Chopper (20th Anniversary) Blu-Ray

[DawnShadow]

My understanding is that he believes they remastered it years ago, saved the master as a low bitrate file (a few GB?) and then blew that up to Blu-ray standard bitrates meaning all the compression artefacts of a low bitrate file are still present. It seems like a bizarre concept but the HD restoration trailer does look pretty crap, even for YouTube compression.

[StrayButler91]

Originally Posted by DawnShadow

My understanding is that he believes they remastered it years ago, saved the master as a low bitrate file (a few GB?) and then blew that up to Blu-ray standard bitrates meaning all the compression artefacts of a low bitrate file are still present. It seems like a bizarre concept but the HD restoration trailer does look pretty crap, even for YouTube compression.

That’s such a weird conspiracy theory.

I agree that the restoration trailer doesn’t look great, but then again, there are chunky titles in virtually every shot. So they took all the grain out of the image to incorporate those titles seamlessly, make it match.

I guess we’ll all see what’s what this coming week!

[2351tv]

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

Not to sound sceptical, but it's hard to gauge the accuracy of your thoughts without knowing what gear you're running.

Sound skeptical is exactly what you've done & have every right but here's the thing I would hope that you go back & read what I wrote once you've done your own assessment.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

What TV? 1080p or 4K? Is your TV's noise reduction turned all the way up? Is sharpening turned up? TruMotion? And so on.

I'm running a Sony KD65X9000F paired with Sony UBP-X700 initially calibrated via Spears & Munsil UHD HDR disc & then finished via eyes for personal. Noise Reduction is well and truly turned off & sharpening was sorted via the calibrating. Didn't mention motion but again something that is turned off.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

Did you watch the entire thing, or did you just watch a few minutes with some understandably rough optical shots?

Yes - the whole thing. Had hoped it would get better past bright prison opening section but unfortunately it didn't as the issues I mentioned become more obvious with the scenes set at night in dark.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

I have no idea what you mean by "smaller version" or "shrunken master," your terminology is a bit skewiff. Are you saying that it looks standard definition? Are you saying they found a 16mm print? With the very specific way the film is shot, it's not meant to look crisp and razor-sharp.

As someone who saw it on multiple occasions in theaters in good ol days of analogue projection I know its not meant to look crisp & razor sharp but it should look a lot grittier than this - this new release looks dated like the days when the industry thought HD meant artificially smoothed & sharpened

Originally Posted by DawnShadow

My understanding is that he believes they remastered it years ago, saved the master as a low bitrate file (a few GB?) and then blew that up to Blu-ray standard bitrates meaning all the compression artefacts of a low bitrate file are still present. It seems like a bizarre concept but the HD restoration trailer does look pretty crap, even for YouTube compression.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

That’s such a weird conspiracy theory.

I agree that the restoration trailer doesn’t look great, but then again, there are chunky titles in virtually every shot. So they took all the grain out of the image to incorporate those titles seamlessly, make it match.

I guess we’ll all see what’s what this coming week!

DawnShadow is close in understanding my perception. Firstly yes I believe a master was created long ago but hey if someone can prove me wrong please do. And lets be realistic the “Digitally Remastered from the original 35mm print” doesn't mean much. In reality the DVD cover could have stated it also and could also be true. It doesn't say "newly restored master created via a recent scan of a 35mm print". But my thoughts would remain the same if it had stated it or not. I'm not saying they saved the master in the way as described by DawnShadow but if I was asked to describe how it physically looks in detailed description? Yes - that's how it looks. Like as if hypothetically a HD release was done years ago in the dawn of HD - someone illegally downloaded it - converted it to a YIFY* like lower format - and then that became the eventual master used & upscaled to create this new "remaster".

No - clearly I'm not saying that happened - I'm saying that's what the end result to my eye resembles.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

I don't doubt that Madman's encoding is less than perfect, and the limited colour space of 1080p introduces problems, but I still can't gauge what exactly you're saying is wrong with the Blu-ray.

In no way am I saying Madman is the issue as they can only work with what source was provided to them

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

Plus, I assure you that it is a recent master. The reason why the release was delayed is that money was spent remastering the movie and creating a HD master for the first time ever - and they wanted to put the new archival master into cinemas for a limited run to get some extra monies before the disc landed.

How can you assure that its recent? Please do update If you have inside info. And even if it was a recent master what was the source used to create it. Again - Maybe just maybe it was the scan done back when a telecine was needed for initial home video release. I'm not saying it is but its certainly how it looks to me and possible.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

Anyway, still looking forward to checking out the disc.

I sincerely do for look forward to alternative reviews & assessments. And if someone does have a more concrete answer regarding source & scan etc please do update and I'll be first to admit I'm wrong


* still too skewiff?

