Scanners (1981)

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

You can take simple tests online to check for color issues with your vision. I have slight problems differentiating high-end blues, but otherwise see perfectly. It's fun to find out.

Like the last guy, I'm glad for you. Even though you're in the group of those who suffer color blindness, the form you have is so mild and specific to one end of the spectrum (by high end, do you mean over 450nm or was there a specific range they gave you) that it is unlikely to spread. If you can see blue, even if it is only a 430nm or something equally specific, you will likely continue to process that particular blue.

Though, as an odd aside, I remember one guy hypothesizing that a blue color-blind person would be protected against blue-light induced macular degeneration which has, of course, been disproved as the light still hits the eye, whether you perceive that color or not. But it was, nevertheless, something I heard years later from an optician (not an optometrist) which left me wondering if the myth persists. If you don't mind my asking something personal, when you were found to be lacking a portion of your blue-light perception, did your doctor mention it as a good thing from a health standpoint?

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Picked this up at B&N the other day...looking forward to watching it in October during my Halloween horror movie marathon.

It is one of the best. I hope you enjoy it.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by miribeau

Like the last guy, I'm glad for you. Even though you're in the group of those who suffer color blindness, the form you have is so mild and specific to one end of the spectrum (by high end, do you mean over 450nm or was there a specific range they gave you) that it is unlikely to spread. If you can see blue, even if it is only a 430nm or something equally specific, you will likely continue to process that particular blue.

Though, as an odd aside, I remember one guy hypothesizing that a blue color-blind person would be protected against blue-light induced macular degeneration which has, of course, been disproved as the light still hits the eye, whether you perceive that color or not. But it was, nevertheless, something I heard years later from an optician (not an optometrist) which left me wondering if the myth persists. If you don't mind my asking something personal, when you were found to be lacking a portion of your blue-light perception, did your doctor mention it as a good thing from a health standpoint?

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Absolutely not. With that being said this is not a medical journal, a commentary on a self help book, or a movie. It is a BD forum and I also hate to break it to you, but in my experience as well as many members here, most females would be fine with VHS much less DVD or BD. Just some food for thought for your overly scientific thought process there.

So you find neuroscience, or rather conclusions which consist of statements of basic facts of neuroscience, to be sexist but, simultaneously, you don't find neuroscience to be sexist. And you find me sexist but you think it is not sexist to declare that most females would be fine with VHS, in terms of visual quality, as opposed to men. Strangely, I've found the opposite, women are much more concerned with color and color variation as well as texture. Men tend to be more tolerant of of those variations and less, of all things, judgmental. But that's based not on vhs to dvd to blu-ray quality but, rather, just tests of how women react to changes in color of things that are recognizable (like a dollar bill, the sky, a strawberry) and how much variation you have to have in the color of those and other objects before men will perceive that there has even been a color change. I know, that's sexist.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I get it. You'd slap Stephen Hawking if you met him.... Science bad.... Yada yada.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by miribeau

I get it. You'd slap Stephen Hawking if you met him.... Science bad.... Yada yada.

I'm done with you. You can praise yourself in loneliness without my assistance.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

Even with the altered color timing, i'm pretty happy with my Criterion blu-ray from last year.

November cannot come soon enough so I can get The Brood for the same price.

Don't know what that sale will look like but it just went down to 27.99 on amazon pre-order, even though it isn't due until October so I'm thinking it will probably hit 19.99 just before or just after release. What do you expect, based on your experience with their November sales, the BN price to hit?

[lolwut]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

That first cap is not EE. It is the light behind the building shining around it. It's present on the Criterion disc as well.

I agree on the contrast boosting. However, at least the colors are correct unlike the Criterion disc. That green blanket of drab really ruins the transfer.

That may be true on Pepsi, but the colors are more accurate and the ratio is also correct on the DE disc.

I absolutely disagree on the car detail. It's really about the same.

I don't like the Criterion colors but for the car detail shot, look at the woman's jacket. There are lines that you can see on the Criterion that you can't on the Subkultur disc.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by lolwut

I don't like the Criterion colors but for the car detail shot, look at the woman's jacket. There are lines that you can see on the Criterion that you can't on the Subkultur disc.

That entire shot is really a tossup in my opinion. There are pros and cons with each disc with that particular shot.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

Originally Posted by lolwut

I don't like the Criterion colors but for the car detail shot, look at the woman's jacket. There are lines that you can see on the Criterion that you can't on the Subkultur disc.

Exactly, Criterion has more natural detail and finer and better resolved grain. Subkultur just has more exaggerated and clumpy grain. Some people just think that lots of grain = better, even if it's just video noise like on a lot of Blue Underground discs.

