 |
US Unrated Version
Blu-ray MGM Home Entertainment 1920x1080 AVC |
Straw Dogs Compare more discs |
UK 40th Anniversary Edition
Blu-ray FreemantleMedia Enterprises 1920x1080 AVC |
 |
|
Christopher D. Jacobson
February 20th 2012 12:16:36 PM
|
| Ugh. US disc is drab with no real great detail, while the UK disc is fruity-colored and has the contrast too hot. What's going on here? Neither of these makes me
wanna purchase the movie again; I'll stick to my MGM DVD. Hopefully somebody will deliver a good hi-def release... "Straw Dogs" is way too good to be treated this poorly. |
|
kippe
February 19th 2012 07:49:37 PM
|
| MoC's gamma levels just aren't correct. The film was never meant to be that bright. If you check the gradation levels you will see there just isn't any real black in
MoC's transfers whereas that has been corrected by Criterion (and even better by TLEFilms on their Blu-ray). And one more thing: please read my postings thoroughly before quoting me incorrectly. I never stated that Criterion's superiority stems from the size of their catalogue. I said: "The majority of Criterion's output is still top of the line. I am not aware of any label that turns out that high amount of quality releases in the Classics/Art House field as Criterion does". "That high ammount of quality releases", not "that high ammount of releases". Get me? Furthermore: you still owe me examples of better fish in your pond. Who are they? Do they produce Blu-ray discs? |
|
Still gigglin'
February 19th 2012 06:47:45 PM
|
| ...Besides, aren't you the same cat who cited Criterion's comparatively larger catalog of titles as evidence of their "superiority" over similar boutique labels, rather than looking to overall modus operandi--ya know, what actually counts? Holy intellectual dishonesty, Batman! etc etc |
|
ROTFLMFAO
February 19th 2012 06:40:01 PM
|
| More like Eureka took a hands off approach and the contrast on their BD encode is exactly as it appears on the master, whereas Criterion couldn't resist the urge to
dabble in their standard tinkering and bumped it up a notch. This is all very well-documented. See also Eureka vs. Warner Metropolis, right here. Same scenario. Nice try, though. Administrator:
Actually the Criterion is a little bit closer to the 2010 Restauration done by TLEFilms.
But both, CC and MOC, pretty much suck compared to the Universum BD. This is the longest Version available today. Contrast and Graylevels are spot-on and don't loose any details in high-contrast
scenarios. If you are a fan of the movie get the German BD and forget about CC and MOC. |
|
kippe
February 19th 2012 04:37:22 PM
|
| Yes, it's too bright, blacks aren't black. You can laugh parts of your body off as loudly as you want but you won't be able to laugh off the truth: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/m.htm |
|
Gamma issue on Eurerka's "M"?
February 18th 2012 03:27:33 PM
|
| LMFAO etc etc |
|
Oblivion
February 18th 2012 02:22:13 AM
|
| And when you look at what Criterion has done in terms of releasing films that are likewise available from a major distributor (e.g. their deal with Universal: Dazed
and Confused, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, etc.), Criterion generally comes out on top. Sometimes, the difference is major (Dazed and Confused), sometimes it's minor (Fear and Loathing), and
sometimes the quality is largely the same (Traffic)...and that's not even taking into account the difference between, say Criterion's Videodrome release and the truly godawful UK disc. Can someone cite any example of a film that both Criterion AND a major distributor have released on BD, where the major studio's transfer is demonstrably BETTER than Criterion's? Because if not, then this is still a very valid question. In general terms, Criterion transfers are equal or superior to their major-distributor counterparts...never, in my experience, inferior. So while a Criterion treatment MAY have yielded the same results as the MGM disc, anyone stating that as a CERTAINTY is overstepping. They very well could have given us something better...and even if they gave us the same transfer, we'd still have a nice array of extras to recommend the Criterion release over this one. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the MGM disc, for what I paid for it, but OF COURSE I wish Criterion had been able to release it on BD. If only for the extras and the POSSIBILITY that they could conceivably deliver a better presentation. |
|
kippe
February 17th 2012 07:39:30 PM
|
| The majority of Criterion's output is still top of the line. I am not aware of any label that turns out that high amount of quality releases in the Classics/Art House field as Criterion does. Certainly not MoC. Their TOUCH OF EVIL was not very impressive, M had severe gamma problems, TWO-LANE BLACKTOP looked downright abyssmal. Something like that would never have passed Criterion's QC. Criterion's M looked significantly better than MoC's (surpassed only by TLEFilm's fine job). What other independent labels are there that rival Criterion in terms of quantity and general quality? StudioCanal? Too few releases, and they frequently look worse than the Criterion counterparts (THIRD MAN comes to mind). Some French companies that produce non-English-friendly Blu-rays? Sure, Criterion has it's fair share of weak releases, yes THE LEOPARD for example, 8 1/2, some