[StrayButler91]

Originally Posted by 2351tv

Sound skeptical is exactly what you've done & have every right but here's the thing I would hope that you go back & read what I wrote once you've done your own assessment.

Noted

Originally Posted by 2351tv

I'm running a Sony KD65X9000F paired with Sony UBP-X700 initially calibrated via Spears & Munsil UHD HDR disc & then finished via eyes for personal. Noise Reduction is well and truly turned off & sharpening was sorted via the calibrating. Didn't mention motion but again something that is turned off.

Okay thanks Also, things like TruMotion can eradicate detail and make things look smoother, hence my question.

Originally Posted by 2351tv

Yes - the whole thing. Had hoped it would get better past bright prison opening section but unfortunately it didn't as the issues I mentioned become more obvious with the scenes set at night in dark.

Okay, thanks

Originally Posted by 2351tv

As someone who saw it on multiple occasions in theaters in good ol days of analogue projection I know its not meant to look crisp & razor sharp but it should look a lot grittier than this - this new release looks dated like the days when the industry thought HD meant artificially smoothed & sharpened

It's a damn shame if that is the case.

Originally Posted by 2351tv

DawnShadow is close in understanding my perception. Firstly yes I believe a master was created long ago but hey if someone can prove me wrong please do.

Sorry, but the onus is on you to prove your assertion that it's an old telecine.

Originally Posted by 2351tv

And lets be realistic the “Digitally Remastered from the original 35mm print” doesn't mean much. In reality the DVD cover could have stated it also and could also be true. It doesn't say "newly restored master created via a recent scan of a 35mm print". But my thoughts would remain the same if it had stated it or not. I'm not saying they saved the master in the way as described by DawnShadow but if I was asked to describe how it physically looks in detailed description? Yes - that's how it looks. Like as if hypothetically a HD release was done years ago in the dawn of HD - someone illegally downloaded it - converted it to a YIFY* like lower format - and then that became the eventual master used & upscaled to create this new "remaster".

No - clearly I'm not saying that happened - I'm saying that's what the end result to my eye resembles.

Okay

Originally Posted by 2351tv

In no way am I saying Madman is the issue as they can only work with what source was provided to them

If it looks great on the big screen as stated on the previous page, it could be a Madman problem.

Originally Posted by 2351tv

How can you assure that its recent? Please do update If you have inside info. And even if it was a recent master what was the source used to create it. Again - Maybe just maybe it was the scan done back when a telecine was needed for initial home video release. I'm not saying it is but its certainly how it looks to me and possible.

I guess you missed the part where the remaster is the big selling point of the 20th anniversary screenings. A remaster is exactly that, a remaster. If they've grabbed a dated old telecine and shipped that off to cinemas, it would not be advertised as a remaster. As previously stated in this thread, too, the producer requested the disc be delayed to allow for a cinema run. They spent money on the remaster and want to recoup some of that in the cinema.

Originally Posted by 2351tv

I sincerely do for look forward to alternative reviews & assessments. And if someone does have a more concrete answer regarding source & scan etc please do update and I'll be first to admit I'm wrong

As far as I'm concerned, your assertion that it's a dated telecine is wrong until proven otherwise. Again, it is billed as a remaster.

Originally Posted by 2351tv

* still too skewiff?

Your terminology? You upped your game this time

[2351tv]

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

Sorry, but the onus is on you to prove your assertion that it's an old telecine.

Sorry mate but just because it uses the term Remaster that doesn't mean it uses a new telecine scan source. Its marketing buzzword lines like this that quite often need to be read between. The Telecine is not the master it is the scan of the print or negative to a video format - again it is not the master. The scan is done and then varying degrees of further post production work is done on that created telecine - then a master is created from that. I don't need to prove it is an old telecine as I didn't say it is - I said its what It look like

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

I guess you missed the part where the remaster is the big selling point of the 20th anniversary screenings.

No - I saw where you said that - but again i'm suggesting read between the remaster lines

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

A remaster is exactly that, a remaster. If they've grabbed a dated old telecine and shipped that off to cinemas, it would not be advertised as a remaster. As previously stated in this thread, too, the producer requested the disc be delayed to allow for a cinema run. They spent money on the remaster and want to recoup some of that in the cinema.

They wouldn't ship a telecine old or new - they would ship a DCP final release master. But even a new DCP master can be created from an old telecine scan.

Hypothetical thought for you - lets say they did a 2K scan back say 15 years ago and with an anniversary approaching they thought hey perfect time for re-release. But for whatever reason since then no print or negative could be found anywhere.

Like...

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

I remember hearing there were material issues with this flick

and..

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

I also recall hearing that it would be costly to restore and remaster

So again hypothetically - based on $$ and available materials maybe the only option is to use the previous 2K telecine scan to work on to create a multiple set of new digital masters in varying formats like 2K DCP, 1080p BluRay, DVD, and WEB releases etc etc. Are you saying that they couldn't use the term "digitally remastered" for marketing these new master releases?

