Don't Look Now (Blu-ray SteelBook) (Zavvi Exclusive) [UK]

[snooloui]

Release date: May 30th, 2015
Purchase link: Don't Look Now (live)
Price: £15.99
Notes: Limited to 2,000 copies.

Spoiler

 

[BluSteel2012]

This thread has turned into a dick measuring contest!!!

 

[paulboland]

This thread has turned into a dick measuring contest!!!

Is that why the film is called Don't Look Now

 

[lolwut]

As regards the transfer/restoration.

Having looked again at the graphs of both the Criterion and the Optimum, and if I've read them correctly, it should be the Optimum which presents the superior picture - which is the way some reviews lean.

I honestly think, as CC has indicated, that unless you watch this at home, with all your gear properly calibrated, it's one of those you'll never know for sure. Even then, it's likely to be down to your eyes in the end.

What graphs and reviews indicate that the Optimum has a better picture than Criterion? I've never heard that. And we DO know for sure. Look at my post on page 2:

As I mentioned on page 1 the Optimum version is terrible. It looks like a watercolor painting with no grain or detail:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...54&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...55&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...56&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

 

[snooloui]

The release date is May 30th, 2015 and it is now available for pre-order:

http://www.zavvi.com/blu-ray/don-t-...ted-edition-steelbook-2000-only/11089749.html

 

[paulboland]

Pre ordered

Hopefully it will be a gloss finish
And not have the same problem sleepy hollow had with its scratches on the back

 

[GoDo]

http://ebm.e.zavvi.com/c/tag/BUkW4o...-13012014&affil=thgemail&utm_content=TCMemail

And code APR10 is working for 10% off this - you need to use Link above

 

[JackRegan]

What graphs and reviews indicate that the Optimum has a better picture than Criterion? I've never heard that. And we DO know for sure. Look at my post on page 2:

If you study one of CC95s posts here where we discussed this in some depth, and really, you will find that you can't really take those caps as evidence - just as evidence that the equipment used at the time, with unspecified settings produced a final screencap that looked thus. QED.

Oky Here are the bare figures:

Overall size (GB)
Criterion - Optimum
21,857,025.536 - 31,222.358.016

Bit Rate:
Criterion - Optimum
27, 81 mbs - 37,78 mbs

Video:
Criterion - Optimum
MPEG 4 AVC - MPEG4 AVC

Bit Rate:
Criterion - Optimum
23,997 Kbps - 31,997 Kbps

Frame Rate:
Criterion - Optimum
23.976 fps - 24.0 fps


Now, if you want to extrapolate that it goes as follows:

Substantially more capacity used on the Uk disc equals significantly less compression, and less compression equals better colour and depth, Higher total bit rate and substantially higher codec bit rate equal superior video quality.

That's is the accepted norm, and is what the native figures tell us.

 

[steelbobawny]

Easy pass for me, another movie I don't need or want, It's ok I won't look anymore.

 

[C.C. 95]

What graphs and reviews indicate that the Optimum has a better picture than Criterion? I've never heard that. And we DO know for sure. Look at my post on page 2:

@JackRegan may be referring to the graphs and pic comparisons over at DVDbeaver.

 

[lolwut]

If you study one of CC95s posts here where we discussed this in some depth, and really, you will find that you can't really take those caps as evidence - just as evidence that the equipment used at the time, with unspecified settings produced a final screencap that looked thus. QED.

Oky Here are the bare figures:

Overall size (GB)
Criterion - Optimum
21,857,025.536 - 31,222.358.016

Bit Rate:
Criterion - Optimum
27, 81 mbs - 37,78 mbs

Video:
Criterion - Optimum
MPEG 4 AVC - MPEG4 AVC

Bit Rate:
Criterion - Optimum
23,997 Kbps - 31,997 Kbps

Frame Rate:
Criterion - Optimum
23.976 fps - 24.0 fps


Now, if you want to extrapolate that it goes as follows:

Substantially more capacity used on the Uk disc equals significantly less compression, and less compression equals better colour and depth, Higher total bit rate and substantially higher codec bit rate equal superior video quality.

