Interview with the Vampire (20th Anniversary) - September 30, 2014

[rexinnih]

Lossless audio and I'm in.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Considering that the first one was a low bit-rate VC-1 encode on a 25GB disc, even if we don't get a full remaster but just a higher bit-rate AVC encode on a 50GB disc that should help some with the picture quality. Since they are including DTS-HD MA audio and an added bonus feature, it's not out of the realm of possibilities.

Exactly. In fact, this is highly likely.

Most of the time, when Warner re-releases an older Blu-ray (i.e. 2008 and prior) in a newer version, there is at least a new encode. The lone exception would be Million Dollar Baby, where a lossless track was added and the same video encode was used.

There is one important difference, however. WB doesn't distribute Million Dollar Baby worldwide. In fact, that film has been licnesed in a number of international territories. Therefore, there is less incentive to remaster, In addition, that re-release was for the film's 10th Anniversary.

Almost every other (if not every other) WB re-release that uses an identical encode was released in 2009 or later, well after the format war.

In the case of Interview with the Vampire, the original disc came out in October 2008, but was probably prepared for a possible HD DVD release. Warner distributes the film worldwide, and is planning a staggered worldwide re-release of the 20th Anniversary Edition, including releasing the film on Blu-ray for the first time in Eastern Europe.

Additionally, we know that new extras and new audio will be on the disc.

So, I am thinking this will be very similar to the re-release of Blazing Saddles, at the very least.

In terms of a new transfer, it depends on when the last one was done. It seems that both DVDs used the same master, so if one was not done for the old Blu-ray, then we're almost certainly due for a fresh scan.

I am optimistic that this release will be quite good, but yes, the cover art is very poor.

[oddbox83]

I've got the UK disc and always felt the audio track was lacking. I bought it at the same time as The Lost Boys which has a very dynamic lossless mix and that wasn't even originally made in 5.1.

I'm not sure that and a new extra feature would sway me though, because it's crying out for a new transfer as well.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Akijama

You're welcome.

As already pointed out by MifuneFan, audio will be lossless.



The lack of a new transfer shouldn't be surprising. The only titles they have remastered so far are Casablanca, The Fugitive and Enter the Dragon. Casablanca is....Casablanca. Naturally, they are going to milk that cash cow. The previous Blu incarnations of The Fugitive and Enter the Dragon were really bad. They probably thought they can't get away with a lazy anniversary re-issues.

Plus, it's also worth noting that both remasters were released last year, when the studio was celebrating its 90th Anniversary. That was probably an additional incentive for them to remaster both titles.

Caddyshack (HD DVD to BD) and the first two Lethal Weapons (old BD/HD DVD to remastered BD) were also given new transfers.

[Bruisermoore]

I might pick this up out of the Walmart $7.88 bin eventually or pick it up even cheaper used, but I'm definitely not going to rush out to get it day one. If the transfer is the same, the one I have will do just fine for now. And that's coming from a huge fan of the film that's watched it 10+ times over the years at least.

[wonkavision]

I still have the DVD, so I will pick this up.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Most of the time, when Warner re-releases an older Blu-ray (i.e. 2008 and prior) in a newer version, there is at least a new encode. The lone exception would be Million Dollar Baby, where a lossless track was added and the same video encode was used.

I would have to largely disagree with this. Most of Warner's re-releases are identical encodes. There are a couple of exceptions like Blazing Saddles more recently. However, almost every re-release is the same low bit VC-1 from back in the day.

It's funny because Blade Runner which has been re-released in some incarnation or another more than I can remember has an outstanding transfer to this day, yet they cannot bother re-encoding it to high bit AVC for that extra improvement.

[wonkavision]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

It's funny because Blade Runner which has been re-released in some incarnation or another more than I can remember has an outstanding transfer to this day, yet they cannot bother re-encoding it to high bit AVC for that extra improvement.

Extra improvement? Blade Runner is often noted as Reference Quality and critically rated high in video quality, so why would an AVC be so important to something already at its peak?

