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

[StingingVelvet]

I never had the original disc but this one certainly doesn't look too bright. It looks natural and well-lit to my eye, with spot-on flesh-tones.

[Dunemoon]

Originally Posted by RD1973

I have both the original TT release and the new 30th Anniversary version.

Is there any reason for me to get one of the Sony releases from around the world (better PQ / AQ, more extras, etc. ?)

Also, are all the international Sony releases identical?

Thanks in advance.

You have both?!? Real Fans ain't gonna be happy.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Brett C

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?

The compression process is not just about macroblocking. It involves many steps. One of the first preparatory steps of the compression process is potentially throwing in a low pass filter to reduce high frequencies and allow for more compression/smaller file size. IMO it is not worth throwing away significant film grain and detail just to avoid a few minor compression artifacts in a few scenes. In the case of Fright Night, the lowpass filter used on the original release is much more aggressive than the new release, significantly reducing detail. Hence, overall I feel the compression job on the new release is better.

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.

I have both 120" and 73" theater setups. But I did the comparison with my face up against a 24" hardware calibrated 1920x1200 IPS Adobe RGB LCD monitor because it is more revealing and calibrated more tightly than either of the projection setups. I don't buy that "size matters" as long as your field of view is filled because the larger screens do not have more resolution than a smaller monitor, it is the same 1920x1080 pixels blown up. I even paused the scenes in question for analysis and did not see anything overly concerning.

Not attacking btw, genuinely curious about your findings.

No problem.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

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?

Going back and forth it is pretty obvious the entire movie has more high frequency detail (fine detail), not any scene in particular. For instance, while the film grain in the original release was natural appearing, in the new release it is even more natural and finer than the old release. The DVD Beaver shots also show this.

i.e. look at his hair (copy and paste to blank browser window):
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-r..._blu-ray_2.jpg (old release, hair kinda mushy)
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r...2_blu-ray_.jpg (new release, more individual strands, finer grain)

[BluRayFiend]

I emailed SAE cause again another cracked case
they said they only have blue cases does anyone know where
I can buy the same exact replacement case for this ?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by BluRayFiend

I emailed SAE cause again another cracked case
they said they only have blue cases does anyone know where
I can buy the same exact replacement case for this ?

It is the same case Drafthouse Films uses for all of their releases, though I don't know where to buy them.

That being said, for this movie's cover I'd say a blue case actually looks better so I wouldn't sweat it. Just use a blue one. Besides, the "official" one doesn't even have a Blu-ray logo on it.

[BluRayFiend]

Thanks ruined ! Ill have to try with regular blue case i just like to keep things original how they come from factory especially at this price i get ocd sometimes

[Brett C]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The compression process is not just about macroblocking. It involves many steps. One of the first preparatory steps of the compression process is potentially throwing in a low pass filter to reduce high frequencies and allow for more compression/smaller file size. IMO it is not worth throwing away significant film grain and detail just to avoid a few minor compression artifacts in a few scenes. In the case of Fright Night, the lowpass filter used on the original release is much more aggressive than the new release, significantly reducing detail. Hence, overall I feel the compression job on the new release is better.



I have both 120" and 73" theater setups. But I did the comparison with my face up against a 24" hardware calibrated 1920x1200 IPS Adobe RGB LCD monitor because it is more revealing and calibrated more tightly than either of the projection setups. I don't buy that "size matters" as long as your field of view is filled because the larger screens do not have more resolution than a smaller monitor, it is the same 1920x1080 pixels blown up. I even paused the scenes in question and did not see anything overly concerning.



No problem.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on the compression job, because regardless of it having more room to breathe it does have macroblocking, which is absent in the original release. So it is trading one for the other. It is down to personal preference on what one thinks is best, they both have plus and minuses. It might not bother you looking on your twenty four inch screen, but it sure bothers me on a screen over one hundred inches.

Sure size matters and I am aware it has nothing to do with resolution, but common sense would dictate that any flaw or artifact grows in scale the larger it is displayed. An image shifting on a screen seven foot wide is a lot more noticeable than the same flaw under two feet wide.

Hey, I am sure everyone is just pleased to finally have it, those lucky enough to get an order in anyway, but I stand by my personal preference of the original release, if one is projecting this film on a large screen.
I would even go as far as recommending the overseas Sony release for the same reason, I have not seen it, but I bet it is free of these issues.

So pick your poison everyone!

[shamus]

Originally Posted by Brett C

Well we will have to agree to disagree on the compression job, because regardless of it having more room to breathe it does have macroblocking, which is absent in the original release. So it is trading one for the other. It is down to personal preference on what one thinks is best, they both have plus and minuses. It might not bother you looking on your twenty four inch screen, but it sure bothers me on a screen over one hundred inches.

Sure size matters and I am aware it has nothing to do with resolution, but common sense would dictate that any flaw or artifact grows in scale the larger it is displayed. An image shifting on a screen seven foot wide is a lot more noticeable than the same flaw under two feet wide.

Hey, I am sure everyone is just pleased to finally have it, those lucky enough to get an order in anyway, but I stand by my personal preference of the original release, if one is projecting this film on a large screen.
I would even go as far as recommending the overseas Sony release for the same reason, I have not seen it, but I bet it is free of these issues.

So pick your poison everyone!

I prefer the darker version but would of liked the original stereo... see you guys in five years for the 35th release!