That's is the accepted norm, and is what the native figures tell us.

Caps-a-holic caps are as dependable as it gets. DVDBeaver caps are notoriously inaccurate. You can't just completely disregard screen captures and only rely on numbers, especially since time and time again we've seen how bit rate does not always equal better video quality. It's irrelevant if filtering was applied, and only relevant if they're from the same master. Look at the poor reviews of the UK disc compared to the far better reviews of the Criterion disc. This is a really bizarre non-argument - I can't believe anyone would need to defend the new, filmic Criterion transfer against the old, filtered UK transfer.

 

[JackRegan]

Caps-a-holic caps are as dependable as it gets. DVDBeaver caps are notoriously inaccurate. You can't just completely disregard screen captures and only rely on numbers, especially since time and time again we've seen how bit rate does not always equal better video quality. It's irrelevant if filtering was applied, and only relevant if they're from the same master. Look at the poor reviews of the UK disc compared to the far better reviews of the Criterion disc. This is a really bizarre non-argument - I can't believe anyone would need to defend the new, filmic Criterion transfer against the old, filtered UK transfer.

I'm really not defending anything.

I've only laid out the bare figures and explained - as if they need explaining - what they mean.

If you beileve that higher bitrates (and we're not talking insubstantial amounts) do not equal better quaity - and we're not just talking clarity, it's about about colour and depth perception etc, then you're going out on a limb all by yourself.

You also conveniently overlook the substantial benefits of a much lower compression rate.

To be quite honest (and I've not always done it myself either) but we should all disregard screencaptures unless they are accompanied by a detailed breakdown of A.The equipment used, B. The date and manner in which the equipment was correctly calibrated, and B. The settings used when taking said screencaptures.
Without that they are just screencaps, and may or may not be accurate, no matter what anyone says or thinks.

There is no evidence that filtering has been applied to the Uk disc. If you are taking the first cap that you put up before (the one of the house) as evidence of that, you should realize that the scene was shot in a downpour, and what may look like filtering to you is actually rain bucketing down.

Edited for grammar/typos

 

[lolwut]

I'm really not defending anything.

I've only laid out the bare figures and explained - as if they need explaining - what they mean.

If you beileve that higher bitrates (and we're not talking insubstantial amounts) do not equal better quaity - and we're not just talking clarity, we're talking about colour and depth perception etc, then you're going out on a limb all by yourself.

You also conveniently overlook the substantial benefits of a much lower compression rate.

To be quite honest (and I've to always done it myself either) but we should all disregard screencaptures unless they are accompanied by a detailed breakdown of A.The equipment used, B. The date and manner in which the equipment was correctly calibrated, and B. The settings used when taking said screencaptures.
Without that they are just screencaps, and may or may not be accurate, no matter what anyone says or thinks.

There is no evidence that filtering has been applied to the Uk disc. If you are taking the first cap that you put up before (the one of the house) as evidence of that, you should realize that the scene was shot in a downpour, and what may look like filtering to you is actually rain bucketing down.

Did you just look at the first cap? You can try to justify that, but let's hear you justify these:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...56&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...55&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

Higher bitrates in general mean better quality, but not when the transfer has been putzed with. I mean, do you really think the Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition (32728 kbps) automatically has a better transfer than the original disc (18910 kbps) because of the higher bitrate? Or because of the AVC codec instead of MPEG-2? It doesn't matter because it's a waxy grain-free transfer.

If you only trust numbers and distrust reliable, consistent screenshots, then you'll love Predator: Madame Tussauds Edition:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...&hd_multiID=1415&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

 

[C.C. 95]

Both fine arguments. What is a high bitrate worth if the transfer was futzed with? Even at a lower bitrate does the consensus seems to go Criterion, and is that just because of reputation?
I can't argue about the quality of screen grabs (as was mentioned before we don't really know if they are trustworthy- I think of them as more of a signpost than a definitive evaluation).
Unfortunately, unlike film some reviewers back in the day, there is no one reviewer yet who I know and trust.
Therefore: I have the Criterion and ordered the Optimum. I will make my comparisons. And then I will go back to CAPS, and DVDbeaver and see how much I think they got right or wrong.
At least then, I will have established a rudimentary baseline for their judgment calls.