[FarewelltotheFlesh]

In my top 10 favourite films. Already have the original blu-ray release with the excellent cover art. If there is improved PQ, I will double dip. If not, I'm not paying for an extra feature. Lossless audio would be nice but considering the amount of blu-ray releases already coming out this year, I can't justify spending even more cash unless there's a significant improvement.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by wonkavision

Extra improvement? Blade Runner is often noted as Reference Quality and critically rated high in video quality, so why would an AVC be so important to something already at its peak?

Because high bit AVC will be superior to low VC-1 every time. Blade Runner is outstanding, but I guarantee you it would look even slightly better with AVC.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I would have to largely disagree with this. Most of Warner's re-releases are identical encodes. There are a couple of exceptions like Blazing Saddles more recently. However, almost every re-release is the same low bit VC-1 from back in the day.

It's funny because Blade Runner which has been re-released in some incarnation or another more than I can remember has an outstanding transfer to this day, yet they cannot bother re-encoding it to high bit AVC for that extra improvement.

Please cite examples where the disc is released worldwide, altered with new extras/audio, but an identical pre-2008/09 video encode is used, because I do not know of any other than Deliverance and the aformentioned Million Dollar Baby, both of which were North American re-issues only.

EDIT: Actually, I just checked again, and it looks like the Deliverance 40th AE re-release was the initial international release, so it was actually the 2007 disc that was limited to North America. Even so, the video encode is not identical between the two editions. The initial disc is 21.12 Mbps VC-1, and the re-release/international disc with DTS-HD MA and the new extra is 24.38 Mbps VC-1.

In any event, Deliverance was remastered for the 2007 SE DVD and Blu-ray. It remains to be seen if Interview with the Vampire was remastered for the 2008 Blu-ray or not. I have not seen that disc, so I cannot comment.

There are of course, plenty of Warner re-issues of the exact same disc (like Blade Runner), but my point was that generally, when Warner releases a new disc worldwide, with new extras and audio, the video encode is also re-done, especially if it was originally released prior to 2009.

[Geoff D]

What does it being worldwide have to do with it? A Clockwork Orange 40th, same video encode. Superman Returns (new boxset version), same video encode. And how about the Ultimate Editions of the Harry Potter movies (apart from the first two which were redone as extended editions)?

Besides, my beef is more to do with the fact that most of those "pre-2008/09" Blu-rays use bit-starved old HD DVD encodes; it's bad enough that the aforementioned video encodes for Clockwork Orange and Superman Returns got recycled twice over for Blu-ray, but it is in fact the third distinct outing for those old encodes! And I'd love to see what Batman Begins would look like with a fat new AVC encode, instead of a soft old HD DVD relic. [edit] Speaking of which, the Ultimate Edition of HP and the Goblet of Fire has some nasty banding and bizarre blocking artefacts in the shadows, because the encode literally dates from the dawn of the HD DVD era. Warners treat encodes like heirlooms, passing them down to each new generation...

Oh, then there's their penchant for taking the exact same disc(s) and re-releasing it in a new package, like the Blade Runner 30th anniversary and the Full Metal Jacket 25th anniversary edition. Sorry, but Warners are the undisputed champeens of recycling their material in one form or another.

[wonkavision]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Because high bit AVC will be superior to low VC-1 every time. Blade Runner is outstanding, but I guarantee you it would look even slightly better with AVC.

Ah. Not sure my tired eyes can see any better.
Btw...nice gear in your sig! I'm looking into that Denon Receiver.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by McCrutchy

Please cite examples where the disc is released worldwide, altered with new extras/audio, but an identical pre-2008/09 video encode is used, because I do not know of any other than Deliverance and the aformentioned Million Dollar Baby, both of which were North American re-issues only.

EDIT: Actually, I just checked again, and it looks like the Deliverance 40th AE re-release was the initial international release, so it was actually the 2007 disc that was limited to North America. Even so, the video encode is not identical between the two editions. The initial disc is 21.12 Mbps VC-1, and the re-release/international disc with DTS-HD MA and the new extra is 24.38 Mbps VC-1.

