Enter the Dragon (1973) (40th Anniversary Edition) (Remastered)

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Nope.
Look at this screenshot for example...notice the aliasing on his neck...very little though >>>

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...334&position=6

Looked at it. Virtually zero aliasing. You're making stuff up.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

Looked at it. Virtually zero aliasing. You're making stuff up.

I've got to go with nagys on this. Does Bruce have a different neck that I can't see in that cap? Because the one I can see looks fine.

[nagysaudio]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've got to go with nagys on this. Does Bruce have a different neck that I can't see in that cap? Because the one I can see looks fine.

Have you had a chance to watch the disc yet? I think you'll like it. It looks great!

[Lantz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've got to go with nagys on this. Does Bruce have a different neck that I can't see in that cap? Because the one I can see looks fine.

I can't see it either.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Nope.
Look at this screenshot for example...notice the aliasing on his neck...very little though >>>

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/scree...334&position=6

'Very little' must equal 'none'.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by nagysaudio

Have you had a chance to watch the disc yet? I think you'll like it. It looks great!

Not yet, I'm waiting for the UK release (due in late July) because $35 for the US version is taking the piss.

[amoergosum]

Nevermind.
When I zoom in a little I can see minor aliasing in that screenshot.
I can't see it though when the screenshot fits the screen. So I guess there's nothing to worry about.

[4Dblu]

WM has it for $35 WOW the box of course they didn't hav the plain version

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Nevermind.
When I zoom in a little I can see minor aliasing in that screenshot.
I can't see it though when the screenshot fits the screen. So I guess there's nothing to worry about.

[The Dragon]

If only they had gone with a new commentary, featuring the likes of Saxon, Kelly, Bolo, and Sammo... Unfortunately, Ahna, Shih, and Clouse have passed on... Truly a missed opportunity.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Nevermind.
When I zoom in a little I can see minor aliasing in that screenshot.
I can't see it though when the screenshot fits the screen. So I guess there's nothing to worry about.

I couldn't see anything at full 1080 with a 400% zoom, so, like I said before, if it's there, I'm just not seeing it .

[slamkeys]

This release was not in stock at my usual movie places here in Houston, but Fry's had exactly 1 copy in stock. I talked to one of the managers about it and he basically said, "It's just another re-release of an old movie. We knew there wouldn't be any demand for it."

I don't think he understands that the old movies are being updated to the point where watching them almost becomes a brand new experience even if you've seen them before. I guess he's satisfied with his old VHS version. He even joked about his old Tron copy being good enough to prevent him from buying the newer releases of it. To each his own, but unfortunately he manages a video department.

At any rate, I had to pick up their only copy @ $32.99, which is cheaper than Amazon right now. I really wanted to pick it up at BestBuy because they would've price-matched Amazon and then I could've used my RZ coupons to lower the price even further.

[42041]

Originally Posted by slamkeys

This release was not in stock at my usual movie places here in Houston, but Fry's had exactly 1 copy in stock. I talked to one of the managers about it and he basically said, "It's just another re-release of an old movie. We knew there wouldn't be any demand for it."

I highly doubt he's wrong.

[welcometothepartypal]

Sorry if this has already been asked/answered. But is it true that in 90's new shots were added to the movie?

[growler]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Including shipping that'll cost me as much as the UK edition (about £17), so I'll hold on for that one. I'm not one of those "I won't buy it until it's under $10" pussies (edit: I posted that without seeing your post growler, so I'm not attacking you specifically ), but $35 really is way too steep for a catalogue release.

I prefer bargains on most of my BD purchases. I have different price points to get me to pull the trigger on a BD purchase depending on; whether I already own on DVD, whether I already own on BD (rare), when I think the price will drop & whether I saw in the theater (mostly have seen my BDs in the theater).

This 40th Anniversary will eventually be released as a stand alone BD w/o the fluff & @ a much lower price. Until then, I am happy with my older BD version. Everyone has their own price points. Some buy new releases @ MSRP, some have very few BDs & only buy used.

Some double (BD) Dips for me; Terminator, Total Recall. Because of the bad original transfers & the remastered versions.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by 42041

It looks like a reasonable transfer of multi-generational film elements, with the usual softness of 70s Panavision.
Highlights look perfectly fine in that cap. That's what film prints do: the highlights have a "shoulder" where the contrast slowly rolls off, something old transfers often don't emulate. I'm not seeing anything you wouldn't see in some average quality 35mm print of a film of the time.

So is the old transfer the one that got it wrong, then?

I am not talking about the sharpness here (again, the new one looks pretty soft and blurry, but I guess sharpening was applied to the old one) but about the contrast and saturation.

Because highlights are definitely blown on the remaster, and the excessive contrast contributes to the perceived detail loss both on strong light and shadow areas, while skin tones are way too much into the orangey-reddish now.

[Show spoiler]

[42041]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

So is the old transfer the one that got it wrong, then?

I don't know if the new one is right but there's nothing distinctly wrong about it. It's within the range of what an analog print of the film might look like.
Theatrically incorrect contrast/tonality is a practically ubiquitous problem in older transfers. New transfers often get closer to the look of projected film.

[pedromc69]

Come on Warner 19.99 please.

[BigmoufStrikes]

Did anyone see this at Best Buy?

I went to some Walmarts and Targets and they weren't at any of them.

[Yojimbo68]

Originally Posted by welcometothepartypal

Sorry if this has already been asked/answered. But is it true that in 90's new shots were added to the movie?

That's a great point! Yes. A few new scenes were added. The opening is a bit longer and the sequence at the climax has a few new bits. Personally, I'd like for them to include the original release version. That's the cut i prefer.