The Fugitive - Silent Re-repressing with VC-1 instead of MPEG-2?

[marine92104]

Has anyone done a side by side to see the differences between the 2 encodes? Also the differences in sound.

I'd definitely want to upgrade from my existing MPEG-2 version if the video is any better on the VC-1 encode.

The MPEG-2 version is neck & neck with The Italian Job (Paramount) as the worst video on a Blu-ray I own.

The Fugitive is one of my all-time favorite movies so I'd like to have a better encode to actually enjoy the movie.

Let us know if anyone has a side by side video comparison.

I'd definitely rebuy if there is a better video encode.

[jw]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

I stopped in a local Best Buy yesterday and they had about 6 copies of this. All had the BD logo, and then the PG-13 rating next to it. So I guess that means it's the VC-1 version?

he said the file dates were 07, so its safe to say they are all VC-1

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

I stopped in a local Best Buy yesterday and they had about 6 copies of this. All had the BD logo, and then the PG-13 rating next to it. So I guess that means it's the VC-1 version?

The "bonus features not rated" has to be underneath the rating. If that's the case, then it's VC-1 (from what we've researched).

[jw]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

The "bonus features not rated" has to be underneath the rating. If that's the case, then it's VC-1.

I have the release date copy, its not vc-1 but I am not all that concerned as I probably am not gonna watch it again

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by jwbbud

I have the release date copy, its not vc-1 but I am not all that concerned as I probably am not gonna watch it again

I am a HUGE fan of this film. It certainly deserves much better.

The grain (at least that's what I assume it is) during the opening sequence of the overhead Chicago shots at night is absolutely ATROCIOUS. I'm sure the transfer isn't helping it much.

The only hope would be for a Fugitive/Us Marshalls 2 pack with a remaster.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by krylonman

I'm wondering if we get some sort of definitive evidence on this from somebody. Some people say the jaggies are gone, some say they're still there. I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom this would be the dealbreaker.

Really, think about who's doing the release and what we know of them from the past. Do you really think WB completely redid the master at whatever level was necessary to remove the jaggies, and then silently started putting them out so they could land in the $15 bargain bin?

I'm 100% sure the jaggies are still there. Obviously my opinion as an unknown person on the internet is not the worth the same as "definitive evidence," but I think the matter is pretty cut and dry here considering what we're discussing. WB did not fix the jaggies.

[Daredevil666]

Jaggies are probably on the original master so they can't be fixed unless a new master is done from the negative or an IP NOW.

I'm amazed by how many people don't notice those thought. They are on many releases not just this one.

[Crème Blu-ray]

Mine has the old case but the new artwork. I just checked and sure enough, the crew member is not there and my player (DMP-BD30) says it's VC-1.

I bought my copy as part of a "Best of Blu-ray" 4-pack on February 12, 2008. Yes, that's 2008, not 2009, so the VC-1 version has been out for at least a year.

[Clark Kent]

It is very unlikely Warner went to the expense of preparing a completely new master from the IP/Digital Intermediate/Film negative because of the jaggies on the Blu-ray. Even in the case of The Perfect Storm, which had the exact same problem as The Fugitive on the HD DVD and was newly encoded for Blu-ray, all they did was run a filter over it to minimize the appearance of aliasing artifacts. They did not strike a new transfer from the film elements to completely eliminate them. I have to believe though the VC-1 encoding has superior picture quality, as VC-1 simply works better at those low bitrates than MPEG-2. I also would qualify that the VC-1 encoding probably does not look much better in absolute terms. There is only so much anything can be done with a poor looking master.

[Canada]

I'll be all over The Fugitive like a cheap suit if the WB re-encodes it with VC-1 and a True HD soundtrack.

[Daredevil666]

You mean remaster -- it's funny, but when you look back, WB used the Fugitive as one of the first DVD releases, and not a great looking one as that.
By going back to the exact same titles for early BDs, they are putting this movie and a bunch of others at disservice, ie we will have, again, to double dip and wait for years until a correct version is released, by the time we will go 3D or whatever, and again, this title will be reissued in a badly mastered version in the early days of the new format, etc, etc It's lost in a loop where it can't be released right the first time around each time a new format come, because it's locked inside a marketing plan, branded "hot selling title to be released in first wave of whatever new format comes"

[LORDs_angellos]

Originally Posted by that1guypictures

VC-1 Encode:
BRLogo - PG13 - SDH - Copy Protection - Recycle - 130 mins - C14 - DolbyD
"bonus material not rated" (In small print underneath PG-13 Logo)

The MPEG-2 Encode (The rental copy I have) Looks like this:
BR Logo - SDH - "Special Features Not Rated" - PG-13 - Rest Same As Above.

Sweet! I have the VC-1 encode version.

[Heart&Soul]

Wouldn't it cost Warner to create the VC-1? Why would they do that and how much would it cost?

[PeterTHX]

They do their encoding in-house so not too much compared to other companies.

[fuwa]

I bought it at Costco for $12.99. The back cover had the "Bonus Features" on it. I thought the film looked good and I saw no visible defects or flaws execpt for the first minute. I am not going to go back and search for them either. It was an overall pleasant viewing experience of a great movie. A previous reviewer is correct: ".....the opening sequence of the overhead Chicago shots at night is absolutely ATROCIOUS." Next time they need to go to a better source. But at a good price this current version should be acceptable to most viewers.

[gushin]

I didn't realize mine is also the VC-1. It is quite acceptable.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

You mean remaster -- it's funny, but when you look back, WB used the Fugitive as one of the first DVD releases, and not a great looking one as that.
By going back to the exact same titles for early BDs, they are putting this movie and a bunch of others at disservice, ie we will have, again, to double dip and wait for years until a correct version is released, by the time we will go 3D or whatever, and again, this title will be reissued in a badly mastered version in the early days of the new format, etc, etc It's lost in a loop where it can't be released right the first time around each time a new format come, because it's locked inside a marketing plan, branded "hot selling title to be released in first wave of whatever new format comes"

so true-- Warner seems to have a bunch of titles that they always release with new formats (Lethal Weapons, Under Siege and other Seagal titles,
The Fugitive, etc) and you always end up with mediocrity. I have NEVER
seen a great transfer of THE FUGITIVE in any format! sigh

[saginawjuggalo]

Originally Posted by Heart&Soul

Wouldn't it cost Warner to create the VC-1? Why would they do that and how much would it cost?

I think the question should be, why spent the money to re-encode and not improve the video and yet downgrade the audio

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by saginawjuggalo

I think the question should be, why spent the money to re-encode and not improve the video and yet downgrade the audio

It looks like they ran out of room to add any better audio. Check out the scan of the VC-1 BD in the following post and see how they filled out a BD-25 as close as possible to the capacity of the disc. That was not a mistake.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=47

[GGX]

Originally Posted by fuwa

I bought it at Costco for $12.99. The back cover had the "Bonus Features" on it. I thought the film looked good and I saw no visible defects or flaws execpt for the first minute. I am not going to go back and search for them either. It was an overall pleasant viewing experience of a great movie. A previous reviewer is correct: ".....the opening sequence of the overhead Chicago shots at night is absolutely ATROCIOUS." Next time they need to go to a better source. But at a good price this current version should be acceptable to most viewers.

lol this is one of the worst Blu-ray's available where PQ is concerned.