In any event, Deliverance was remastered for the 2007 SE DVD and Blu-ray. It remains to be seen if Interview with the Vampire was remastered for the 2008 Blu-ray or not. I have not seen that disc, so I cannot comment.

There are of course, plenty of Warner re-issues of the exact same disc (like Blade Runner), but my point was that generally, when Warner releases a new disc worldwide, with new extras and audio, the video encode is also re-done, especially if it was originally released prior to 2009.

Please site EACH re-encode Warner has done for re-releases. Worldwide or not - I don't see why it matters.

What Geoff just stated - spot on.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by wonkavision

Ah. Not sure my tired eyes can see any better.
Btw...nice gear in your sig! I'm looking into that Denon Receiver.

Thanks! It's a great receiver especially with the pro Audyssey.

[wonkavision]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Thanks! It's a great receiver especially with the pro Audyssey.

Cool...I'm sure their is a thread on it that I'm going to start reading...hopefully you've posted in there. The Airplay feature really peaked my interest. Plus I'm remodeling my house and keeping it Apple friendly. We have a lot of friends that are music heavy and it's just so easy for them to push their music to our speakers with their phones.

Sorry for derailing.

[McCrutchy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What does it being worldwide have to do with it? A Clockwork Orange 40th, same video encode. Superman Returns (new boxset version), same video encode. And how about the Ultimate Editions of the Harry Potter movies (apart from the first two which were redone as extended editions)?

Besides, my beef is more to do with the fact that most of those "pre-2008/09" Blu-rays use bit-starved old HD DVD encodes; it's bad enough that the aforementioned video encodes for Clockwork Orange and Superman Returns got recycled twice over for Blu-ray, but it is in fact the third distinct outing for those old encodes! And I'd love to see what Batman Begins would look like with a fat new AVC encode, instead of a soft old HD DVD relic.

Oh, then there's Warners' penchant for taking the exact same disc(s) and re-releasing it in a new package, like the Blade Runner 30th anniversary and the Full Metal Jacket 25th anniversary edition. Sorry, those guys are the undisputed champeens of recycling their material.

I never disagreed with you.

I merely pointed out that generally, as in not always, WB catalog titles that get re-released worldwide, which have had upgraded audio from lossy to lossless, and which have new extras as well, also have re-encoded video. I did not say the video would be remastered, nor did I say it would be any better in a realistic sense. Having said that...

...the examples you cite have either had recent re-masterings, or are, by their very age, probably not viable for remastering. The Harry Potter series is not one I am well acquainted with, but it does seem that only one HD master exists for each film. I imagine you will get your remastered video in 2021 or 2026, to celebrate the 20th or 25th Anniversary of the series.

Now, it may well be the case that back when the 2008 Blu-ray of Interview with the Vampire was created, a new HD master was produced. My understanding is that both DVDs (I only ever owned the later DVD) came from the same master, and if that is the case, the DVD master dates back to 1997. Based on the reviews of the Blu-ray, it doesn't sound (to me) like it was sourced from a 1997 master, but I could be wrong, since I'm going off comments made in 2008. So if the HD master was created for the first Blu-ray, then we are probably looking at a re-encode of that master for this 20th Anniversary BD, if the HD master was created, say, a few years before that, or is the one used for the DVDs, then I should think even Warner would have to go back and re-scan the film elements.

Either way, I seriously doubt we will get the same 19.93 Mbps VC-1 video encode this time, given what we know about this re-release.

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Please site EACH re-encode Warner has done for re-releases. Worldwide or not - I don't see why it matters.

A WB release is hardly likely to be remastered and then sold only in the US and Canada.

Warner in particular have been strong supporters of all-region releases since the DVD era, when dozens of Warner DVDs were coded and outfitted for release in NTSC DVD regions 1,2,3, and 4, or PAL DVD regions 2,4 and 5.

[Geoff D]

I'll bet you a dollar it's the exact same video encode.

[rewak]

It really shouldn't be though, i mean the current transfer just very barely looks better than an upscale, it's crap.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I'll bet you a dollar it's the exact same video encode.

You wouldn't be able to do much with it (0.59 pence).