Heat (1995) (Director's Definitive Edition)

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by tama

Then let me hear your facts.

What are the factual deficiencies this transfer suffers from? What factual short comings could you point to that make this one of the worst transfers out there that make this one a disgrace?

What I stated as fact is the fact that many people don't like the transfer...and that's not debatable.

Whether or not it actually is a good transfer is a matter of opinion.

Personally I think it's too dark, the colors are underwhelming and the clarity/definition isn't what it should be. The audio is terrible and I have to turn the volume way up or way down depending on the scene and the dialogue.

Heat is one of my top five favorite films of all time and I wanted the blu-ray to be reference quality.

...it's far from that in my opinion.

[Pyoko]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

It's not a zero-sum game.

I could find just as many, if not more comments all over the Internet of those who hate the transfer.

...that's just a fact.

It may be a fact that there are people who hate the BD, but that doesn't make it a bad transfer, it only establishes the fact that those people are clueless.

There is nothing wrong with it. It's a newer, post-DVD-era transfer, with decent sharpness, detail and fairly fine grain. There's no DNR, there's no EE, even Warner's compression isn't too bad. The only thing I could see as an issue is that it's a bit dark and lacking in contrast, and I bet this perceived dullness is the biggest cause of any dislike, but it's not to the point where one could say it's wrong.

[StingingVelvet]

Given him saying "reference" over and over I would assume this is a case where people want their favorite movies to all look like brand new 4k scans nowadays. Everything else is disappointing now to some people.

Not realistic, but it is what it is.

[tama]

Originally Posted by Pyoko

It may be a fact that there are people who hate the BD, but that doesn't make it a bad transfer, it only establishes the fact that those people are clueless.

There is nothing wrong with it. It's a newer, post-DVD-era transfer, with decent sharpness, detail and fairly fine grain. There's no DNR, there's no EE, even Warner's compression isn't too bad. The only thing I could see as an issue is that it's a bit dark and lacking in contrast, and I bet this perceived dullness is the biggest cause of any dislike, but it's not to the point where one could say it's wrong.

Thanks you beat me to it. Technically the only thing I could say that would be an improvement would be the encoding process. Outside of that not much more I could see being done outside a new scan. And I wouldn't call for that without knowing the details of the one already used.

Outside of the audio issues everything else sounds like personal preferences not based on factual data.

Again nothing wrong with the current video presentation.

[dvdmike]

Let's not go mad here, there are things wrong with it from an originality standpoint.
And it's a normal filtered Warner encode, but it's far from bad.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by tama

Thanks you beat me to it. Technically the only thing I could say that would be an improvement would be the encoding process. Outside of that not much more I could see being done outside a new scan. And I wouldn't call for that without knowing the details of the one already used.

Outside of the audio issues everything else sounds like personal preferences not based on factual data.

Again nothing wrong with the current video presentation.

I think we can agree to disagree with each other without being mean about it. You probably know a great deal more about the technical aspects of blu-ray transfers than I do, seeing as how I know virtually nothing.

I just know what looks good to me and what doesn't.

As was mentioned by someone else, my expectations for Heat on blu-ray were astronomically high because it's one of my favorite films. And I do think there are other films from that era that look better on blu-ray than Heat does.

...and I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by tama

Technically the only thing I could say that would be an improvement would be the encoding process.

The Japanese release is encoded flawlessly - 6 mbps of extra video bit rate and the AVC codec instead of Warner release's VC-1. Yet as someone who owns both, I can tell you that they are virtually indistinguishable in motion.

[Mierzwiak]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

As was mentioned by someone else, my expectations for Heat on blu-ray were astronomically high because it's one of my favorite films.

I think Heat is one of the best movies ever and I'm happy with the Blu-ray, I think it looks very good. You still didn't answered what exactly is wrong with Heat on Blu-ray.

And I do think there are other films from that era that look better on blu-ray than Heat does.

So what? Not every movie was shot on the same film stock, in the same lighting conditions, by the same Director of Photography etc.

[prozacnation1978]

****. Just upgraded b this to bluray weeks ago

[Blu Cider]

People claiming that the Laserdisc sounds better than the US Blu-ray must be smoking something good. I've owned both and listened to both on the same speakers and there's no way that the crappy RF modulated 384 kbps AC-3 signal from the Laserdisc is anywhere near to the sound of the Blu-ray.

[Geoff D]

I liked the dynamic range on the LD mix better. Just because a track is lossless, doesn't mean that it hasn't been watered down compared to previous mixes.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Mierzwiak

I think Heat is one of the best movies ever and I'm happy with the Blu-ray, I think it looks very good. You still didn't answered what exactly is wrong with Heat on Blu-ray.

So what? Not every movie was shot on the same film stock, in the same lighting conditions, by the same Director of Photography etc.

Actually I did mention a few details about the PQ that I don't like.

The transfer doesn't look good to me and I think they could've made it look better.

...and that's how I feel about it.

[HeavyHitter]

I watched the Blu not too long ago and thought it looked pretty decent all things considered. I do think there is a little room for improvement, but I think a lot of it is just how the movie looks. There is just a bit of filtering applied, but the disc retains grain and a fairly analog look without blown out contrast, smearing, and over-sharpening seen on too many titles from the earlier time period of the format. I can sense it was a new transfer. There are a large number of other Warner titles I would rather see re-addressed first before this one. I mean the screenshots show it's pretty solid. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Heat-...3/#Screenshots

[motsm]

Originally Posted by Ray Jackson

The audio is terrible and I have to turn the volume way up or way down depending on the scene and the dialogue.

I'm curious what kind of sound system you watched it on?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I liked the dynamic range on the LD mix better. Just because a track is lossless, doesn't mean that it hasn't been watered down compared to previous mixes.

I'm just wondering if the dynamic range sounded "bigger" on the LD because we weren't so jaded back when it came out when it came to multichannel digital sound on disc. Things that sounded impressive 20 years ago are just "ok" these days, same thing back then. I remember being impressed with some films from the '70s and early '80s in the theater and learning later they were just plain old mono.

[poke smot]

sold this awhile ago because the sound mix seemed so flawed. People were yelling and I could barely hear it. I love the movie but found it unwatchable.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I'm just wondering if the dynamic range sounded "bigger" on the LD because we weren't so jaded back when it came out when it came to multichannel digital sound on disc. Things that sounded impressive 20 years ago are just "ok" these days, same thing back then. I remember being impressed with some films from the '70s and early '80s in the theater and learning later they were just plain old mono.

No, I actually compared the LD and the BD back and forth.

[wesslan]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

The Japanese release is encoded flawlessly - 6 mbps of extra video bit rate and the AVC codec instead of Warner release's VC-1. Yet as someone who owns both, I can tell you that they are virtually indistinguishable in motion.

What did you think about the audio on JP disc? Many says it's a "better mix" but I haven't had the time yet to try myself.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I liked the dynamic range on the LD mix better. Just because a track is lossless, doesn't mean that it hasn't been watered down compared to previous mixes.

Ding ding ding ding ding!

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by wesslan

What did you think about the audio on JP disc? Many says it's a "better mix" but I haven't had the time yet to try myself.

The audio I find to be a lot better on the Japanese release. It sounds a lot better, even on my cheap audio equipment.