[thephantomcat]

I see no macroblocking in any of the scenes mentioned. 55" Samsung LED. I don't see any the entire film. I don't see how a problem can be visible on a 100+ in screen and a 47" screen, but not a 55" screen. I honestly think this is a non existent issue.

[Oblivion138]

Wow...it didn't take long for this thread to become as stupid and repetitive as the original Fright Night thread, did it?

[tama]

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

I see no macroblocking in any of the scenes mentioned. 55" Samsung LED. I don't see any the entire film. I don't see how a problem can be visible on a 100+ in screen and a 47" screen, but not a 55" screen. I honestly think this is a non existent issue.

Some people don't see the effects of heavy denoising on Predator UHE blown through a projector either. Doesn't mean the issue is non existent.

[Oblivion138]

For me, it's hard to choose between the original transfer and the new one.

Yes, in the scenes where there is obvious macroblocking, the new encode suffers. But how many seconds does that add up to, in a 108-minute film? And for the rest of that runtime, the new transfer looks superior to me. So while the original transfer doesn't have any glaring issues, for the most part (those few instances of macroblocking on the new transfer notwithstanding), the grain also doesn't appear as fine for the bulk of the original transfer. Split decision, really...and a tough one to call.

[batman2000]

revgen i saw the tweek you did to the blu ray it looks like that's how all the blu rays should have looked. that was great work.

[thephantomcat]

I'm very curious as to what blu-rays are 100% flawless to those who consider this transfer junk or defective.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Brett C

Well we will have to agree to disagree on the compression job, because regardless of it having more room to breathe it does have macroblocking, which is absent in the original release. So it is trading one for the other. It is down to personal preference on what one thinks is best, they both have plus and minuses. It might not bother you looking on your twenty four inch screen, but it sure bothers me on a screen over one hundred inches.

Sure size matters and I am aware it has nothing to do with resolution, but common sense would dictate that any flaw or artifact grows in scale the larger it is displayed. An image shifting on a screen seven foot wide is a lot more noticeable than the same flaw under two feet wide.

Hey, I am sure everyone is just pleased to finally have it, those lucky enough to get an order in anyway, but I stand by my personal preference of the original release, if one is projecting this film on a large screen.
I would even go as far as recommending the overseas Sony release for the same reason, I have not seen it, but I bet it is free of these issues.

So pick your poison everyone!

Can you give me an exact timecode hh:mm:ss where you see the worst artifact? I will look again on my both on my pro monitor and my 120" DLP. If it truly is macroblocking it should be visible paused.

I reviewed the 23:17 pant leg scene several times on my monitor and the main thing I notice is the new transfer is brighter and has a LOT more film grain. I paused it in several spots, watched in motion and saw no more macroblocking than the original release on the pause. Bitrate seems to run 29mbps-35mbps on this scene. The old transfer has less motion in the frame because some of the film grain is filtered out.

It has more room to breathe but it also has MUCH more high frequency detail, meaning it really doesn't have more room to breathe If the same lowpass filter was applied as the original release, then it would have more room to breathe.

Honestly even if it had ridiculously horrible macroblocking in 3 scenes (which I did not see) I would still easily take the new transfer as it has much more detail and better color correction/brightness.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by luis figo

So you're saying no complaints about the video in the above post yet in your first post you mention gripes about video quality..

Which one is it?

"Do people gripe about the video quality, whenever they go and see a movie at the theater, and complain about it to the manager, after they've paid their money? If not, then why do it at home....This compression issue is very easy to be resolve! Either they keep the blu-ray, or resell it, if they don't want it. I'm quite sure they won't have any problems getting rid of it. Somebody will gladly take Fright Night off of their hands, with or without the alleged compression issues. It's impossible to please everybody.. A one man's junk, is another man's treasure!"

Your comprehension is faulty.

[Brett C]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Can you give me an exact timecode hh:mm:ss where you see the worst artifact? I will look again on my both on my pro monitor and my 120" DLP. If it truly is macroblocking it should be visible paused.

I reviewed the 23:17 pant leg scene several times on my monitor and the main thing I notice is the new transfer is brighter and has a LOT more film grain. I paused it in several spots, watched in motion and saw no more macroblocking than the original release on the pause. Bitrate seems to run 29mbps-35mbps on this scene. The old transfer has less motion in the frame because some of the film grain is filtered out.

It has more room to breathe but it also has MUCH more high frequency detail, meaning it really doesn't have more room to breathe If the same lowpass filter was applied as the original release, then it would have more room to breathe.

Honestly even if it had ridiculously horrible macroblocking in 3 scenes (which I did not see) I would still easily take the new transfer as it has much more detail and better color correction/brightness.

OK in the pant scene, it is not the entire frame, the artifact,(destabilization of that portion of the image) shows on his legs as the shot pans.

I would say the worst is starting at 43.26 the shot of the clocks panning sideways till Chris Sarandon takes the phone.

[Brett C]

Originally Posted by thephantomcat

I'm very curious as to what blu-rays are 100% flawless to those who consider this transfer junk or defective.

Nobody said or implied it was junk or trash, but it has issues not present in the same companies previous release. Whether one sees them or cares is another story.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by pinballmaster

is there an email address we can start emailing about the defects? Maybe if enough people inquire we can get replacements?

lol