Mutant (Night Shadows) (1984) - Code Red

[Member-222782]

So Bill didn't restore this one himself? Who did, Universal? lol. Let the madness begin. Sort of glad I grabbed a copy before it's pulled and artificially OOPed but I'm still putting my old DVD back on the shelf. Jeez.

[slasherdisc]

I'm still looking forward to my copy with the bundle despite the DNR!

[CODE RED DVD]

Originally Posted by visualsynth

I'm still looking forward to my copy with the bundle despite the DNR!

despite what other label claim, they all use DNR. i didnt use to many earlier release and people said my release looks like beatup print.

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

despite what other label claim, they all use DNR. i didnt use to many earlier release and people said my release looks like beatup print.

Despite the lack of any visible grain, it still looks quite clear. When did Multicom complete the 4K transfer?

[CODE RED DVD]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Despite the lack of any visible grain, it still looks quite clear. When did Multicom complete the 4K transfer?

early 2016. for tv showing? when did your favorite label didnt use DNR?

[Katatonia]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

early 2016. for tv showing? when did your favorite label didnt use DNR?

Many studios do use minimal DNR at on point or another, but it is excessive on Mutant.

I don't see why Multicom felt that all traces of film grain should be removed, especially with a fresh 4K transfer.

[chrismac87]

I haven't received my disc yet, but boy does that look...smooth. One of the screenshots looks sort of like that oil paint filter used in Photoshop was applied.

I suppose it's better than nothing but eek... that's a lot of digital smoothing.

Not surprised Bill could've done his own transfer and opted not to. Then he'd just complain the title didn't sell and he spent all kinds of extra money on it for it only not to sell.

[dubious]

Originally Posted by Katatonia

Many studios do use minimal DNR at on point or another, but it is excessive on Mutant.

I don't see why Multicom felt that all traces of film grain should be removed, especially with a fresh 4K transfer.

More than one master can be prepared from a transfer, since Bill stated it was originally purposed for TV then additional degraining makes sense, since HDTV has far less bit rate than a blu-ray, DNR aids compression effeciency. However, if the raw scan transfer is available, a suitable high-grain master for physical media release could have also been rendered.

[Mr. Thomsen]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

despite what other label claim, they all use DNR. i didnt use to many earlier release and people said my release looks like beatup print.

Who? Those morons over at horrordvds.com, you keep referring to?

I would think that most of us here know that the titles you release are so rare that sometimes it can be hard even finding a complete surviving theatrical print, and that finding a negative or an IP will be close to a miracle. So we take what we can get - warts and all.

But that does not make excessive DNR acceptable.

As for your "other labels always get praise" comment, take Severin Films for example. They definitely caught some flack for their release of AXE. And rightfully so, because the excessive use of DNR had scrubbed almost all the natural film grain away.

Look, we all know that most labels use DNR in some way or other. But it's the level of DNR used that makes all the difference.

When you turn the button up to '11' and remove not only noise, specks, and dust but ALSO all grain, the movie starts to look unnatural, like something shot on video instead of film, and the textures look waxy.

In short: a little DNR can be okay, but too much DNR is always bad!

[chrismac87]

Originally Posted by Mr. Thomsen

Who? Those morons over at horrordvds.com, you keep referring to?

I would think that most of us here know that the titles you release are so rare that sometimes it can be hard even finding a complete surviving theatrical print, and that finding a negative or an IP will be close to a miracle. So we take what we can get - warts and all.

But that does not make excessive DNR acceptable.

As for your "other labels always get praise" comment, take Severin Films for example. They definitely caught some flack for their release of AXE. And rightfully so, because the excessive use of DNR had scrubbed almost all the natural film grain away.

Look, we all know that most labels use DNR in some way or other. But it's the level of DNR used that makes all the difference.

When you turn the button up to '11' and remove not only noise, specks, and dust but ALSO all grain, the movie starts to look unnatural, like something shot on video instead of film, and the textures look waxy.

In short: a little DNR can be okay, but too much DNR is always bad!

What's even more disappointing is his response that he COULD'VE done his own transfer, but opted not to because he felt people would complain. I really have seen little to no complaining on the CR titles, not on here anyways, in fact - I've seen mostly praising considering most of these films in the first place.

I was really looking forward to this release, and granted while I haven't seen it in motion - maybe it won't be too noticeable - those screencaps are a reason for concern. I suppose the only saving grace here is apparently MUTANT is a public domain film so if someone puts up the scratch to get the raw HD scan from the company sans DNR - they could put out a better release.

I'm still looking forward to seeing the disc - but overall, concerned really.

[Se.Vero]

Originally Posted by CODE RED DVD

despite what other label claim, they all use DNR. i didnt use to many earlier release and people said my release looks like beatup print.

i am only speaking for myself here, but i ALWAYS prefer a nice filmish look of a blu-ray more than a waxy blu-ray with too much DNR and no film grain left.
and i own 95% of code red's blu-ray releases and the grainy look of most is what i enjoy the most, even when it has splices and scratches and looks totally beat up. and that's why i keep buying your releases.

for example, i was watching the "legacy of satan / blood" double feature last week, and while the movies themselves were quite awful (just as expected )
i kept watching them because of the grindhouse look. and i actually enjoyed them a lot.

sometimes i even wish some more other labels would release especially older movies like they are (without too much restoration work) and keep things like the cue marks (reel change marks) or minor damage to the scanned print intact. it provides a much better cinema-like experience in my opinion.

[CODE RED DVD]

Originally Posted by Se.Vero

for example, i was watching the "legacy of satan / blood" double feature last week, and while the movies themselves were quite awful (just as expected )
i kept watching them because of the grindhouse look. and i actually enjoyed them a lot.

I did two transfer for LOS. one from 35mm print and other from 35mm CRI. zero DNR. both looks like a beatup print. I spend more money on the CRI. I should save the money and stuck on the first master, the 35mm print. I was not happy with the release. rain of white dots!

35mm camera negatives without DNR looks like a beat up print! MEAN JOHNNY BARROWS DVD got several film bookers asking me to lend them the 35mm print so they an screen it, they didnt know it was the original camera negatives ! New Blu-ray, I used DNR and it looks clean and pristine.


Vinnie at Elite release MUTANT on dvd only for MillCreek and others to rip his transfer. I wouldn't taken MUTANT till they told me they had a 4k scan new 2016 telecine.