Page 1 of 3
Re: Blu-ray, in General
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 12:11 pm
by eerik
Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:39 pm
by dx23
Paramount is releasing next Tuesday Gladiator and Braveheart and later in October, Forrest Gump, on Blu-ray in a line named the Sapphire Series. I was planning on upgrading the 3 of them, but just read over the threads and saw screenshots at the AVS forum and DVDTalk, and my God! Paramount has really screwed up both releases.
Here are some screenshots the mention:
Right one DVD, left BD
On
this thread, the AVS forum goes more into detail. What I'm more surprised is that Gary didn't noticed these huge flaws over at DVDBeaver and gave great reviews to
both releases. Any opinions on this? To be clear, I'm not trying to take a shot here at Gary or his site. I really like and respect DVDBeaver and consider them one of the great resources for film fans like me, but I was wondering what he saw that complete goes against the popular opinion at both AVS and DVDTalk.
Also, I can't understand what the hell Paramount is thinking by launching a line with these blunders.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:53 am
by Person
In the AVS thread, someone points out the screenshots of the "Germania" optical title. On the HDTV presentation, the text is perfect, very film-like, but the BD is fuzzy, jaggy. That says it all for me, ie. this transfer has been mucked about with. Feels like I'm back in 2001 when this shit used be standard practice among many studios. Paramount better not fuck up the Chinatown BD.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:28 pm
by aox
Here is an
article from the Digital Bits.
Some highlights:
What it looks like to me (though it's impossible to be sure, obviously), is that someone at Universal (keep in mind, it's Universal that controls the Gladiator assets for DreamWorks - not Paramount), decided to re-use the original digital master of the HD transfer done back in 2000 for the very first DVD release. Now, that transfer was state of the art for its day, and it was approved by director Ridley Scott, but obviously it's a far cry from the quality of new HD transfers done today, in 2009. One of the biggest problems is that until fairly recently, video mastering engineers were still applying edge-enhancement to their digital masters knowing that they were going to be used ultimately for standard-definition DVD release, and also analog VHS and laserdisc. It took the mastering community a long time to break the habit. In this Gladiator transfer, you can see it in the image. It's also clear that the 2000 digital master has been digitally-filtered to reduce the haloing and other artifacts - the signs of DNR are not hard to miss. That's in contrast to the extended edition scenes, which were transferred in HD in 2005 and so look much better. They're still not quite up to today's standards, but they look far superior to the rest of the film and there's no edge-enhancement or obvious filtering visible. The footage simply looks natural - as it should. There's been some talk of DNR being so excessive that - for example - arrows and fireballs disappear from one frame to the next.
I am pretty angry about this.
Gladiator was the only one that I considered buying.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:17 am
by Jeff
It seems to be consensus opinion at this point that the transfer of Gladiator is so incredibly awful it needs to be recalled (I feel the same way about the film, but that's beside the point). The DVNR has actually removed significant information from the film image. Considering that, it does seem a little odd that it would get a glowing review from the Beev.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:50 pm
by Antoine Doinel
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:36 pm
by Perkins Cobb
Oh dear, Gary may have to write another open letter to somebody.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 5:41 am
by manicsounds
Anyone know if the European "Gladiator" from Universal is any different / any better? Or Region B / Region Free?
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:39 pm
by domino harvey
Another flawed Sapphire release, this time with
altered color timing
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 pm
by andyli
but how do you know the original color timing is correct?
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:24 pm
by zitherstrings
Yeah. DVDs often have over-timed colours.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:34 pm
by domino harvey
Look at the scene with the woman getting the news on her porch in
this trailer at 0:12, which is replicated in one of DVDBeaver's screencaps. The Blu-ray cap is full of vibrant color, while the trailer is desaturated like the film looked on release. But hey, if you think it looks good, go get 'er
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:02 pm
by Matt
Janusz Kaminski in [i]American Cinematographer[/i] wrote:"We also wanted to shoot this picture in color because there is some blood in the film and we wanted to play with the reds, even though we did desaturate the colors through the use of ENR [silver retention process]," Kaminski expands, noting that the use of the special Technicolor process was a key reason to do extensive camera tests. "I knew the movie would have more of a bluish tone to it, and with 70 percent ENR, the color of the blood on the uniforms and the ground was a primary concern. For scenes in which the characters got wounded, we wanted to know how the blood would look on the uniforms and how it would look after they wore those uniforms for a couple of days. Because we were dealing with a World War II drama, the wardrobe was already muted, and since we were shooting in England and Ireland, we had day after day of foggy, rainy climate, which automatically made the light more diffused and the colors more pastel. We therefore compared various levels of ENR, and based on those tests, the special effects department mixed a certain amount of blue into the blood to make it a bit darker than they’d normally use.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:48 am
by TMDaines
Either way it's director approved isn't it? Hasn't Spielberg been involved with the release of his films on Blu?