The Criterion is the best version in the world just now when it comes to detail and it looks more natural. The rest have sharpness, edge enhancement and contrast issues.

The only thing that anybody should have a problem with the Criterion is the new color timing. Then again, no other edition manages to replicate the original color timing anyway. In the case of the Subkultur, it's too "hot".

[MifuneFan]

Criterion's digital version is still the best in my opinion. It's what the BD would have looked like before the revisionism from Cronenberg.

[cakefactory]

That's quite a difference! I'm not familiar enough with the movie to have a problem with the way the bluray looks, I'd only previously seen the DVD, and only watched it once or twice since the audio sync issue drove me up the wall.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

That's quite a difference! I'm not familiar enough with the movie to have a problem with the way the bluray looks, I'd only previously seen the DVD, and only watched it once or twice since the audio sync issue drove me up the wall.

It only really looks so faded when you put it next to the brighter pics. If you watch the Criterion at night in your house from start to finish it looks great. That's the trick with caps, they're helpful but not the same as watching the movie in normal conditions.

Not really defending the Criterion, I do wish it looked more like the Euro releases, but it still looks great when watching it by itself and I don't feel a need to buy it again, despite being region-free.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

So you're saying the colors on a VHS were more "dynamic" than the BD of the same animation?

I will agree that Disney blu-ray animated classics have been poorly handled lately. Cinderella as well as other classics have certainly been tinkered with, from color tinkering to censorship to disastrous overuse of DNR. There are threads showing how the blu-ray of Cinderella compares to other releases in the past, and though the blu-ray looks vivid and colorful, colors aren't so subtle as they once were, and lines and details are completely lost as color bleeds and overtakes the detail.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Criterion's digital version is still the best in my opinion. It's what the BD would have looked like before the revisionism from Cronenberg.

[Show spoiler]

Are you telling me the top image is the Criterion digital online version?

Wow, what a huge difference. Another blu-ray fail. I knew the blu-ray is poor but the fact that the digital version looks so much better is a double-slap on the face.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by mar3o

[/SPOILER]

Are you telling me the top image is the Criterion digital online version?

Wow, what a huge difference. Another blu-ray fail. I knew the blu-ray is poor but the fact that the digital version looks so much better is a double-slap on the face.

Yep. I haven't checked lately, but that's the version they had streaming on Hulu (where that cap is from) and apparently on iTunes too. It appears to be the same master used for the BD, meaning they started at this point, and then Cronenberg tinkered it to his new color scheme. I'm sure Stinging is right that the differences are blown up even more when side by side.

Here's the other two comparisons I took last year, after watching the Hulu version. The frames aren't identical.

[Show spoiler]

For those that are region free, the Hulu digial version actually closely resembles the Second Sight disc from the UK.

[Spire]

Too bad Arrow didnt release Scanners in the UK like they did with Thief, Theatrical Cut and Directors cut, 2 discs, each with their own color timings. Would be a winner.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I will agree that Disney blu-ray animated classics have been poorly handled lately. Cinderella as well as other classics have certainly been tinkered with, from color tinkering to censorship to disastrous overuse of DNR. There are threads showing how the blu-ray of Cinderella compares to other releases in the past, and though the blu-ray looks vivid and colorful, colors aren't so subtle as they once were, and lines and details are completely lost as color bleeds and overtakes the detail.

I agree, but they were talking about Sleeping Beauty, which IMHO looks downright perfect.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by mar3o

I will agree that Disney blu-ray animated classics have been poorly handled lately. Cinderella as well as other classics have certainly been tinkered with, from color tinkering to censorship to disastrous overuse of DNR. There are threads showing how the blu-ray of Cinderella compares to other releases in the past, and though the blu-ray looks vivid and colorful, colors aren't so subtle as they once were, and lines and details are completely lost as color bleeds and overtakes the detail.

That's the thing about grain. All too often it is confused with digital noise but digital noise doesn't change color, it overlays what is beneath it. Grain on celluloid carried unique color so you would get these darker and lighter spots, a heathering of the film that enriched color through variation. That's part of why DNR removes "life" in the opinion of many, rendering images flat or dull. The loss of fine detail is annoying, we all agree, but the loss of grain and the color variation it brings renders images too flat. On my old vhs, this simple little cartoon had grain that gave color variation and richness to the horror of a low res image. On the blu-ray, in glorious 1080p, the clear crisp image is dull and lifeless. The debate over grain will likely never end for this reason. I love it, not that it matters, and still understand why many people hate it.

[miribeau]

Originally Posted by Spire

Too bad Arrow didnt release Scanners in the UK like they did with Thief, Theatrical Cut and Directors cut, 2 discs, each with their own color timings. Would be a winner.

They still might. Here's hoping.