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

Your terminology? You upped your game this time

Yep you sure schooled me on my terms. But thanks for putting it in bold for me as I usually disregard heresay. Especially when support is blind in not having viewed said product personally.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

As far as I'm concerned, your assertion that it's a dated telecine is wrong until proven otherwise. Again, it is billed as a remaster.

Ironically see further up regarding terminology like Remaster.

Again I never said my feelings were fact I was stating how I felt the end result looked to my eye.

If we are to go on what has been stated via marketing and how you feel it means, then sorry I feel it does not live up to the anniversary hype

And hell - even sources used for Criterion releases allegedly can get it wrong https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-D...293164/#Review

Oh and do please report back once viewed. Because until then really what's the point?

[StrayButler91]

Originally Posted by 2351tv

Especially when support is blind in not having viewed said product personally.

Originally Posted by 2351tv

Oh and do please report back once viewed. Because until then really what's the point?

I'm just going to respond to this part. I never said you were incorrect or the master is absolute perfection without seeing it. I'm not providing blind support. You presented a critique without any contextualising details which are critical to assess the accuracy of your critique. I'm sure you can understand that there's a difference between watching a disc on a high-end Sony 4K television, and watching a disc on a $200 Aldi TV. I'm sure you can also understand that sampling a few minutes is different to watching the entire thing. Asking questions about your equipment and the extent to which you watched the disc is completely reasonable. I'm sure you can also understand that mileage varies depending on expectations with regards to film grain, clarity, sharpness, etc. Don't get ratty, these are details you should provide in your critique in the first instance, and treating this as a personal attack reflects poorly on you. Plus, you were using vague terms like "shrunken" master, and clarification was required. This is a forum for discussion.

Your critique also lacked balance. Did the HD mastering reveal a sufficient level of fine detail? Are some scenes better-looking than others? Are there shots and moments which look really good? Is there print damage or was it all cleaned up? Is there any telecine wobble, or was it stable? Could you see any grain, or was it all scrubbed away? Calling it merely watchable while piling on the negative makes it sound like an abominable 1-star presentation.

Is there a possibility the remaster was created using an older raw scan which had no clean-up work and was segmented reel by reel? Sure. There's that terminology/clarification thing again. But it's also extremely doubtful that raw scan data was retained from 15 years ago. Even performing a raw scan and storing it is extremely costly. Is it possible the remaster was created using a release print, rather than an IP or an IN? Of course, there's no doubting that possibility.

I honestly don't give a damn if you truly believe this is a dated old 20-year-old telecine that is incorrectly billed as a digital remaster. That's your belief. But it's also akin to spreading misinformation when you endeavour to present it as factual. I've seen first-hand how much time and money goes into creating digital remasters, and I know how much money goes into putting fresh new Blu-rays onto the market. Whenever there is a new release, there are always people poo-pooing it from the get-go. Thus, there is always the requirement to question before completely writing something off.

If you're going to continue to take offence when merely asked for supporting details and clarification, I won't continue to engage in a discussion and I respectfully apologise for any offence caused

[Sopranogl]

Originally Posted by gottaget

Seems like the release date is October 14 now
https://www.madman.com.au/catalogue/...versary-bluray

I think the date was pushed back to October 22.... Damn it!

[DawnShadow]

A user has already successfully bought it from JB Hi-Fi so I'm not sure it matters if it has been

[nik666uk]

Originally Posted by Sopranogl

I think the date was pushed back to October 22.... Damn it!

Source?

[rip63]

Originally Posted by Sopranogl

I think the date was pushed back to October 22.... Damn it!

Where did you get that info from? Curious, because mine is about to ship from Amazon AU.

[2351tv]

Originally Posted by Sopranogl

I think the date was pushed back to October 22.... Damn it!

Originally Posted by DawnShadow

A user has already successfully bought it from JB Hi-Fi so I'm not sure it matters if it has been

Yes thats correct its officially now available https://www.jbhifi.com.au/products/c...bjectID=529043

[2351tv]

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

I'm just going to respond to this part. I never said you were incorrect or the master is absolute perfection without seeing it. I'm not providing blind support.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

As far as I'm concerned, your assertion that it's a dated telecine is wrong until proven otherwise. Again, it is billed as a remaster.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

I honestly don't give a damn if you truly believe this is a dated old 20-year-old telecine that is incorrectly billed as a digital remaster. That's your belief. But it's also akin to spreading misinformation when you endeavour to present it as factual.