others. But all of their releases of MGM owned films were very good: TWELVE ANGRY MEN, BLOW OUT, THE KILLING, KISS ME DEADLY, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. Not perfect, mind you, but very good. MGM on the other hand was a game of hit and miss. Look at what they did to THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY, VERA CRUZ, THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD. Even given fresh restored transfers like THE BIG COUNTRY, they still f***ed it up by stretching the picture horizontally. When it comes to sound tracks they constantly have pitch problems with their foreign language tracks (too low). Given Criterion's good track record with MGM films and MGM's very frequent botch jobs: yes I dare ask and will ask again a question that you all hate to hear: "What would Criterion have done with STRAW DOGS?". If you still have problems with it please would you be so kind as to ignore me... |
|
anyway
February 17th 2012 02:03:17 PM
|
| I just grow tired of this knee-jerk tendency a certain segment of people have for saying, "I wonder what CRITERION would do with it??" if a release turns out to be anything less than stellar across the board, or, "I hope Criterion gets a hold of it!" as though they're the only halfway competent game in town. They were pioneers for reasons that don't need regurgitating, but their time as "the gold standard" has long since passed. The pond's a lot more crowded now. |
|
Lulz
February 17th 2012 01:54:52 PM
|
| Uh, yeah. I'm aware it's the master used for the '03 DVD. I'm saying Criterion's wouldn't look any better. Do you really think they'd rescan it? And, short of an all new telecine, this encode is as good as it gets. It could easily be worse, but certainly not better with what's available. Let's take oh, say, Videodrome. Did Criterion bust out a new telecine for that, or did they...just give us the HD master used for their 2004 DVD? It's literally the same scenario, and yet, I don't see anyone ripping that one to pieces. This is a flat, murky, largely unimpressive looking film to begin with due to the nature of the original cinematography anyhow. How much better than this do you really think it can get? |
|
@ @Gore
February 16th 2012 06:13:25 AM
|
| Do you seriously think there would be any kind of appreciable difference between Criterion's hypothetical HD rendering and what MGM has given us? Hint: you're looking
at it. MGM is TOP OF THE LINE--yes, as in, hangs with Criterion--when it comes to catalogs, and has been for some time now. Criterion would have given us exactly what we see here - an untampered,
high bitrate 1080p rendering of this same HD master used as the basis for their DVD (On a side note--do we know MGM didn't simply provide them that excellent master to begin with? It's not as if
Criterion always does their own scans from scratch, though they often do). Let me put it another way - had MGM put out Blow Out on BD themselves, I wouldn't be surprised if it was every bit as
impressive looking as what Criterion brought to the table. Their 'Dressed to Kill' is hardly any slouch (to name but one example of many) People seem to conveniently forget that Criterion is routinely rivaled and even surpassed in terms of transfers/complete package in this day and age. Often times by (gasp) major label - namely MGM and Sony. They don't have a monopoly on video transfer competency. Administrator:
Straw Dogs aint TOP OF THE LINE. It's an outdated transfer done by Criterion for their 2003 DVD. There is almost no difference between DVD and BD. I don't care if other releases are top notch - this
one is not! |
|
@Gore
February 16th 2012 02:52:06 AM
|
| Ganz einfach. MGM greift hier auf einen 10 Jahre alten Transfer zurück, der für die US CC DVD angefertigt wurde. Wenn man sich mal anschaut, was Criterion mit den
Lizenzen gemacht hat, die sie von MGM erworben haben (Blow Out, Something Wild, Kes, Night of the Hunter etc) und ich diese dann mit Straw Dogs vergleiche, beschleicht mich das Gefühl, das hier
wesentlich mehr drin gewesen wäre als diese mittelmässige BD. Die UK ist natürlich eine einzige Frechheit, würde mich allerdings nicht wundern, wenn ein zukünftige deutsche BD genauso schlecht aussieht. |
|
GoreGoreBoy
February 16th 2012 02:23:17 AM
|
| Was spricht bei Euch eigentlich GEGEN die US BD? Hier würde ich mich über einen Vergleich vs. dt. neue DVD Fassung sehr freuen! ;D Administrator:
Das Thema Straw Dogs ist erstmal durch. |
|
Nachtfalke
February 16th 2012 12:05:08 AM
|
| Einfach nicht beachten solche Aussagen. Die übliche Polemik vom No-Grainer. Zum Vergleich: Mich würde mal interessieren, was FreemantleMedia da für eine Vorlage für die BD hatte, weiß da jemand was genaueres? |
|
kippe
February 15th 2012 09:34:21 PM
|
| Erstens hat TLEFilms mit den MGM-Blu-rays rein gar nichts zu tun, die Bildqualität der Dollar-Filme ist vor allem deshalb nicht besser, weil die Italiener ihre qualitativ hochwertigeren Filmelemente bzw. Transfers den Amerikanern nicht zur Verfügung stellen wollen. Zweitens entstanden die Probleme mit den interlaceden DVDs (Dollar- + Nobody-Filme) beim Encoding der Firma HSG in Bad Vilbel, die im Auftrag für Paramount arbeiteten, so dass TLEFilms hier keine Schuld trifft. Drittens weiß ich nicht, warum ich TLEFilms hier verteidige, aber grob falsche Aussagen kann man nicht so einfach stehen lassen... |
|
TLEFilms?
