Dementia 13 review posted.

by **Alien Redrum** » Fri May 27, 2011 3:14 pm

That seventh seal screen grab does nothing for me.

by **damnationdoormat** » Fri May 27, 2011 6:55 pm

DJBenz wrote:(I disagree that he would see film grain as a defect, as you suggest earlier)

That's bullshit and you know it. There's countless DVD reviews all over the Internet that point to "grain" as unwanted because most reviewers have no idea what the hell they're looking at.

The only way to force a change is to boycott any releases that have 'poor' transfers, but we've already established that average man won't feel strongly enough to do that.

Gangs of New York and Gladiator have received remastered versions months after piss poor initial Blu-rays to due to negative response.

It sucks for you, but unfortunately you have to live with it.

It sucks for everyone with an interest in film and if it wasn't for people like me who actually work in the industry, the entire history of film would be in jeopardy. Just ask Don May Jr., Night of the Living Dead would be gone without his Herculean efforts to save the film.

by **Spez** » Fri May 27, 2011 7:42 pm

I still don't understand why people love film grain. It's something that's not supposed to be there. Do you think that if Orson Welles or some other old timey director had the chance to shoot their "classic" movies on a digital camera with the type of quality we have now that they wouldn't jump at the chance to do so? This is why photo departments in retail stores are getting so much business now from old pictures. People are bringing in their photos that are beat up, old, or covered in garbage and getting them touched up digitally to make the image better and clearer to see. If I had to choose between a movie with film grain and a movie with the film grain removed and the image remastered, I would pick the latter every time because there's less garbage on the screen that doesn't belong there.

by **damnationdoormat** » Fri May 27, 2011 8:37 pm

It would make perfect sense to get rid of video and audio ratings then.

by **DJBenz** » Fri May 27, 2011 8:48 pm

damnationdoormat wrote:
DJBenz wrote:(I disagree that he would see film grain as a defect, as you suggest earlier)

That's bullshit and you know it. There's countless DVD reviews all over the Internet that point to "grain" as unwanted because most reviewers have no idea what the hell they're looking at.

Average man doesn't write DVD reviews though. There's a big difference between Mr Standard Consumer and someone who purports to have a working knowledge of film quality.

The only way to force a change is to boycott any releases that have 'poor' transfers, but we've already established that average man won't feel strongly enough to do that.

Gangs of New York and Gladiator have received remastered versions months after piss poor initial Blu-rays to due to negative response.

Two re-releases out of how many total discs available? And by 'piss-poor' was it a case of overusing DNR and removing a bit too much detail, or were the transfers completely and utterly terrible?

It sucks for you, but unfortunately you have to live with it.

It sucks for everyone with an interest in film and if it wasn't for people like me who actually work in the industry, the entire history of film would be in jeopardy. Just ask Don May Jr., Night of the Living Dead would be gone without his Herculean efforts to save the film.

[/quote]

Now I think you're completely overstating your case. Are you suggesting that the entire history of film is in jeopardy because Arrow Video used too much DNR in their last release? There's a Herculean difference between rescuing a film from being destroyed, never to be seen again, and fucking up a transfer from film to DVD. The former loses the film forever, the latter gives a second, third, fourth stab at getting a decent transfer to disc.

Spez wrote:I still don't understand why people love film grain. It's something that's not supposed to be there.

Actually, I'm going to disagree with that. A film shot on film stock will have a natural amount of grain due to the medium. And while some directors of yesteyear may hypothetically choose a modern HD camera to shoot their work, there are still a number that would choose to stick with film (and there are those that do today, not always a choice dictated by budget).

by **Neon Maniac** » Fri May 27, 2011 9:27 pm

DJBenz wrote: If they can do that by doing a half-arsed job of the transfers, employing technicians that don't really understand what they're doing, then they'll do it. It sucks for you, but unfortunately you have to live with it.

That attitude right there is what turned the UK from a mighty empire into the 2nd world country it is today.

by **DJBenz** » Fri May 27, 2011 9:34 pm

Neon Maniac wrote:
DJBenz wrote: If they can do that by doing a half-arsed job of the transfers, employing technicians that don't really understand what they're doing, then they'll do it. It sucks for you, but unfortunately you have to live with it.

That attitude right there is what turned the UK from a mighty empire into the 2nd world country it is today.

Your opinion ceased to be valid when you stopped reviewing for HT. Run along now.

by **Neon Maniac** » Sat May 28, 2011 2:12 am

You ceased to be relevant when the world switched from the Laverne to the US Dollar.

by **damnationdoormat** » Sat May 28, 2011 5:02 pm

Gangs of New York First Blu-ray (DNR and edge enhancement)

Second Blu-ray Remastered (NO DNR or EE)

Gladiator First Blu-ray (DNR and edge enhancement)

Second Blu-ray Remastered (NO DNR or EE)

I can't see how anyone would prefer the absolutely shitty initial Blu-rays. Unless blind.

by **DJBenz** » Sat May 28, 2011 7:38 pm

damnationdoormat wrote:I can't see how anyone would prefer the absolutely shitty initial Blu-rays. Unless blind.

My point is that Average Man would be happy with the initial release and wouldn't have pressed for the remaster.

Incidentally, both remasters look more cropped than the originals. Is there a reason for this?