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

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.

That's what I'd assumed, but Spielberg talks about bluray showing wires in '1941' that weren't visible in the theatre...Why would he talk about bluray revealing more than the theatre??
 
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.
I feel the same way....i don't like grain, and i love how clean, crisp and sharp Predator is on my 63 inch telly.

Rich
 
That's what I'd assumed, but Spielberg talks about bluray showing wires in '1941' that weren't visible in the theatre...Why would he talk about bluray revealing more than the theatre??
Because the image in the theater is softer than what is really there in the print. I never find the movie as sharp and crisp as even when I got it home on VHS back in the day - even better with DVD... and awesome with Blu-Ray.

Similar to the difference between a non-digital theater screening and a digital one. One is soft and kinda blurry and the other is sharp and shows all.

At least that's my experience.
 
Reminds me of the argument that came up when they did the 8k restoration/remaster of The Wizard of Oz. The production said there were a few instances of wire removal, but they did point out that the wires in question had never been seen in any existing print of the film until the 8k scans of the negatives were done. They also pointed out that other wires, that had always been visible, were left intact because of the fact they had always been visible.

Where do you draw the line? Do you leave in a wire that the director didn't intend to be seen, that the director never actually saw himself?
 
Wire removal is a perfectly normal restoration option and preparation for Blu-Ray. Hell, if the director had the tools to do it back then he/she would have. Leaving them in is just kinda lazy, but I can understand the nostalgia of having the movie be exactly as remembered. It's a fine line. I believe the same issue was raised with the original War of the Worlds, when that was put out on DVD.
 
Wire removal is a perfectly normal restoration option and preparation for Blu-Ray. Hell, if the director had the tools to do it back then he/she would have. Leaving them in is just kinda lazy, but I can understand the nostalgia of having the movie be exactly as remembered. It's a fine line. I believe the same issue was raised with the original War of the Worlds, when that was put out on DVD.
Agreed, Carsten as hit the nail on the head.....


Rich
 
I disagree. There are a lot of things the director would do if he had the opportunity. Where do you stop?

The negative is a historical document of the film when it was finished. Restoration due to subsequent damage, fading, dirt, etc, is fine. But just get it back to the way it was and no more.
 
I'm with you... for the most part I'm with you, but for the other part, I like things that distracts, such as wires, being removed. But then again, I also argue about leaving much of the inherent film grain in the picture, as it's sometimes a direct result and choice of the director to have it, so removing it will remove part of the director's intent. I'm quite frankly torn on the subject, but just know that I dislike visible wires as they take me out of the experience and also because they were NOT usually seen on screen, but only showed up in later incarnations on TV, VHS, DVD and to an extreme now on Blu-Ray - that's also why it was reasoned that wire removal should be done on War of the Worlds, but when seeing the movie I can tell that their approach was simply to fudge that general area where they were and it was visible what they did... and when it's done like that it is more disruptive than just leaving the wires as they were.
 
Just give up both and let us choose. I never get why they don't see that.

We're stupid, we'll buy both.

They should know that by now.
 
Last edited:
I dislike visible wires as they take me out of the experience and also because they were NOT usually seen on screen, but only showed up in later incarnations on TV, VHS, DVD and to an extreme now on Blu-Ray - that's also why it was reasoned that wire removal should be done on War of the Worlds, but when seeing the movie I can tell that their approach was simply to fudge that general area where they were and it was visible what they did... and when it's done like that it is more disruptive than just leaving the wires as they were.
This I agree with. If they're going to do the work to remove wires and such, they should do it correctly or not at all.

The cautionary tale in doing any visual or audio retrofitting can be summed up in two words: George Lucas. I've lost track of the number of times he's reworked the Star Wars movies since the not-so-Special Edition of the Original Trilogy was first released. At this point it seems he can't help himself and, in my opinion, every change he's made has been for the worse.

At most, I'm in favor of restoring a movie to it's original video and audio condition if it has deteriorated in some way; aside from that, leave it alone. Wires and such don't bother me. When I watch Frankenstein (1931), I know the Monster is Boris Karloff in makeup. When I watch Star Trek (TOS), I know the Enterprise is a model. And when I watch Jaws, I know it's a mechanical shark. None of this knowledge diminishes my viewing pleasure; screwing with a classic movie or television series does.
 
Can't wait for this. Watched the restoration video and it's awesome. Although I can't believe that the negative has deteriorated like they claim (just like Star Wars). What's the point of putting it in a specially controlled vault when it looks like what they show? I've got super 8 film that held up better without any kind of special care.:rolleyes

I also don't mind at all if a director wants to futz with his 'art', just give us the original cleaned up as well in the best presentation you can. FU Lucas.
 
Peter Schade: "Universal definitely has an intense commitment to preservation and restoration."

I'm not doubting his dedication to see Jaws look absolutely gorgeous on BluRay, but to say that Universal itself is committed to preserving their films and making them look the best they possibly can? I'm calling BS on that one. Universal has to be the worst studio to be handling BluRays at this moment. They DNR the heck out of their titles, their menu system is horrid (Ads on menus), the audio is subpar, and they reuse HD-DVD transfers for their BluRay titles. That's 20gigs of data not being used. Spartacus has overly done red tones, and the Blues Brothers has no lossless audio. It's only when they're dealing with an important movie or when the director/cinematographer are involved that they actually put any effort into the transfer at all.
 
Last edited:
Can't wait for this. Watched the restoration video and it's awesome. Although I can't believe that the negative has deteriorated like they claim (just like Star Wars). What's the point of putting it in a specially controlled vault when it looks like what they show?

Cuz Kodak screwed everyone over in the mid-to-late 70s with a crappy product.
 
I also don't mind at all if a director wants to futz with his 'art', just give us the original cleaned up as well in the best presentation you can. FU Lucas.


This is where I am on this one...

I've gotten lambasted for saying this before, but AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL to go back to, I would be fascinated to see this film with a photo-real CG 25' great white.
 
I hope it's as close to the original as possible. Even though I LOVE gritty looking older films, kinda like listening to vinyl over digital. Hopefully SS doesnt find shark teeth to violent and replace them with candy corns or angular marshmallows lol.
 
Hopefully SS doesnt find shark teeth to violent and replace them with candy corns or angular marshmallows lol.

You would be surprised. Spielberg recently stated at a screening of one of his movies (Raiders was it?) to a whole crowd that the Special Edition of ET was a mistake and that the film will be presented as it was originally shown theatrically. From the sound of things, the Special Edition might not even be included.
 
This thread is more than 12 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top