Bram Stoker's Dracula 4K UHD (1992) (25th Anniversary Edition)

[painted_klown]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

I was told to never trust clowns so I must turn down your advice.

LOL! I genuinely laughed harder than I should have at that.

[Law212]

I watched this a couple months ago. I absolutely loved it. Its been years since watching this movie and I was so glad I picked it up in 4k. The picture looked great IMO and i loved the colours.

I also for the first time noticed when they are travelling and it shows the map that it shows them go by Maldova where my fiance is from. And before we watched the movie I used to make fun of her sometimes for sounding like dracula.

[painted_klown]

Originally Posted by Law212

I also for the first time noticed when they are travelling and it shows the map that it shows them go by Maldova where my fiance is from. And before we watched the movie I used to make fun of her sometimes for sounding like dracula.

That's funny and pretty cool.

I always assumed that Dracula's accent was a play on a real accent, but not necessarily the way any countries accent would come across.

I will have to youtube Maldova in hopes to find some channels where the speaker has that accent. I think it would be neat to hear outside the context of Dracula.

[Law212]

There is a female Youtuber from Ukraine who has a similar accent yet its not as pronounced. Ill try to find it. Since I first met my fiance i have loved her accent and the way she says certain words.

[bytor]

How do we even know if the new framing is correct or incorrect? Is there some definitive reference to base it off of?

[painted_klown]

Originally Posted by bytor

How do we even know if the new framing is correct or incorrect? Is there some definitive reference to base it off of?

The Criterion laser disc that was personally supervised by and approved by Coppolla himself would be a great place to start.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by painted_klown

The Criterion laser disc that was personally supervised by and approved by Coppolla himself would be a great place to start.

The problem with the older transfers, even if supervised, is that they were designed with overscan in mind in some cases.

There shouldn't be a huge difficulty in finding frame-guides with modern movies and quality control shouldn't be too hard when you have cinematography that has shots designed to be specifically centre-framed (along with titles and credits). And you can always err on the side of caution and not crop huge amounts of the image seen in previous versions.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by painted_klown

You cannot deny it was altered, you even admitted as much up thread. I never used the word substantial, but it has definitely been altered. To what degree is not relevant, the fact is that it has been altered. Revisionism IS just correct.

The problem here is you think the ancient blu-ray is correct because... I don't know, a gut feeling? It's an assumption in any case. Sony may very well have researched and decided the new framing is most accurate. You have zero idea. So many people on here just assume older DVDs are correct when a new master makes a change, but that's simply not always (or even often!) the case. Hell, theaters didn't even block things perfectly back then, so how much headroom there was would depend on where you saw it.

The real question is "does the framing look good?" In my opinion yes, yes it does. When watching the new BD and UHD there is zero sense of misframing, IMO, nor is there in the caps posted a couple pages ago. The new framing looks great.

[bytor]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

The problem here is you think the ancient blu-ray is correct because... I don't know, a gut feeling? It's an assumption in any case. Sony may very well have researched and decided the new framing is most accurate. You have zero idea. So many people on here just assume older DVDs are correct when a new master makes a change, but that's simply not always (or even often!) the case. Hell, theaters didn't even block things perfectly back then, so how much headroom there was would depend on where you saw it.

The real question is "does the framing look good?" In my opinion yes, yes it does. When watching the new BD and UHD there is zero sense of misframing, IMO, nor is there in the caps posted a couple pages ago. The new framing looks great.

Exactly, it's amazing people are whining about this when they literally have zero information on whether or not the old blu-ray framing was even correct. Not to mention the fact that if it was a mistake Sony surely would have been made aware and corrected it for the UHD.

[RockyIII]

Glad I've never watched this on DVD or BD. Only other time I watched it was when it first came out on campus during my freshman year...damn I feel old now

[oddbox83]

More caps from Beaver.

The more I look the more I'm convinced the new scan is better framed full stop. The older one feels too loose at the top in comparison. The newer one feels more intimate as well, in keeping with the style of the film.

[painted_klown]

You know what guys, you have all convinced me.

You are all correct.

This new framing is just so much better.

I am now in full acceptance of it and I'm glad that internet strangers have been kind enough to change my mind.

For those that are seriously interested in finding the truth. Look at the screenshots, especially the ones around the 44 minute mark where Dracula's eyes get cut off. If you feel it's my duty to look these up for you, I have.

