due to the high-definition, something which did not belong to the DVD format.

Let's take a recent case in point. A few months ago, Eureka was planning to put out Faccia a Faccia on dual format; however, on review of the material, they decided that DVD was a safer option. This is what Kevin had to say about the matter on blu-ray.com:

"This is correct, we basically had to make a call whether to release a grade C Blu-ray or a grade A DVD, we went for the latter, it really wasn't up to scratch for Blu. The daytime scenes looked OK but the night scenes were quite bad."

Eureka also gave reasons why The Iron Horse would be DVD only:"it's not in very consistent shape. Parts look astonishing and would pop in 1080p, other parts are very damaged and soft. On the whole, it's the best the film's ever looked, but we all agree it wouldn't be wise to put a Blu-ray out (even though both versions have been scanned in HD)."

Yet were they greeted with uniform thanks for taking a responsible decision? Here is what a poster, Funktion, on blu-ray.com had to say in response:

"It's their decision, and they did what they thought would suit them best.
But for me, and of course I speak personally, I would prefer to own a film in 1080p with a few portions in much rougher shape (it would still be the best possible way to experience it) than to have the same thing on a DVD, with much lower resolution and detail.
For example, I own the US BD of 80's Canadian slasher My Bloody Valentine, and it includes an extended version whose inserts came from a source in very rough shape, but even with the obvious change in quality of the footage it's still my preferable option to watch the film, and never in a million years would I prefer to watch it on a DVD.

How many of you watched films in a cinema a few decades ago, before these digital showings? How many times did we get pristine prints, especially if the film was on show for a couple months already?
I could certainly live with a 1080p release with damage on the print..."

So DVD/Blu companies have two choices:
1. Don't upgrade to blu - then risk the frustration of the HD community.
2. Upgrade to blu even if the material or other elements are in rough shape, and run the risk of being damned by the HD community anyway for the soft parts, believing that a better job could have been done somehow.

Blu-ray is a marathon, not a sprint - it needs continuous investment to justify its continued presence as a format, particuarly when up against the future of digital downloads. The only way that new masters are going to be created are if the companies are convinced there's going to be a market for it. Until then, let's be grateful that companies like BU and Arrow attempt to bring the films to the format, even if it's not always successful.

Otherwise, there are two simple solutions to the disappointment:

(1) Stick with the DVD, watch on a smaller screen and hope and pray that a mysterious public benefactor ponies up several thousands for a brand new masters for blu.
(2) For instant gratification, buy the cinema prints of the films you love and don't forget the canvass screen and the state of the art projector.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM)

Sergio: I fear that might just be the nostalgia talking...

Anchor Bay had freeze-framed credits on Deep Red, misplaced footage on The New York Ripper, missing footage on their supposedly uncut Torso, a wonky 5.1 mix on Suspiria and VHS sourced gore for Cut and Run. Their "Divimax" versions of Halloween and Dawn of the Dead were replacing some really wretched early releases that may as well have been old Laserdiscs crapped out on DVD. I literally can't even explain all the things that were wrong with the "Director's Cut" of Manhunter, which they made even more of a dick move my only including in an overpriced limited edition.

Despite all this, Anchor Bay was still one of the more reliable labels out there ten years ago!

Adam: No worries. I just don't know that I've ever had to explain what my name meant before, is all. :)

But we're in total agreement over Alien 2. It set a standard that no other Euro Horror BD has even tried to reach before or since, and for it to have been established on a film that any other label would have considered a total throw-away piece speaks volumes about what's possible for these films. I really hope they work out whatever's been keeping them quiet and get back in the saddle ASAP... honestly, I'm tired of wondering just how poorly the latest transfer from Arrow or BU is going to suck - no, not if, just how hard...

I'd say "Prove me wrong, gentlemen!", but Bill Lustig's quickly becoming a lost cause. Even MANIAC! - his own damned film - is a clusterf**k of epic proportions with blacks that managed to be crushed AND elevated at the same time. That's some kind of special calibration issue, as I don't think I've ever seen on anything else.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM)

Kentai, I think you're the first person I've actually seen mention just how hideous the Maniac Blu Ray is. Lord knows what happened there.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 4:31 PM)

I've only seen the DVDBeaver screen caps of MANIAC, but it looked so flat, dull and greyish I couldn't bring myself to buy it.

The comments about Eureka's FACCIA A FACCIA are interesting. Looking at the state of the print I think they were probably right not to consider it "good enough" for Blu-ray. Even if they did a (technically) perfect transfer from those poor source materials, it still wouldn't look great - and ironically it probably would have got a lot of bad reviews from Blu-ray reviewers who routinely give good reviews to DNR'd, EE'd monstrosities.....

