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

[tama]

Originally Posted by PowellPressburger

Do we know 100% that even though they are from the same MASTER that Columbia - Sony didn't make any of the tweaks to how it was presented on this disc?

That's what I would love to know. One only has to look at films like Time Bandits (same Master used by Criterion and Arrow) or The Long Goodbye (same Master used by Kino and Arrow) to see that labels using similar Masters don't always display the exact same presentation in regards to color/contrast. Sometimes there's slight variances. Lyris (David M.) is a great encoder who is frequent on this board. Maybe he could chime in with some thoughts?

The new disc looks to have a slight edge in the video department but it doesn't blow the old release out the water like some are claiming either.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by kkirk25

Why are you having a meltdown regarding people talking about the issues of this release?

Because It's pathetic! Not only about this alleged compression issue, but the silly, ridiculous complaints about the cover artwork, the case, the size, color, brightness, Chris Sarandon's complexion, Stephen Geoffrey's hair, Amanda Bearse's makeup, anything they can think of.. At least, I have sense enough to get rid of something, if I no longer want it, or don't like it for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if Fright Night ( or any other blu-ray movie release was perfect), people with a anal, OCD will find something else psychologically wrong with it. The problem is certainly not the blu-ray movie (if you know what I mean). Nothing is going to be perfect all the time because, we don't live in a perfect world. People should realize that by now!

[Ruined]

There is clear additional detail and fine grain in the new disc. It is not just brighter. Apparent the old disc master was run through a low pass filter to avoid artifacting and fit on a bd25. This is a normal practice for encoding when you need to keep the file size down. There is no way increasing brightness recovers the detail seen in the new release ( I tried)

[tama]

Originally Posted by Ruined

There is clear additional detail and fine grain in the new disc. It is not just brighter. Apparent the old disc master was run through a low pass filter to avoid artifacting and fit on a bd25. This is a normal practice for encoding when you need to keep the file size down. There is no way increasing brightness recovers the detail seen in the new release ( I tried)

I don't doubt that. But some of what you're getting back was information also in darker areas on several scenes that are now more noticable due to a brighter image.

DVDbeaver has 3 comparison shots up. You can see in some areas there is better detail (sharper image) due to the better encoding. On the other hand if you look at the 2nd shot Charlys left sleeve were the sleeve pattern is shrouded in darkness and less visible. Even with a better encoding that information would still be shrouded in darkness and not clearly visible without a brighter adjustment. Same would go for shot 3 if you compare the images with Chris Sarandons hair.

[Goremeister100]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Perhaps some people don't want to admit they did *not* buy a better looking release they now *cannot* buy since it is sold out. Rationalization of passing on a bluray they can no longer buy. I didn't even pay for my FN 30th (traded another BD I had an extra of for it) so I have no agenda.



How can you comment on the color timing of a release if you own display isn't accurate in color reproduction?

I already mentioned that a friend of mine has a calibrated set and the first BD looks the same on his and mine (which isn't calibrated). Are you going to tell me that everyone has their tvs calibrated and if they don't then blu-rays will look like crap? I also stated that I'm happy with the first blu-ray and it looks fine to me with dark blacks and just the right amount of contrast. I can calibrate my own tv with my own eyes. I don't need some tech geek doing it.

[kkirk25]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Because It's pathetic! At least, I have sense enough to get rid of something, if I no longer want it, or don't like it for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if Fright Night ( or any other blu-ray movie release was perfect), people with a anal, OCD will find something else psychologically wrong with it. Nothing is going to be perfect all the time because, we don't live in a perfect world. People should realize that by now!

Ok, but you can't control how other people are. If some people are always going to find something wrong a perfect release as you noted, then why do you think that you are going to be able to change their opinion let alone their OCD? Seems like a losing battle and the easier thing to do would be to scroll past/ignore their posts and communicate with other people on the topics that interest you.

