Fright Night (1985) (30th Anniversary Edition) (Limited Edition) - SOLD OUT

[PrestigeWorldwide]

Originally Posted by Bubba_Hotep

My German copy was suppose to arrive a week ago but never came. I contacted amazon.de and they told me they could not help me..... I will never order from outside the US again.. Guess it is not meant for me to own this film.

I've ordered from amazon UK and DE, and sometimes it takes as long as two weeks.

Speaking of the German release, I'm glad I got it since I prefer the PQ on that one. I plan on combining the german video with the 2.0 lossless track from the 30th anniversary edition.

[Bubba_Hotep]

Originally Posted by PrestigeWorldwide

I've ordered from amazon UK and DE, and sometimes it takes as long as two weeks.

Speaking of the German release, I'm glad I got it since I prefer the PQ on that one. I plan on combining the german video with the 2.0 lossless track from the 30th anniversary edition.

I am going on a month.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Bubba_Hotep

I am going on a month.

they usually give you 4 weeks then they'll re-ship it again if you ask them. happened once to me

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by lolwut

You do realize you're on a Blu-ray forum, right? In a thread about the Blu-ray itself? I don't understand why everyone is jumping down the throats of the people bringing it to our attention that the new disc has compression issues (that are worse than the previous disc). One of the main reasons we read reviews, if not the main reason, is to find out about the picture quality. I would much rather read that than the countless "SHIPPED" and "PRE-ORDERED" posts.

because I'm tired of hearing people whine all the time.... make sense?

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

because I'm tired of hearing people whine all the time.... make sense?

so we should gloss over the bad points of a disc? I have the disc, it looks very nice, but there ARE some compression issues that SHOULD be brought to light. is it detrimental? no, not at all, but if theres' a flaw it needs to be pointed out because it may bother some people more than others

[ddwall]

Originally Posted by Bubba_Hotep

My German copy was suppose to arrive a week ago but never came. I contacted amazon.de and they told me they could not help me..... I will never order from outside the US again.. Guess it is not meant for me to own this film.

Sorry to hear you haven't received your order but I have a of imports from Amazon.de and Amazon.co.UK and have gotten everyone I ordered sometimes the orders from Germany are slow waiting for my darling clementine right now.

[Bubba_Hotep]

Originally Posted by wormraper

they usually give you 4 weeks then they'll re-ship it again if you ask them. happened once to me

How did you contact them? The person I talked to in chat said they cant help me.

[Ruined]

I ended up trading for this release when it became apparent there was a significant difference in video quality.

So, first of all I would like to say that I was wrong in that there is a improvement video quality between the original and new release, which is surprising to me.

It is surprising as I thought the whole reason this Twilight Time & high pricing business is happening is because Sony couldn't make enough money off of the disc in the retail channel. Yet, they had enough money to do work on the video even though there was an excellent release already out? Not that I am complaining, that is great, but it doesn't really match up with the reasons for putting the films out like this in the first place. There is more than just a vanilla re-encoding here - brightness and contrast have been tweaked as well. This could have been work done by Twilight Time, but I wouldn't think they would have the money to spend on that either given it is a limited 5000 release.

In terms of compression artifacts, it is very simple why there may be more in the new release; clearly the old release used a much more aggressive lowpass filter which made the transfer easier to encode with less artifacts - at the expense of film grain and detail. The new encoding clearly has more high frequency detail/grain which is harder to compress and can lead to increased artifacting. Its a tradeoff one must consider when doing the compression.

Anyway, here is a mini A/B comparison since I have both on hand:

VIDEO Compared on hardware calibrated professional monitor

Brightness - The new release in my opinion appears to have higher and more pleasing brightness levels. The older release looks too dark in comparison. New release wins in my book, but your preference may differ.

Color - The old release appears to have more contrast than the new release, but I am not sure that is correct. The new release looks more lifelike in my opinion while the old release looks to have boosted contrast. I would guess some color correction was done on the new release. New release wins in my book, but your preference may differ.

High frequency detail - The new release has significantly more high frequency detail than the old release. Both grain and fine detail looks more natural. New release wins.

Compression - Compression appears superior throughout most of the new release. I know some members pointed out areas with artifacts, but I did not find them distracting at all and overall I feel the new release is significantly better here as well.

AUDIO Compared on professional studio monitors

The 5.1 from the old release is the same as the new release, but the new release has a 2.0 matrix surround track also.
I am not going to go into the 5.1 vs matrix surround differences. Obviously 5.1 is going to have better discrete effects and the LFE channel which the 2.0 lacks. That being said, this movie has few discrete effects anyway.