Original BD: http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads...amera_2007.jpg

Re-Framed BD: http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads...amera_2015.jpg

As you can see, I am sure it was the intention of the DP to not cut Drac's eyes off, but that doesn't matter, this new tighter version is clearly superior and we cannot question Sony.

This is just one example, and remember that the entire run time has been re-framed. Feel free to seek out more screenshots to further educate yourself.

As for me, I'm conceding to all who do not feel the reframing is problematic in any way. I am publicly stating that "You Win". Feel free to celebrate in your manner of choosing. If you all decide to reply to this, I will give you the last word and will absolutely not come back with a counterpoint.

Thanks for reading and the sharing of opinions.

[Agent Kay]

This never gets old....

[RockyIII]

Sony is God of 4K UHD

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by painted_klown

For those that are seriously interested in finding the truth. Look at the screenshots, especially the ones around the 44 minute mark where Dracula's eyes get cut off. If you feel it's my duty to look these up for you, I have.

Original BD: http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads...amera_2007.jpg

Re-Framed BD: http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads...amera_2015.jpg

As you can see, I am sure it was the intention of the DP to not cut Drac's eyes off, but that doesn't matter, this new tighter version is clearly superior and we cannot question Sony.

This is just one example, and remember that the entire run time has been re-framed. Feel free to seek out more screenshots to further educate yourself.

Lol okay?

This still proves absolutely nothing, btw. His eyes were already halfway cut off on the old transfer so he's not meant to be completely in the frame anyway.

All we're saying is that you're basing your judgment off of nothing. You're assuming things. You have no idea what the DP was thinking. You call the new blu-ray "reframed" when the original 2007 blu-ray was also "reframed" compared to the Superbit DVD. There's no definitive proof that the framing on any of these transfers is more "correct" than the other, and you trying to somehow prove that the new transfer is misframed is quite frankly, just ridiculous.

~Matt

[oddbox83]

Those are of course from a highly stylised section of the film where the camera is moving around quite a bit.

The DP wouldn't have framed it like that full stop if that wasn't the intention. This isn't an amateur.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by painted_klown

For those that are seriously interested in finding the truth. Look at the screenshots, especially the ones around the 44 minute mark where Dracula's eyes get cut off. If you feel it's my duty to look these up for you, I have.

Original BD: http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads...amera_2007.jpg

Re-Framed BD: http://cdn.highdefdigest.com/uploads...amera_2015.jpg

If you watched the thing you'd know it's a fast moving shot and his eyes are only cut off for a split second while the frame moves up to capture his whole head. The caps are chosen to highlight the "problem" are are deceptive.

Also no one's forcing you to agree with us, we're simply sharing our opinions the same as you. Calm the F' down.

[captainsolo]

I read up so much on the transfers and tech specs of each release from LD to DVD and BD before buying the 4K.
Then I actually sat down and watched the film all the way through for the first time in years.

And hated it. Hated every over-done moment of it. So all that time was wasted and I passed on my copy to someone else. It's just not for me as it's not Stoker's work and IMHO not a good film at all. I can appreciate the effects but they are wasted on the overall effort. Again-that's my own two cents and hats off to those who enjoy it.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand I just bought the Criterion Laserdisc because I have problems.


In terms of technical correctness, I think the new 4K/remastered BD release does a very good job of mastering this exceptionally difficult film to transfer. I do think the re-framing can look very odd in screenshots but while viewing works perfectly. I think it very much outdoes the old 2007 disc and feels like a successor to the very well done for the time Superbit DVD. I do wish the original soundmix was losslessly encoded.
As for the LDs, the Columbia release was supervised by the cinematographer and the Criterion by Coppola. They are supposed to be similar but the Columbia has the Dolby SR mix and the Criterion has a 2.0 Dolby surround encoded track mixed from the 5.1 master which has some differences.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

If you watched the thing you'd know it's a fast moving shot and his eyes are only cut off for a split second while the frame moves up to capture his whole head. The caps are chosen to highlight the "problem" are are deceptive.

Also no one's forcing you to agree with us, we're simply sharing our opinions the same as you. Calm the F' down.

Yep, it's a fast moving handheld shot and is meant to be badly done and also just show glimpses of dracula.
It's not meant to verify viewed in stills and in motion is looks fine

[RockyIII]

1992 was an overall great year for cinema in general