[tama]

Originally Posted by Goremeister100

I already mentioned that a friend of mine has a calibrated set and the first BD looks the same on his and mine (which isn't calibrated). Are you going to tell me that everyone has their tvs calibrated and if they don't then blu-rays will look like crap? I also stated that I'm happy with the first blu-ray and it looks fine to me with dark blacks and just the right amount of contrast. I can calibrate my own tv with my own eyes. I don't need some tech geek doing it.

You and you're buddy had your displays set up next to each other at the same time to confirm this? nice

[shamus]

Originally Posted by Ruined

it is not necessarily wrong, it just does not look color corrected in comparison. It had a very obvious red push throughout compared to the more neutral new release. Combine that with the lower brightness and the old release looks more artificial and boosted to me.

it is possible to improve on a very good transfer, and that is what I believe is the case here.

also, on another note if you are not using a fully calibrated display you are not going to see accurate colors regardless.

Why do you keep saying the old release is boosted? The newer one is unnaturally boosted...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by shamus

Why do you keep saying the old release is boosted? The newer one is unnaturally boosted...

Exactly what do you feel is boosted in the new release?

My opinion comparing the two:
Old release: Too dark; red push; boosted contrast (might just be the red push); less fine detail
New release: Brightness improved; neutral color; less contrast; more fine detail

New release looks much more natural and lifelike IMO.

[luis figo]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Because It's pathetic! Not only about this alleged compression issue, but the silly, ridiculous complaints about the cover artwork, the case, the size, color, brightness, Chris Sarandon's complexion, Stephen Geoffrey's hair, Amanda Bearse's makeup, anything they can think of.. At least, I have sense enough to get rid of something, if I no longer want it, or don't like it for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if Fright Night ( or any other blu-ray movie release was perfect), people with a anal, OCD will find something else psychologically wrong with it. The problem is certainly not the blu-ray movie (if you know what I mean). Nothing is going to be perfect all the time because, we don't live in a perfect world. People should realize that by now!

I was talking about the difference in brightness between both releases in relation to his skin tone.

Don't exaggerate to make to your opinion sound more valid.

Listen, if people are paying for a product and they are not satisfied with certain aspects of that product then they have every right to complain.

If there were no complaints/constructive feedback then nearly all Blu-Ray releases would remain the same and nothing would be improved.

It's unlikely it will be recalled but the constructive criticism would still bode well for a future 4k release.

[Ruined]

This thread is like bizarro world. The new tweaked brightness and color looks more neutral than the dark, red pushed old release, which is better in my book. Color correction is not a bad thing.

Again, evaluated on a hardware calibrated pro monitor.

it is like people are complaining about an improvement. I guess some are never satisfied.

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Because It's pathetic! Not only about this alleged compression issue, but the silly, ridiculous complaints about the cover artwork, the case, the size, color, brightness, Chris Sarandon's complexion, Stephen Geoffrey's hair, Amanda Bearse's makeup, anything they can think of.. At least, I have sense enough to get rid of something, if I no longer want it, or don't like it for whatever reason. It doesn't matter if Fright Night ( or any other blu-ray movie release was perfect), people with a anal, OCD will find something else psychologically wrong with it. The problem is certainly not the blu-ray movie (if you know what I mean). Nothing is going to be perfect all the time because, we don't live in a perfect world. People should realize that by now!

I think you need to step away from this thread. It seems like you're about to have a heart attack.

[luis figo]

Originally Posted by Ruined

This thread is like bizarro world. The new tweaked brightness and color looks more neutral than the dark, red pushed old release, which is better in my book. Color correction is not a bad thing.

Again, evaluated on a hardware calibrated pro monitor.

it is like people are complaining about an improvement. I guess some are never satisfied.

But thats your opinion (about the new release being an improvement), not a fact.

I can see improvement in the details but I prefer the darker more natural look (imo) in the first Twilight release.

[Mrlovkim]

My copies got shipped to my family in Jersey so wont be able to view it till June so glad I have the Germany copy and that looks fantastic.

