Dracula

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by Quinthoopachiefy

I read this a little bit ago. I don't know sometimes Bracke let's alot of his own personal views get in the way of his reviews. I sometimes cringe at what horrible things he has to say about some of my favorite movies. I thought they had spent alot of time on this transfer. Regardless I am still buying it.

still a great movie

i agree bracke doesn't know how to review movies

[CptGreedle]

I have learned too many times that relying on one, or a few select, critics/reviewers is a bad thing. They ALWAYS putt their own taste into things and often reflect their point of view in other aspects of the film. (Might get bad sound and video ratings if they don't like the genre of movie).
I will prolly still get this, but I think everyone who questions it should at least wait to see what other reviewers/critics say.

[DavePS3]

The original rez on the pic was never that impressive so I would have been more surprised if it had shown up as a Tier1 title. MUCH more surprised.

[miked924]

Still buying it

[dragons lair]

Beatboy only gave it a 3 out of 5 for picture and a 3.5 for sound.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=909792

[MrVorhees]

Originally Posted by schultz

For me, this is one of those movies that I will buy regarless of any review. When will blu-ray.com be reviewing it?

agreed

[zuulboy]

I have the Dracula Blu-ray already. It's replacing the Superbit version that I had. I must say the PQ is not a drastic improvement over the Superbit, but you definitely appreciate the higher resolution in brightly lit scenes and long shots, especially the ones of the crowded London streets. The colors are deeper and richer, especially the reds of course, and you notice extreme details on the costumes that you can almost feel their textures. Plus the Superbit version had no extras, so I'm glad to see them all included here. I'd say if this is a favorite movie of yours and you're clinging to the Superbit version, take the plunge...you won't be disappointed. But I must say, the upgrade isn't as jaw dropping as what I've seen for Dawn of the Dead (1978), Evil Dead 2 and Halloween from Anchor Bay. Those guys did an amazing job with their first Blus.

[Horrorview]

Man, I dunno. I'm watching my review copy now, and I'm HATING this transfer. It's noisy as hell, and there's noticeable digitization in darker scenes.I actually paused it to check the forum and see if anyone else was having the same issues? After seeing Halloween and Evil Dead 2, both of which maintained consistent clarity in even the darkest moments (and we ALL know how dark Halloween is), I expected the more recent Dracula to knock my socks off. Instead, the picture alternates between crisp and soft, and there's just way too much noise in the darker sequences, especially in Dracula's castle (not just in terms of film grain, but a very noticeable digital noise that often causes rich colors like reds to lose definition).

It could be that I've been spoiled by several great transfers in a row (the Anchor Bay titles, Tekkonkinkreet, Black Book), but I'm really disappointed with this one

[Marcusarilius]

I read this and there is no way I'm not getting this movie on BD. Can't be all that bad. The other choice is to stick with the DVD version? I think not. I beleive these guys are loosing sight of what the average joe is getting from HD. They stick to their very stringent guidelines and make an assesment that really dosn't equate out to the fact that we are all going to enjoy the up-grade in PQ and SQ. When Edward Scissor Hands was released in the theater, I saw the previews and was psyched to see it. After reading a negative review by a critic, I decided not to go and see it on the big screen. When I rented it on DVD, I kicked myself for listening to this idiot. One of the coolest movies I have ever seen. Always decide for yourself!

[Bruuce]

I saw this in HD on HDNet Movies and it looked and sounded spectacular. I was hoping this disc would look at least the same but I guess it doesn't. I'm disappointed but there is not much I can do about it.

[Knight-Errant]

I just watched it last night and I thought it looked great. Certainly the best I've ever seen it look and I've seen it many times.
Thought the audio was terrific too.

[blackpixels]

Originally Posted by Knight-Errant

I just watched it last night and I thought it looked great. Certainly the best I've ever seen it look and I've seen it many times.
Thought the audio was terrific too.

I too have the superbit version and love it (10/1 Edit) I forgot to mention that I also have the laserdic version, but it's on the wall as framed art. Did you find the grain and alternating changes in PQ as Josh and were they distracting to you at all? I don't have an issue with intened grain, however I do have issues with any pixelization in dark scenes (as I've heard mentioned)...

[davidthebruce79]

I picked it up last night at bestbuy.
I am gonna try and watch it today.
They had all of next weeks releases out for sale.
Unfortunately I could only buy one.

[almy]

Go to BluRay.com - they have an interesting statement about this title and the negative review.