In terms of fidelity, the 5.1 and 2.0 matrixed soundtracks are near identical. When quickly switching between the two tracks I did not notice any significant difference in noise, dialogue levels, sound effect levels, music level or dynamic range. In other words, the two tracks sound near identical when downmixed to stereo.

However, there will be a difference between 5.1/2.0 in both discrete effects and potentially also low frequency reproduction depending on how your bass management is configured.

Thus, simply choose if you'd rather have the 5.1 soundtrack which has the discrete effects that were in the original audio stems or the matrixed soundtrack which is closer to what was presented in theaters at the time of Fright Night's release due to the limitations of theatrical audio technology at the time.

OVERALL
New release wins hands down in video quality - worth upgrading IMO for this.
Audio differences are not significant outside of the normal differences between 5.1 & matrixed audio encoding so I would not upgrade for the 2.0 track unless you have a purist fetish as there is no apparent difference in the way the tracks are mixed or sound overall, just the discrete vs matrix encoding and the typical 5.1 vs matrix differences.

All that being said, both versions are stellar in A/V quality for an 80s catalog release. So, if there is a large price difference between the old and new versions, I am not sure the new version will be worth that difference to many people.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by Bubba_Hotep

How did you contact them? The person I talked to in chat said they cant help me.

email

[Bubba_Hotep]

Originally Posted by wormraper

email

Thanks

[jcs913]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I ended up trading for this release when it became apparent there was a significant difference in video quality.

So, first of all I would like to say that I was wrong in that there is a improvement video quality between the original and new release, which is surprising to me.

It is surprising as I thought the whole reason this Twilight Time & high pricing business is happening is because Sony couldn't make enough money off of the disc in the retail channel. Yet, they had enough money to do work on the video even though there was an excellent release already out? Not that I am complaining, that is great, but it doesn't really match up with the reasons for putting the films out like this in the first place. There is more than just a vanilla re-encoding here - brightness and contrast have been tweaked as well. This could have been work done by Twilight Time, but I wouldn't think they would have the money to spend on that either given it is a limited 5000 release.

In terms of compression artifacts, it is very simple why there may be more in the new release; clearly the old release used a much more aggressive lowpass filter which made the transfer easier to encode with less artifacts - at the expense of film grain and detail. The new encoding clearly has more high frequency detail/grain which is harder to compress and can lead to increased artifacting. Its a tradeoff one must consider when doing the compression.

Anyway, here is a mini A/B comparison since I have both on hand:

VIDEO Compared on hardware calibrated professional monitor

Brightness - The new release in my opinion appears to have higher and more pleasing brightness levels. The older release looks too dark in comparison. New release wins in my book, but your preference may differ.

Color - The old release appears to have more contrast than the new release, but I am not sure that is correct. The new release looks more lifelike in my opinion while the old release looks to have boosted contrast. I would guess some color correction was done on the new release. New release wins in my book, but your preference may differ.

High frequency detail - The new release has significantly more high frequency detail than the old release. Both grain and fine detail looks more natural. New release wins.

Compression - Compression appears superior throughout most of the new release. I know some members pointed out areas with artifacts, but I did not find them distracting at all and overall I feel the new release is significantly better here as well.

AUDIO Compared on professional studio monitors

I am not going to go into the 5.1 vs matrix surround differences. Obviously 5.1 is going to have better discrete effects and the LFE channel which the 2.0 lacks. That being said, this movie has few discrete effects anyway.

In terms of fidelity, the two soundtracks are near identical. When quickly switching between the two tracks I did not notice any significant difference in noise, dialogue levels, sound effect levels, music level or dynamic range. In other words, the two tracks sound near identical when downmixed to stereo.

However, there will be a difference between 5.1/2.0 in both discrete effects and potentially also low frequency reproduction depending on how your bass management is configured.

Thus, simply choose if you'd rather have the 5.1 soundtrack which has the discrete effects that were in the original audio stems or the matrixed soundtrack which is closer to what was presented in theaters at the time of Fright Night's release due to the limitations of theatrical audio technology at the time.

OVERALL
New release wins hands down in video quality - worth upgrading IMO for this.
Audio differences are not significant outside of the normal differences between 5.1 & matrixed audio encoding so I would not upgrade for that unless you have a purist fetish as there is no apparent difference in the way the tracks are mixed or sound overall, just the discrete vs matrix encoding and the typical 5.1 vs matrix differences.

That's a very nice synopsis of the tech specs of the release. Thanks, as even though it is an opinion, you have honestly added value to this discussion, which seems to be non-existent in this thread.

[MTRodaba2468]

Originally Posted by slimdude

It's not a comparison! If the movie looked good enough in the theater (without any complaints about the video), then it's good enough when you see it at home on blu-ray.