February 15th 2012 08:59:52 PM
|
| Das sind doch die Typen die die Restauration von Leone's Dollar Filmen für MGM/Paramount verantwortlich waren. Auf Blu-ray kann man schön bewundern, was die für einen Dreck gemacht haben. Einfach mal einen Blick auf die IT BD geworfen und man sieht, dass das ganze Gesabber von Torsten Kaiser meist nur wertloses Geschwafel ist. Er ist eben kein Robert Harris oder John D. Lowry. |
|
Oblivion
February 15th 2012 10:58:56 AM
|
| I believe the phrase "Something Went Terribly Wrong" applies here. |
|
kippe
February 15th 2012 09:43:34 AM
|
| Die bisherigen MGM-Veröffentlichungen von Criterion sahen aber besser aus als dies hier. Denke aber auch, das Beste wäre eine schnelle deutsche VÖ. Mein Traum wäre ein mit der DVD inhaltsgleiches Bündel an Extras und einem von TLEFilms nachbearbeiteten und überwachten Bild- und Tontransfer. |
|
LULZ
February 15th 2012 01:49:59 AM
|
| ^ ^ |
|
Leimbacher
February 14th 2012 10:50:38 PM
|
| Ich denke auch nich viel mehr als MGM...wird Zeit für ne Veröffebntlichung in Deutschland! |
|
kippe
February 14th 2012 07:26:58 PM
|
| Tja, diese Misere war ja schon bekannt. Der Freemantle-Transfer bzw. deren Vorlage ist ein Witz. Würde andererseits zu gerne wissen, was Criterion aus dem Bild gezaubert hätte. |
|
US Unrated Version
February 14th 2012 07:13:32 PM
|
   PLAYLIST REPORT: Name: 00000.MPLS Length: 1:57:54 (h:m:s) Size: 38.029.768.704 bytes Total Bitrate: 43,00 Mbps VIDEO: Codec Bitrate Description ----- ------- ----------- MPEG-4 AVC Video 37418 kbps 1080p / 23,976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1 AUDIO: Codec Language Bitrate Description ----- -------- ------- ----------- DTS-HD Master Audio English 3415 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3415 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit / DN -4dB) SUBTITLES: Codec Language Bitrate Description ----- -------- ------- ----------- Presentation Graphics English 29,619 kbps Presentation Graphics French 22,439 kbps Presentation Graphics Spanish 23,203 kbps  |
|
UK 40th Anniversary Edition
February 14th 2012 07:13:32 PM
|
PLAYLIST REPORT: Name: 00000.MPLS Length: 1:57:19.866 (h:m:s.ms) Size: 34.188.882.048 bytes Total Bitrate: 38,85 Mbps VIDEO: Codec Bitrate Description ----- ------- ----------- MPEG-4 AVC Video 30063 kbps 1080p / 23,976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1 AUDIO: Codec Language Bitrate Description ----- -------- ------- ----------- LPCM Audio English 1536 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit LPCM Audio English 1536 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit LPCM Audio English 1536 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit LPCM Audio English 1536 kbps 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit SUBTITLES: Codec Language Bitrate Description ----- -------- ------- ----------- Presentation Graphics English 32,315 kbps  |