[Dave Mack]

Paidgeek said

"There are a few things that those critical of the latest Dracula transfer should know.

1. The new transfer was supervised. This means that a representative from Zoetrope was charged we checking the color correction to make sure it met with the intentions of Mr. Coppola.

2. The new transfer and color correction were not done hastily. This title was carefully planned for BD and we were given the full cooperation of Zoetrope to get it done right.

3. The masters used for the DVD versions of this title were not endorsed by Mr. Coppola, the BD version is. The color correction on the DVD releases was not what Mr. Coppola wanted, regardless of the fact that the elevated brightness in some scenes on the DVD can reveal something not seen on the BD.

4. The answer print of the film is darker than the Blu-ray (answer prints are the approved color timed result that release prints are supposed to match).

5. Mr. Coppola intentionally shunned digital special effects techniques on this film in order to get a result that had the look of the classic horror films. The optical effects lead to some dirt and softening of the master.

A great deal of time and effort went into the remastering of this film, so it is more than a little disappointing that fans would not just second guess the wishes of the person that made the film, but would judge some of the work as careless or incorrect? From what I have read on the forum, the issue seems to stem from the darkening or color adjustment of a few scenes that leaves the viewer with less discernable picture information than was visible on the earlier unapproved release. If your display is properly calibrated, then rest assured that there is information in the video on most titles that you are not seeing. It is your choice if you want to turn up brightness to reveal some dark detail that is not necessarily supposed to be revealed.

I suspect that if we originally released a Dracula with a darker image, then released the Blu-ray with a brighter one, then perhaps these issues would not have been raised. Just remember that the film is supposed to set a mood and tell a story, not dazzle you with the picture details in the shots with a darkened room.
__________________
SPE Blu-ray insider "



Fine. So ok. Never mind that the new transfer looks too dark, flat, washed out with SDdvd level detail. Never mind that.
I still thought well, how come all these years if the DVDs were SO WAY off the mark from the film hadn't anyone ever brought it up?!?!?

So, after I asked this...

Originally Posted by Dave Mack

The timestamp for the scene is 34:31.

34 minutes, 31 seconds.

Vlad's head is buish white on the SBdvd. Green on the BD.

I am very curious what color his head is in the "coppolla approved" laserdisc transfer.
If it's the sickly green, that matches the color of the mist he turns into later when he mauls Renfield and sneaks into Mina's room, than cool, makes sense and is consistant.

BD





If it's the bluish white like this in the SB dvd, than all bets are off as to what "approved" means in this case. "approved" when? Then or now...??????

Sb dvd

a fellow HTF member who has the COPPOLLA APPROVED TRANSFER laserdisc decided to see how it looked in the infamous Dracula is green in the BD but bluish white in the DVD shot and guess what he saw...

Originally Posted by John H Ross

It's a tad tricky to find 34:31 exactly due to these being CAV laserdiscs and having the timer start from 0:00 again at the start of the second side, but I think this moment comes around the "get your hands off him, he belongs to me" scene.

In which case there is absolutely no green anywhere near Oldman's hair. A quick scan around various other Oldman shots in the same general vicinity also show no signs of green.

Hmmmmmm.....

Originally Posted by John H Ross

Okay, I just checked out that PRECISE frame and his hair is completely white. It's exactly like the SB DVD scan that you posted.

And when you watch the whole scene there's no logical reason why it should be anything else.

Interestingly, the laserdisc jacket clearly states "This special laserdisc edition of Bram Stoker's Dracula has been made possible through the generous participation of Francis Ford Coppola and Roman Coppola".

One more time...?

Originally Posted by John H Ross

Okay, I just checked out that PRECISE frame and his hair is completely white. It's exactly like the SB DVD scan that you posted.

EXACTLY.

So? What gives..?!?!?
Is this what Coppolla wanted?

I agree, it is possible.
But that's exactly what Lucas has always said, Star Wars, despite all the work and effort that these amazingly talented artists did was not what he wanted. So, the redux.
Now this. Granted it's not nearly as dramatic but when you change the colors in a scene from blue to green, that's a pretty noticeable change. It's also jarring to everyone who got used to and watched the earlier version first for years.
I would expect a bit more of an explanation then both transfers had Coppolla's approval yet end up looking dramatically different.
Well, then I will just state that I preferred Coppolla's ORIGINAL approved version of the film. Many others probably feel the same.
So if indeed Coppolla himself was involved, ( and I have a feeling he really wasn't very hands on as his wine business takes up most of his time as he even admits in his new commentary track) this is what he wants it to look like NOW.
Fine. Many artists redo, alter their work. But for paidgeek to say that the dvds didn't look right and the BD does when it seems maybe after all this spin, the dvds might look ALOT more like the LD which he DID approve strikes me as a bit odd.