You're implying that how a film looks in the theater is exactly how it'll be presented when it's on a home video format, which isn't always going to be the case, especially when you're talking about anomolies resulting from digital tools and presentation on films that would've been screened in theaters prior to those tools being used. I would think a more apt comparison would be "would I complain if I was watching a film at the theater and they showed it out of focus," in which case, yes I would.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

because I'm tired of hearing people whine all the time.... make sense?

Seriously. What do you expect from a Fright Night thread? Do you really need to check in every 3 pages and vent your frustration about it?
I really think you're blowing things a little out of proportion. I don't see much whining going on here. Especially compared to earlier.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by slimdude

It's not a comparison! If the movie looked good enough in the theater (without any complaints about the video), then it's good enough when you see it at home on blu-ray.

Well obviously, it wouldn't have compression artifacts at the theater if it was being projected on film. So that's not even a valid argument, or close to the realm of a valid argument. Yes, people complain about the same grain on a blu-ray that was 100% present in the theater - they just didn't notice it on a screen that huge.

[Zoodles95]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I ended up trading for this release when it became apparent there was a significant difference in video quality.

So, first of all I would like to say that I was wrong in that there is a improvement video quality between the original and new release, which is surprising to me.

It is surprising as I thought the whole reason this Twilight Time & high pricing business is happening is because Sony couldn't make enough money off of the disc in the retail channel. Yet, they had enough money to do work on the video even though there was an excellent release already out? Not that I am complaining, that is great, but it doesn't really match up with the reasons for putting the films out like this in the first place. There is more than just a vanilla re-encoding here - brightness and contrast have been tweaked as well. This could have been work done by Twilight Time, but I wouldn't think they would have the money to spend on that either given it is a limited 5000 release.

In terms of compression artifacts, it is very simple why there may be more in the new release; clearly the old release used a much more aggressive lowpass filter which made the transfer easier to encode with less artifacts - at the expense of film grain and detail. The new encoding clearly has more high frequency detail/grain which is harder to compress and can lead to increased artifacting. Its a tradeoff one must consider when doing the compression.

Anyway, here is a mini A/B comparison since I have both on hand:

VIDEO Compared on hardware calibrated professional monitor

Brightness - The new release in my opinion appears to have higher and more pleasing brightness levels. The older release looks too dark in comparison. New release wins in my book, but your preference may differ.

Color - The old release appears to have more contrast than the new release, but I am not sure that is correct. The new release looks more lifelike in my opinion while the old release looks to have boosted contrast. I would guess some color correction was done on the new release. New release wins in my book, but your preference may differ.

High frequency detail - The new release has significantly more high frequency detail than the old release. Both grain and fine detail looks more natural. New release wins.

Compression - Compression appears superior throughout most of the new release. I know some members pointed out areas with artifacts, but I did not find them distracting at all and overall I feel the new release is significantly better here as well.

AUDIO Compared on professional studio monitors

The 5.1 from the old release is the same as the new release, but the new release has a 2.0 matrix surround track also.
I am not going to go into the 5.1 vs matrix surround differences. Obviously 5.1 is going to have better discrete effects and the LFE channel which the 2.0 lacks. That being said, this movie has few discrete effects anyway.

In terms of fidelity, the 5.1 and 2.0 matrixed soundtracks are near identical. When quickly switching between the two tracks I did not notice any significant difference in noise, dialogue levels, sound effect levels, music level or dynamic range. In other words, the two tracks sound near identical when downmixed to stereo.

However, there will be a difference between 5.1/2.0 in both discrete effects and potentially also low frequency reproduction depending on how your bass management is configured.

Thus, simply choose if you'd rather have the 5.1 soundtrack which has the discrete effects that were in the original audio stems or the matrixed soundtrack which is closer to what was presented in theaters at the time of Fright Night's release due to the limitations of theatrical audio technology at the time.

OVERALL
New release wins hands down in video quality - worth upgrading IMO for this.
Audio differences are not significant outside of the normal differences between 5.1 & matrixed audio encoding so I would not upgrade for the 2.0 track unless you have a purist fetish as there is no apparent difference in the way the tracks are mixed or sound overall, just the discrete vs matrix encoding and the typical 5.1 vs matrix differences.

Great write up and post. Thank you.

I got my shipping notice the other day so I am looking forward to finally seeing this on Blu.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

Seriously. What do you expect from a Fright Night thread? Do you really need to check in every 3 pages and vent your frustration about it?
I really think you're blowing things a little out of proportion. I don't see much whining going on here. Especially compared to earlier.

I can't vent every 3 pages, yet everyone else can complain repeatedly about compression issues...(and other stuff)

I see. don't worry, I'm done commenting on this particular subject. Whine away.....