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 5:34 PM)

I have to say, some people do get very passionate about this grain analyzing thing. If it affected me so much as it does some people here, and prevented me from enjoying movies, I would start looking for something else to get passionate about. I mean it's just a piece of plastic with some imperfect data on it but some people make it sound like it's the end of the world that their blu-ray isn't up to their personal standard. Weird hobby.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 5:46 PM)

Some of us regard it as more than a hobby, Mr. Mustard. I intend on making a career out of film archiving and preservation. I apologize if the fact that I care about the accurate preservation and presentation of art bothers you.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 6:36 PM)

Jules,

I have no problem buying a blu ray that has some rough bits about it, that may have soft moments or inconsistent moments, what i object to is when some idiot tries to manipulate the image and make those "softer moments" sharper by using edge sharpening tools or when someone decides to change the brightness ( most bloody Arrow releases ) or add DNR because those night scenes look a little grainy.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM)

Aiii, so much controversy on this topic! Just, you know, to be an ass, I'll throw in my (more than) two cents too.

Yes, it's wonderful that these films are being released on BD. Yes, they do generally look great in comparison to their DVD counterparts - if you can't tell the difference either your equipment is shoddy or you're just not a videophile (and Blu-ray probably doesn't matter much to you.) Yes, these masters do have often significant faults. No, these faults are generally not the fault of the source material or of a low restoration/mastering budget - which seems to be the general defense that's given by the Cult Labs, etc. crowd, as if they think a sole surviving print of Cat o' Nine Tails was found mouldering in a sewer somewhere and they did everything within their power and budget to fix it up as best they could.

I think I speak for most everyone on the "this sucks" side of the fence when I say that it's not that we have expensive and unrealistic expectations for these films, but rather we just want to see what's on the neg/print with some cleanup, WITHOUT the attempts to make them look sharp and ungrainy on a small HDTV. We're grateful that companies are releasing these films to begin with, and I for one will still buy them, but I'm much more interested in seeing an authentic presentation rather than a heavily degrained/sharpened one.

On the subject of releases being cancelled due to uneven source material, I really don't care if half the film isn't exactly reference quality - I'd rather take an accurate somewhat grainy/soft HD transfer than cruddy SD simply because I want the best quality available.

*rant complete*

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 8:27 PM)

I noticed Don May and Synapse were mentioned earlier. As a friend of Don, I know how much work he puts into his releases, and how much he HATES artificial digital manipulation and automatic corrections. While in some cases he's had to rely on supplied masters, most of the time he supervises the transfers himself, and I know that he's VERY demanding when it comes to the authoring. In fact he told me just yesterday that he just pulled a major title from an authoring facility when they sent him a check disc and the black levels were elevated, resulting in milky greyish/brown blacks. It didn't look like the master, and they refused to admit any wrongdoing, so he pulled the title and took it to another facility. Don theorized that something was miscalibrated with the authoring house's capture card and that caused the black levels to change when they dumped his master into their computer for the compression, but they didn't want to hear it. I wonder how often problems like this go unnoticed (I'm guessing probably a whole lot in companies that aren't run by somebody as attentive to detail as Don is).

Vincent

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 8:36 PM)

Foxy,

For a start, let's talk about digital restoration (or manipulation as others might call it). How do you know that the image does not need some restoration - if you want an example of a light touch approach, check out Park Circus' Pandora and the Flying Dutchman. It may be authentic, but bloody hell it's an authentic mess; the colours are terrible. Now I know excessive DNR is unforgivable, but if it's a choice between print damage and some DNR, I'll take the latter every time.

I do not believe for one minute that Arrow or BU are conspiring to cheat the consumer out of a good image - I'm not sure about BU and their processes, but there have been at least two occasions where Arrow evidently have not been happy with the work being done in Italy according to the press releases - the first was in relation to the Beyond (prior to the B/W and bit-rate debacle) and the second in relation to Tenebrae, where they asked for the bit rate to be increased. Now they will be judged accordingly on their releases, but not to release as others have suggested when they have bought the rights, is just not living in the real world.

This is the key thing that I feel is being ignored in this whole debate - commercial viability and the constraints that they impose. It's all very well to say that blu-ray is the ultimate format, so we deserve the ultimate edition right now. But we have to remember the companies have to judge which titles are likely to sell well, and so deserve the better treatment. Unfortunately, Argentos and Fulcis will not sell as well as modern day blockbusters such as Avatar and Pirates. Ask yourselves these questions:

Midnight Legacy - with Alien 2, why have you not heard more from them? They appear to be on a roll, so why not strike while the iron is hot? I'm willing to venture that they went all out with this release and it did not deliver; it probably flopped (I hope not) and now they've got to think carefully about next releases.