[BrandonJF]

Originally Posted by Ruined

This thread is like bizarro world. The new tweaked brightness and color looks more neutral than the dark, red pushed old release, which is better in my book. Color correction is not a bad thing.

Again, evaluated on a hardware calibrated pro monitor.

it is like people are complaining about an improvement. I guess some are never satisfied.

You keep mentioning your calibrated pro-monitor, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the validity of the color correction/brightness increase. It proves that you are looking at the disc as intended, but it doesn't say that the color/brightness in the new version is more correct than the previous version, does it? In the end, it still comes down to you eyeballing two versions on your calibrated monitor and saying which one you personally prefer, then taking your personal preference and assuming everyone must agree.... because your monitor is calibrated. I get that you think it looks more neutral, but not every film goes for a "neutral" color timing.

I'm not saying the new version isn't more "correct" - it very well may be. I have no idea.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by BrandonJF

I think you need to step away from this thread.

I'm eating a delicious burger, and fries!

[Jason One]

Originally Posted by Ruined

This thread is like bizarro world. The new tweaked brightness and color looks more neutral than the dark, red pushed old release, which is better in my book. Color correction is not a bad thing.

Again, evaluated on a hardware calibrated pro monitor.

it is like people are complaining about an improvement. I guess some are never satisfied.

I don't think it's been color corrected, only boosted/brightened, which makes the colors seem less saturated. The other two existing BDs (original Twilight Time and international Sony) are identical as far as contrast and brightness. (I think it's safe to assume Sony knows how to correctly encode their own master.)

Only this 30th Anniversary disc is different, and it seems likely that this was probably a technical error introduced during encoding, especially when we know there are also other problems with the encode.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Jason One

I don't think it's been color corrected, only boosted/brightened, which makes the colors seem less saturated. The other two existing BDs (original Twilight Time and international Sony) are identical as far as contrast and brightness. (I think it's safe to assume Sony knows how to correctly encode their own master.)

Only this 30th Anniversary disc is different, and it seems likely that this was probably a technical error introduced during encoding, especially when we know there are also other problems with the encode.

Sony does not feel this Blu-ray will generate enough money to warrant a proper release in the US. Thus I would not necessarily conclude they painstakingly transferred and encoded the Int'l release. It is pretty clear this movie is very low on their priority list.

Instead of just assuming error because it is different, given it looks better its very possible the 30th anniv edition had some tweaks applied during prep for encoding. Which might just be a matter of effort, rather than just encoding the master as-is even if it needs additional work.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by revgen

Original TT Fright Night release - DVD Beaver Screenshot

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-r..._blu-ray_2.jpg

TT Fright Night 30th Anniversary Release - DVD Beaver Screenshot

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film5/blu-r...2_blu-ray_.jpg

TT Fright Night 30th Anniversary Release - Screen shot altered with an NTSC/ATSC 16-235 levels input.

http://i.imgur.com/NVMY0nf.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OHk6fb8.jpg

When applying a NTSC/ATSC 16-235 range input to the 30th anniversary image, the colors and brightness tend to resemble the original TT release more closely.

That is an interesting observation.

[Jason One]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Sony does not feel this Blu-ray will generate enough money to warrant a proper release in the US. Thus I would not necessarily conclude they painstakingly transferred and encoded the Int'l release. It is pretty clear this movie is very low on their priority list.

Instead of just assuming error because it is different, given it looks better its very possible the 30th anniv edition had some tweaks applied during prep for encoding. Which might just be a matter of effort, rather than just encoding the master as-is even if it needs additional work.

Sorry, but this all sounds like a very far-fetched line of reasoning. I'm sure Sony has a well-established standard workflow for taking their own masters and encoding them properly for BD. Whether a particular BD ends up released in the US or not is irrelevant.

Sony also has a reputation for producing exceptional masters for their archives, so the chances that this master "needed additional work" are remote at best. And even if that were true, would you really trust any such tweaks in this encode, given the other problems it also contains?