[Brett C]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I ended up trading for this release when it became apparent there was a significant difference in video quality.

So, first of all I would like to say that I was wrong in that there is a improvement video quality between the original and new release, which is surprising to me.

It is surprising as I thought the whole reason this Twilight Time & high pricing business is happening is because Sony couldn't make enough money off of the disc in the retail channel. Yet, they had enough money to do work on the video even though there was an excellent release already out? Not that I am complaining, that is great, but it doesn't really match up with the reasons for putting the films out like this in the first place. There is more than just a vanilla re-encoding here - brightness and contrast have been tweaked as well. This could have been work done by Twilight Time, but I wouldn't think they would have the money to spend on that either given it is a limited 5000 release.

In terms of compression artifacts, it is very simple why there may be more in the new release; clearly the old release used a much more aggressive lowpass filter which made the transfer easier to encode with less artifacts - at the expense of film grain and detail. The new encoding clearly has more high frequency detail/grain which is harder to compress and can lead to increased artifacting. Its a tradeoff one must consider when doing the compression.

Anyway, here is a mini A/B comparison since I have both on hand:

VIDEO Compared on hardware calibrated professional monitor

Brightness - The new release in my opinion appears to have higher and more pleasing brightness levels. The older release looks too dark in comparison. New release wins in my book, but your preference may differ.

Color - The old release appears to have more contrast than the new release, but I am not sure that is correct. The new release looks more lifelike in my opinion while the old release looks to have boosted contrast. I would guess some color correction was done on the new release. New release wins in my book, but your preference may differ.

High frequency detail - The new release has significantly more high frequency detail than the old release. Both grain and fine detail looks more natural. New release wins.

Compression - Compression appears superior throughout most of the new release. I know some members pointed out areas with artifacts, but I did not find them distracting at all and overall I feel the new release is significantly better here as well.

AUDIO Compared on professional studio monitors

The 5.1 from the old release is the same as the new release, but the new release has a 2.0 matrix surround track also.
I am not going to go into the 5.1 vs matrix surround differences. Obviously 5.1 is going to have better discrete effects and the LFE channel which the 2.0 lacks. That being said, this movie has few discrete effects anyway.

In terms of fidelity, the 5.1 and 2.0 matrixed soundtracks are near identical. When quickly switching between the two tracks I did not notice any significant difference in noise, dialogue levels, sound effect levels, music level or dynamic range. In other words, the two tracks sound near identical when downmixed to stereo.

However, there will be a difference between 5.1/2.0 in both discrete effects and potentially also low frequency reproduction depending on how your bass management is configured.

Thus, simply choose if you'd rather have the 5.1 soundtrack which has the discrete effects that were in the original audio stems or the matrixed soundtrack which is closer to what was presented in theaters at the time of Fright Night's release due to the limitations of theatrical audio technology at the time.

OVERALL
New release wins hands down in video quality - worth upgrading IMO for this.
Audio differences are not significant outside of the normal differences between 5.1 & matrixed audio encoding so I would not upgrade for the 2.0 track unless you have a purist fetish as there is no apparent difference in the way the tracks are mixed or sound overall, just the discrete vs matrix encoding and the typical 5.1 vs matrix differences.

Interesting observations, I am curious about a couple things.

How did you come to the conclusion that the new release features better compression when the original release features none of the macro-blocking issues present in many scenes of the new one?

And my second question would be how large is this display you made these comparisons on? Size does matter, compression issues at 50 inches regardless of severity are obviously twice fold when you double the image size.

Not attacking btw, genuinely curious about your findings.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

I can't vent every 3 pages, yet everyone else can complain repeatedly about compression issues...(and other stuff)

I see. don't worry, I'm done commenting on this particular subject. Whine away.....

Sorry, I didn't mean to discourage you from posting whatever comes to mind regarding this thread. Rather, I don't want others to be discouraged in saying anything of a negative nature, without fear of someone waiting in the wings to jump down on them (as a group) for whining. To me the more openness the better, and to get that you need to hear both the bad and the good.

In any case, it looks like both releases have their strong points and weak points, which is sure to generate plenty of discussion (or "whining", depending on your perspective) in the weeks to come.

[schlock]

It seems like there's more whining from people who object to anything negative being said about this release, than there are people who actually said anything negative about this release to begin with. Whining goes both ways.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Ruined

High frequency detail - The new release has significantly more high frequency detail than the old release. Both grain and fine detail looks more natural. New release wins.

Are you sure it's not due to the added brightness bringing out more shadow detail? Do you have any scenes to point to which shows greater detail that is not due to higher brightness levels?