Jaws Blu-Ray in the works with no "digital corrections!"

Jeyl

Master Member
Well, this is good news. :cool

Here's hoping to a beautiful transfer to go along with it. And don't forget Universal...

DON'T TRIM THE MAKING OFS!
 

Contec

Master Member
Shark still looks fake
5670996_std.jpg
 

dbuck

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Please no dnr. Please no dnr. Please no dnr.

Jaws scared me so badly as a kid I wouldn't even swim in the deep end of our pool.
 

Zombie_61

Master Member
^ I concur 100%. Spielberg seems to realize film fans love their favorite movies as-is, warts and all, and don't want to see those "flaws" fixed or see the movies changed in any other way.

When this release happens, I just might have to retire my dvd player and get a Blu-Ray player. :confused
 

samwise

New Member
^ I concur 100%. Spielberg seems to realize film fans love their favorite movies as-is, warts and all, and don't want to see those "flaws" fixed or see the movies changed in any other way.

When this release happens, I just might have to retire my dvd player and get a Blu-Ray player. :confused

it will be well worth it for this, i waited to until Batman Begins was re-done in Blu-ray before i bought mine was SOOOO worth it !!
 

Apollo

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Great news.

Will be buying this the first day it hits!

...and c'mon 1941!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:

dbuck

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I take it that it was this that ruined the newest Predator BR release?

Yup. There are too many blu rays that look worse than the DVD version. When I decide to purchase a blu ray that I already own on DVD I usually wait for the reviews. Highdefdigest is one good source, like this bit regarding that Predator release:


When 'Predator' was originally shot, the makers used a specific film stock with a color temperature that required little filtration or expensive lighting equipment. Given the schedule and limited budget before dailies were shown to investors, photography was done quickly and with available, natural light of the Mexican jungles. On this hi-def presentation, the benefits are fairly clear in many exterior shots where foliage is distinct and excellently detailed. The finer lines in clothing, weapons and the alien costume are terrific while facial complexions are often revealing with beautiful, lifelike texture. Colors are nicely saturated and clean, with primaries looking really vibrant but not overstated. While I couldn't detect any edge enhancement, I did notice sharpening tools were in definite use. Thankfully, it wasn't to the point of annoyance, but it's still there.

Now, the one drawback of shooting with a high temp stock and poor lighting conditions is a much grainer picture, especially during dim, night scenes. With this being the case, 'Predator' should show heavy amounts of film grain, but it's not to be seen. It's pretty obvious that much of this structure — a natural and expected result of celluloid photography — has been digitally removed via noise reduction. Most immediate and damning is the indoor, dimly-lit scene where Dutch and Dillon first reunite early in the story. Both actors look artificial and synthetic, lacking any definition in their aged faces and plenty of soft edges. Adding to the disaster are a couple of frames which appear natural one second and then strangely foggy and dreamlike the very next instant. Carl Weathers' moustache is a deplorable and unacceptable travesty (because of the noise reduction mind you!) .

Later, in the final fight at night where grain should be thickest, minor background info is missing and the entire sequence loses its overall gritty nature. This is not only a disappointment which distracts from the picture's better parts, but it's also a significant detriment to the film's entire presentation. Complicating matters, contrast has been boosted somewhat. Granted, there are no issues with clipping and the image possesses a nice pop, but this is at the cost of weaker black levels during night scenes. In daylight, things look acceptable, but when Schwarzenegger goes 'Lord of the Flies,' we lose depth, gradational details are lacking, and shadows are murkier. All things considered, this is nowhere near how 'Predator' was originally shot or even presented theatrically.
 

Apollo

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Thanks for the tip!

I just went Blu-ray and high-def when my T.V. crapped out on me in Feb.

I've been noticing that some releases on Blu-ray is not much better than dvd.

I'll be visiting Highdefdigest!


When I decide to purchase a blu ray that I already own on DVD I usually wait for the reviews. Highdefdigest is one good source
 

Art Andrews

Community Owner
Community Staff
I take it that it was this that ruined the newest Predator BR release?

Don't want to derail this thread, but wanted to step in and say that I think Predator has gotten a bit of an unfair shake. Did they overdo it with the DNR? Absolutely. Do the characters look like they are in Toy Story at the start of the film? They do. Do you lose a bit of the grain that gave this film its look in darker scenes? You do. Do these facts outweigh the additional detail you get from the BluRay copy? Not for me. While it might be less than optimal and less than what I would like, watching the BluRay back to back with the DVD shows a clear advantage to the BluRay in terms of detail and that is what I buy BluRay for; the detail.
 

MFP 2020

Sr Member
OK, there's one thing that's always bugged me and that I wouldn't mind seeing corrected: the poorly animated "photoluminescence" around the Orca. But maybe it's just me.
 
Last edited:

Colin Droidmilk

Sr Member
This is very good news, but the article highlights something which I think is a problem with Blu Ray and HD, even DVD: the fact that these formats can be too high resolution for older films and TV shows. Blu Ray sounds like crap if it's going to make wires show in '1941', for instance. Wires didn't show in the original theatre presentation; why should they on home entertainment systems? Same with TV and DVD. Space 1999 FX man Brian Johnson points out that DVD reveals for the first time the wires on the Eagles; he was working to a specific 70s TV screen resolution which made them invisible. This is one reason I keep my old tube TV. It's the machine old shows were shown on, and is the only machine they actually look right on.
 

GrenadeKing

Sr Member
Film is already "HD". It captures the image true to life. That's why you can take a film negative and blow it up to whatever size you want. All the information is there. So, said information should be there in the theater as well, since it's simply playing back what was captured. You loose that quality when you transform the image to work with digital media such as, TV, VHS, DVD, internet, and even Blu-Ray.

If a film maker designs the finished product to look good on a certain form of digital media, then yeah... it's probably not going to look great when you show what was really captured.

For TV shows, you might be right to be worried but, for theatrical movies, I personally wouldn't worry. About the only way they can screw up theatrical releases is in the transfer to HD and in post when they decide to screw around with the picture quality.
 
This thread is more than 10 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top