Wild Side - Inferno and Suspiria do not appear to be particular standouts, but Tenebrae appears to be the Jewel in the Crown. Michael - please correct me if I'm wrong -, but it appears that Wild Side also originally planned to release Phenomena and Cat on blu, yet chose not to do so. Now the current Argento blu releases may or may not have flopped, but either way why not go the whole hog and put them on blu; they certainly have the DVD rights. Flops would be a strong reason for not releasing them on blu. After all, what's the point of putting out one or two good releases if it's going to bankrupt the company?

The consumers have to give the companies a damn good reason to take a risk, particularly in these times of economic hardship. Not wanting to buy a release is one thing, but actively wishing it to fail - how does that help?

And as to the differences of opinion on PQ - well it's rather sad to watch actually. Who knows - you guys may be right on the PQ, but remember the cliche "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder"; for some, these films are so good that it will transcend any problems with the PQ (They'd still watch on a worn-out VHS, given half a chance). You may hate Arrow/BU defenders' stubborness and their refusal to accept that you may have a point, but at the same time you have to remember what you are arguing - you are effectively telling them that there is something wrong with their sight or with their ability to interpret film PQ; you unwittingly mean to deprive them of their ability to enjoy the film on a format which is supposed to be superior to anything that has gone before on home video. It is understandable that there will be some resistance and a willingness to challenge and answer back.

(Posted on Friday, June 24, 2011 at 8:57 PM)

@Mr Mustard.

The reason people pick up on faults in transfers on Blu-Ray (and this goes right across the board, from cult enthusiasts here to those other sorts of people who don't like film grain etc) is that the format has the amazing scope to show these things.

I used to be fond of DVD, as well, and can still enjoy it provided it's for something modest like an old 16mm feature or TV show. But along came Blu-Ray with it's massive capacity for detail and faithful film-like presentation, and it just blew it away. Sales trends seem to suggest other people have had a similar experience. Your comments suggest you haven't got a Blu-ray player yet, and don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not as hardline as Michael on BR technical standards, but I'm v grateful there are people out there whose expertise I can trust before committing to buying a BR disc. If you think that's not a worthwhile hobby or service, why visit here? Stop trolling.

(Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 7:19 AM)

Jules,

I am not willing to buy these Arrow releases because i feel they are not of a high enough quality, i feel they or whoever they get to do the transfers for them, are not giving us the optimum quality, i believe there is too much digital tinkering, i can take a little DNR, fact is that most releases have it, its a question of going too far down the smooth path on most of the Arrow releases, worse though is the brightening up, all things being equal i'll take the Blue Underground release because for me they usually up the bitrate to a high enough level so that artifacts do not become an issue, they also don't brighten the image.

By all means buy into them, so you think if we didn't buy them then they wouldn't release them at all, perhaps you are right, but i won't buy something where i feel a company is putting out a product to please grain haters and thats my perception of Arrow, even if some of their releases keep the grain intact i feel the perception is there in my own mind and i am wary of their product.

If Arrow "up their game" and start releasing what i consider quality then i will buy it, so far their Italian horror output has suffered greatly from being brightened up and having the grain structure dialled down, they apparently share the same masters with Blue Underground who do not brighten the image and do not dial the grain down, enough said really, sure there are anomalies in some of these films with what appears to be digital noise creeping in but since thats in both Blue Underground and the Arrow releases then it stands to reason it is to do with the film scan that is creating the master both companies use.

Check out Dog Soldiers below, real good movie and while the DVD is probably edge enhanced i do feel there seems to be little if any additional detail contained in the blu ray. Is this an upconvert, who releases this in the USA. ?

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?art=full&image=7&vergleich=dog_soldiers&action=1&lossless=0#vergleich

(Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 1:00 PM)

@ Mr Mustard

You're either daft, or trolling.

(Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 1:02 PM)

Foxy: Hell yes that's an upscale.

(Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 1:44 PM)

Yah i was wondering if Capaholics got the caps mixed up as the dvd seems better than the blu ray.

(Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM)

"Is this an upconvert, who releases this in the USA. ?"

First Look put it out. I have that Blu-ray disc, and there's nothing even a little bit high definition about it. (I didn't have the DVD, though, and I think there was all of a 50 cent difference in price between the DVD and the BD, so I bit for the BD anyway even with as lousy as the quality was reported to be.)

(Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM)

Caps-A-Holic remains one of the absolute most reliable and trustworthy A/B comparison site out there. If their screenshots say the Blu-ray is shite and the PAL DVD is better, don't hesitate to trust them.

(Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 3:19 PM)

Well kentai, they don't actually say one is better than the other, i just thought to myself, how on earth can the blu ray look so much worse than the dvd, so i wondered to myself if the site had mixed up the caps and labelled them wrongly, it happens occasionally, even at the best of sites.

I agree that capaholics is a very good site for comparisons.

(Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2011 at 3:28 PM)