Discuss releases from Arrow and the films on them.
Moderator: yoloswegmaster
-
David M.
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm
#26
Post
by David M. » Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:14 pm
TonyleStephanois wrote:doc mccoy wrote:Gary's Cap:
1 frame later:
Optical blurring is one thing, but are you sure this is not just yet another example of DVD Beaver presenting screen grabs with lower effective resolution than what's actually on the disc? Check out
the shots from Black Swan which have obvious jaggies, and appear to have about half horizontal resolution.
I am sorry to keep banging on this drum, but they can't hide behind the "everyone's TV is different" excuse. Some people still rely on this site (evidently, wrongly) for accurate technical comparisons, and the effects could at some point become damaging for a small label. We all make mistakes, but it's how we deal with them that matters.
-
peerpee
- not perpee
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm
#27
Post
by peerpee » Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:28 pm
Wow - those Black Swan grabs are shite.
-
MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
-
Contact:
#29
Post
by MichaelB » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:57 am
And here's the same reviewer's take on the
Criterion edition.
This looks like a repeat of the Criterion/MoC situation with
Vampyr - in which both Criterion and Arrow are working from the same obviously compromised master, but while Criterion has tried to clean it up a bit, Arrow has left it alone. With the result that Criterion has a 'cleaner' image, but Arrow's looks more film-like.
(Pure speculation on my part, I should stress - I haven't seen either disc in motion).
-
David M.
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm
#30
Post
by David M. » Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:44 am
I don't see any evidence of that from the screen grabs myself. Both have decent resolution, the dynamic range seems to be the same on both, and neither seems to have had anything done to tamper with grain. The only difference I see is that the Arrow version is zoomed in slightly. I wonder what the reason for that could be...
-
Feego
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:30 pm
- Location: Texas
#31
Post
by Feego » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:43 am
David Mackenzie wrote:The only difference I see is that the Arrow version is zoomed in slightly. I wonder what the reason for that could be...
I noticed that too while looking at the screenshots at Bluray.com just now. Granted, they are not exact matches, but if you compare, say, the close-up of Vera Clouzot on the telephone from both editions, the Arrow release is significantly cropped on all four sides.
-
jsteffe
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA
#32
Post
by jsteffe » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:43 pm
David Mackenzie wrote:
Optical blurring is one thing, but are you sure this is not just yet another example of DVD Beaver presenting screen grabs with lower effective resolution than what's actually on the disc? Check out
the shots from Black Swan which have obvious jaggies, and appear to have about half horizontal resolution.
Fascinating! I checked the Blu-ray.com screen grabs, and they lack those jaggies which pervade the DVD Beaver grabs for Black Swan. Now I have a technical question for you: how is it even possible to introduce jaggies into screen grabs when you're working from a 1080p source?
This summer I'm going to make a number of DVD and possibly Blu-ray frame grabs for a book. I think it's time to create a separate thread just to deal with technical issues regarding screen grabs, which people can use for general discussion and as a technical reference.
-
David M.
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 1:10 pm
#33
Post
by David M. » Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:19 pm
I'm at a loss to explain how those jaggies could be introduced. Some players, when in Pause mode, will only show one field. That would require a design which, for some bizarre reason, read 1080p as 1080i + pulldown. I've seen hardware players which do this (some high-end Sonys from a few years ago) but I don't know of any PC video cards or software players doing that.
DVD Beaver should share their process, because I'd also love to know!