Originally Posted by StrayButler91

Understandable. I remember hearing there were material issues with this flick and no digital HD master has ever existed, hence why a Blu-ray has never materialised. (Not surprising for Aussie cinema - The Dish never had a HD master until we complained and Roadshow footed the bill for a remaster.) I also recall hearing that it would be costly to restore and remaster.

Of course, I might be misremembering or it could be apocryphal, but I have that memory all the same.

The rights holder would've spent some bucks to remaster this one and create a new archival DCP in the process. Makes sense that they'd want to increase their revenue streams and collect more cash from a theatrical run to cover the costs.

Buuuut cinemas in Sydney and Melbourne won't reopen until November at the earliest.

How about lets just go with agree to agree to disagree as my thoughts on what constitutes providing speculative misleading information differs from yours. As at no point have I ever presented my opinions as fact just how I felt. That's why I chose not to quote others, or mislead with information from memory in regards to speculation on subject, but only make use from quotes made here in direct regards to my comments, and my suggestions of hypothetical possibilities.

And I'm sorry that my vague Shrunken Master term was an ironic play on word reference that was lost on you and quite possibly everyone else. Clearly the cut was too deep. https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Drunk...288923/#Review The video review is quite interesting

It is what it is - Peace & love. Peace & love

[Sopranogl]

Originally Posted by nik666uk

Source?

Well...I ordered from Deep Discount and THEY are saying that the disc won't hit the streets until October 22...

...but according to Madman's website, the disc will hit the streets on October 14....

I would rather see it sooner than later.

[Sopranogl]

Originally Posted by rip63

Where did you get that info from? Curious, because mine is about to ship from Amazon AU.

https://www.madman.com.au/catalogue/...versary-bluray

I hope that I was wrong. October 14 seems to be holding water.

[DawnShadow]

DeepDiscount always put a release date of a week or so later for Australian imports to allow them time to get them in stock.

[JWilliams85]

Deep Discount has this as Region Free. Is that accurate?

[laughingmaniac]

JB had stock in some of their major stores from Monday. Courier/postal services in AUS are severely overloaded at the moment so out of precaution retail dates and stock at most stores have been delayed.

@JWilliams85 The disc is region B.

As for PQ it's definitely not a remaster. It's low on detail and looks DNR'd. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an upscale but it struggles to get even 720p details.
It's a welcome upgrade over the DVDs.
Original aspect ratio is 1.85:1 but the video on the Blu-ray occupies the full 16:9 image area so I'm not sure if it hasn't been matted out or (most likely) it's a master made for HDTV with sides cropped to fill the 16:9 screen.

Here is the BDInfo if anyone is interested:
Disc Label: CHOPPER
Disc Size: 32,495,980,377 bytes
Protection: AACS
Playlist: 00000.MPLS
Size: 29,841,997,824 bytes
Length: 1:33:40.708
Total Bitrate: 42.47 Mbps
Video: MPEG-4 AVC Video / 31362 kbps / 1080p / 24 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1
Audio: English / DTS-HD Master Audio / 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3684 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
Audio: English / LPCM Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit
Audio: English / LPCM Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit
Audio: English / LPCM Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit
Subtitle: English / 55.697 kbps

[Sopranogl]

Originally Posted by laughingmaniac

JB had stock in some of their major stores from Monday. Courier/postal services in AUS are severely overloaded at the moment so out of precaution retail dates and stock at most stores have been delayed.

@JWilliams85 The disc is region B.

As for PQ it's definitely not a remaster. It's low on detail and looks DNR'd. I wouldn't go as far as to say it's an upscale but it struggles to get even 720p details.
It's a welcome upgrade over the DVDs.
Original aspect ratio is 1.85:1 but the video on the Blu-ray occupies the full 16:9 image area so I'm not sure if it hasn't been matted out or (most likely) it's a master made for HDTV with sides cropped to fill the 16:9 screen.

Here is the BDInfo if anyone is interested:
Disc Label: CHOPPER
Disc Size: 32,495,980,377 bytes
Protection: AACS
Playlist: 00000.MPLS
Size: 29,841,997,824 bytes
Length: 1:33:40.708
Total Bitrate: 42.47 Mbps
Video: MPEG-4 AVC Video / 31362 kbps / 1080p / 24 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1
Audio: English / DTS-HD Master Audio / 5.1 / 48 kHz / 3684 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
Audio: English / LPCM Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit
Audio: English / LPCM Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit
Audio: English / LPCM Audio / 2.0 / 48 kHz / 1536 kbps / 16-bit
Subtitle: English / 55.697 kbps

Shit. I was hoping for a REMASTER. Oh, well. I am still happy to own this on Blu-ray even if the video quality is more "meh" than "marvelous."

[rthorntn]

Can someone with the bluray please post some screenshots so we can take a look?

I've been really looking forward to this release.

[NonSequiturL]

A US release is apparently on the horizon. Will be interesting to see what the label handling it has to say about the scan.