And yes, he can do whatever he wants. It IS his film.
Fine. But it's now DIFFERENT looking. ALOT different looking. So just admit that and don't try and spin it like, "Oh, the DVDs were WAY off and this is the correct way it SHOULD look."
Well, then what happened to the "COPPOLLA APPROVED LASERDISC" transfer? That was wrong too? And the theatrical prints? As I said before. I saw it at a revival at MOMA (35mm print) and it certainly didn't have some scenes so desaturated that they almost looked black and white!
And bottom line. It doesn't matter HOW much time and effort they put into this re-envisioning, the end result looks BAD. Virtually everybody has said so who has seen the BD disc. Including highdefdigest and Chad at Hometheaterspot. It hasn't had ONE good review for PQ yet.
Isn't it MAYBE just possible that this was done poorly? Isn't it? Just because they spent time and effort on it and it's in HD doesn't mean they did a fabulous job. Bad transfers happen all the time. And fine. Maybe it's just a bad transfer. But these spin efforts really do just desperately sound like spin because maybe, just maybe after the whole The fifth element on BD fiasco where they had to redo the transfer and offer an exchange, they just don't want to go through that again or spend the dough.
If Coppolla personally supervised this, it would be admitted. Hell, they'd use that in the press release and it would be mentioned on the packaging. It's not. A representative from Zoetrope means nothing.

[Dave Mack]

More interesting stuff from HTF

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

According to this, the transfer was done in house at American Zoetrope.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news...rs_Dracula/847

Doug

Yep, that's what I thought earlier. So why the conflicting info? Ron wrote...
"This transfer was completed last year and was overseen by a
representative of Zoetrope along with Sony's best transfer people."

Stating a representative from Zoetrope was involved but TOP Sony guys did the BD..?!?!? That doesn't sound like it was done in house at Zoetrope. It also doesn't sound like Coppolla himself was involved. A representative conveying the wishes of Coppolla in regards to the new transfer? Oooof. ALOT of room here for error IMHO. Especially if the LD tranfer actually WAS supervised by Coppolla and not just a "representative". Guess what? They look VERY different. So? Which one is more accurate? A transfer ACTUALLY supervised by Coppolla at a time much closer to the making of the film? Or a new transfer done 15 years later that "a representative from Zoetrope helped oversee...?" hmmmmm..... Doesn't take much thinking here.
As far as I know, since it has NOT been stated that Coppolla himself approved the new BD transfer, only a "representative" from a company that is not even his primary business anymore, (by his own admission on the commentary!) then all I can conclude is until I hear different, the only known, accurate approved transfer of "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is the Criterion Laserdisc.
If it looks THAT much different from the new BD transfer (and now more and more looks like it more closely resembles the DVD transfers) then I'm sorry, the BD is NOT the definitive version in my opinion.

On one hand, approved by Coppolla transfer. LD

Other hand, new BD "overseen" by a rep from Zoetrope. By most accounts, looks pretty bad and different from the film that most remember.

[Dave Mack]

and you know what? As much as people might like to bash Bracke, his review is DEAD ON.

[mattym]

why dont you email or write to him and ask? Or you could really drag this out over several forums...

[Ashplisken]

I'm not sure why anyone cares so much about this flick. I like gary oldman and all, and it was a star studded cast, but man... what a cheesy lame movie. It was not horrific, scary, creepy... just lame. The book was pretty damn good so there was plenty to work from.

[mattym]

Originally Posted by Ashplisken

I'm not sure why anyone cares so much about this flick. I like gary oldman and all, and it was a star studded cast, but man... what a cheesy lame movie. It was not horrific, scary, creepy... just lame. The book was pretty damn good so there was plenty to work from.

i think Dave cares cos hes all over the internet *****ing about it.. Personally i would take it back, get my money back and buy something else, then send a letter or email to Coppolla expressing my displeasure, perhaps dave likes the attention hes getting himself?

The superbit screeny above has blown highlights and the BD version is a bit dark for my tastes, somewhere in the middle would be spot on