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:34 am
by domino harvey
Do the Right Thing Blu-ray was allegedly director-approved and, uh
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 2:45 am
by HistoryProf
so what else is planned for this line? I see a reference above to Chinatown, but don't see that on Amazon. I was very very pleased with the Braveheart blu ray, but passed on Gladiator and Gump. I have the old DTS dvd of SPR, but will definitely consider picking this up for the right price.
Of course I FINALLY bought Chinatown - although only for $3 at Big Lots - so of course that's going to be part of this series. Anything else rumored or official?
ETA: I see Godfather and GF II are both new releases in the line...and seem to be well reviewed - and now I can own them without having to get III!!! Outstanding!
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2010 6:16 am
by eerik
HistoryProf wrote:ETA: I see Godfather and GF II are both new releases in the line...and seem to be well reviewed - and now I can own them without having to get III!!! Outstanding!
Umm... what's the point? You can get the boxset with all three films and bonus features disc for the same price as the first two films separately (boxset is $50, sapphire editions both $24 on amazon). These are basically the same discs repackaged and only extra features are audio commentaries.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:13 am
by mfunk9786
TMDaines wrote:Either way it's director approved isn't it? Hasn't Spielberg been involved with the release of his films on Blu?
The real question is, why isn't Spielberg focusing all his attention on getting
Catch Me if You Can out on Blu? The DVD has been out forever, and the transfer looks like absolute shit.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:39 am
by Svevan
eerik wrote:HistoryProf wrote:ETA: I see Godfather and GF II are both new releases in the line...and seem to be well reviewed - and now I can own them without having to get III!!! Outstanding!
Umm... what's the point? You can get the boxset with all three films and bonus features disc for the same price as the first two films separately (boxset is $50, sapphire editions both $24 on amazon). These are basically the same discs repackaged and only extra features are audio commentaries.
The bonus features disc had better be worth having Godfather III in your house. We need to do a cost-benefit analysis on this one.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:17 pm
by Finch
I watched the Blu of Ryan yesterday morning and I remember my theatrical viewing of the film well enough. The BR is brighter and the colours are (somewhat) more vibrant but for me at least it did not alter the experience significantly, let alone in a negative way. I respect that the colours are a controversial issue for some and it would be helpful to get clarification as to whether Spielberg and/or Kaminiski personally supervised the transfer but at the end of the day it still is a fine presentation of the film, with the grain intact and the DTS HD track expectedly is reference quality. More than anything, the BR has deepened my appreciation of the film. This is not a screw up of giant proportions like the Gladiator disc (and you can always turn the colours down on the remote). The extras are duplicated from SD though the worthwhile "Shooting War" documentary may be exclusive (not sure) to BR and is worth watching for Tom Hanks' hideous beard alone.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:56 pm
by manicsounds
"Shooting War" was in the bigger boxset of Saving Private Ryan as an extra disc.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:30 am
by HistoryProf
Svevan wrote:eerik wrote:HistoryProf wrote:ETA: I see Godfather and GF II are both new releases in the line...and seem to be well reviewed - and now I can own them without having to get III!!! Outstanding!
Umm... what's the point? You can get the boxset with all three films and bonus features disc for the same price as the first two films separately (boxset is $50, sapphire editions both $24 on amazon). These are basically the same discs repackaged and only extra features are audio commentaries.
The bonus features disc had better be worth having Godfather III in your house. We need to do a cost-benefit analysis on this one.
exactly...I only have I and II in the original dvds and have avoided all the boxes because I just can't have III in my house. I can always netflix an extras disc if there's anything really worth viewing - or in this case borrow it from my dad since he bought it on release. Though I can't imagine what extras might be contrived that would make me feel okay about paying for and owning III.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:46 am
by mfunk9786
Oh puh-lease. Everyone needs to grow up when it comes to The Godfather Part III, I can't tell you how many people have told me that they essentially wasted money and purchased inferior editions just to avoid owning it. No one's going to come into your house and give you shit for owning it, and if you hate it so much, just buy the trilogy set and throw that disc away. Which is in and of itself completely psychotic.
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:48 am
by domino harvey
I think Part III is as good as Part II, which is neither compliment nor insult
Re: Paramount's Sapphire Series
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:56 am
by Svevan
Oh gawd. Funk-mah-brother-man, I own the trilogy already. A joke is a joke is a joke.
Dom, I'm interested - I think Part II is inferior to the first one, but only barely. Elements of Part III (Pope-y stuff in the Vatican, opera/murder cross-cutting, the last shot, in fact most of the bits without Sofia Coppola and Andy Garcia, etc) are actually GOOD, but what is terrible in that film is so much worse than any of Part II's weak spots. Would love a defense of II, or is it somewhere else on the board?