 

[JackRegan]

Did you just look at the first cap? You can try to justify that, but let's hear you justify these:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...56&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...55&disc1=5503&disc2=5504&lossless=1#vergleich

Higher bitrates in general mean better quality, but not when the transfer has been putzed with. I mean, do you really think the Predator Ultimate Hunter Edition (32728 kbps) automatically has a better transfer than the original disc (18910 kbps) because of the higher bitrate? Or because of the AVC codec instead of MPEG-2? It doesn't matter because it's a waxy grain-free transfer.

If you only trust numbers and distrust reliable, consistent screenshots, then you'll love Predator: Madame Tussauds Edition:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...&hd_multiID=1415&action=1&lossless=#vergleich

I can't really see what point you are trying to make about the other DLN caps -- they are taken form the Criterion, not the Optimum.

Yes, you have a valid point about higher bit rate being essentially redundant if the image has been DNRd' or whatever - but nonetheless you cannot trust screencaps no matter how much you (or anyone else) think they may be reliable without supporting evidence, as I said before - and I'm sure you can see the point, you're not an idiot.

Now look at this cap from the Criterion:

Way, way wrong in some many ways and very far from representative of the film as originally shown - but is it a good cap, truly representative of the blu-ray, or a bad one?
You see where I'm coming from?

 

[C.C. 95]

I just modified that capture that @JackRegan put up. And I can still say it is a screen cap from Criterion's disc, even though I just messed with it. That is the point of not trusting caps on the net.

 

[lolwut]

Both fine arguments. What is a high bitrate worth if the transfer was futzed with? Even at a lower bitrate does the consensus seems to go Criterion, and is that just because of reputation?
I can't argue about the quality of screen grabs (as was mentioned before we don't really know if they are trustworthy- I think of them as more of a signpost than a definitive evaluation).
Unfortunately, unlike film some reviewers back in the day, there is no one reviewer yet who I know and trust.
Therefore: I have the Criterion and ordered the Optimum. I will make my comparisons. And then I will go back to CAPS, and DVDbeaver and see how much I think they got right or wrong.
At least then, I will have established a rudimentary baseline for their judgment calls.

I do know that the caps are trustworthy, as do many other people. If you for some reason don't trust the caps, or the reviews from people that have already compared the two (for example the review for the Criterion on the Blu-ray site), by all means see for yourself in person. You can read reviews for both Blu-rays actually on the Blu-ray site.

And like I said, DVDBeaver is has been known for years for inaccurately capturing screenshots.

I can't really see what point you are trying to make about the other DLN caps -- they are taken form the Criterion, not the Optimum.

Yes, you have a valid point about higher bit rate being essentially redundant if the image has been DNRd' or whatever - but nonetheless you cannot trust screencaps no matter how much you (or anyone else) think they may be reliable without supporting evidence, as I said before - and I'm sure you can see the point, you're not an idiot.

Now look at this cap from the Criterion:
View attachment 155312
Way, way wrong in some many ways and very far from representative of the film as originally shown - but is it a good cap, truly representative of the blu-ray, or a bad one?
You see where I'm coming from?

What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of how caps-a-holic works. The links I've posted display BOTH transfers - you have to mouse over and mouse out to toggle between the two.

This unfamiliarity with caps-a-holic would also explain your skepticism of it as a reliable source. All I can say is that far more knowledgeable videophiles than me have vouched for its accuracy over the years.

Where'd you get that Criterion cap?

 

[C.C. 95]

I just use those sites and their screencaps as a barometer. Everything is subjective (even if you want to try to be decisive with math and numbers.)
I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer when 2 transfers are done by reputable companies. (As opposed to an obvious crap release). There are so many factors and variables involved, along with subjective opinion. And I know of many 'experts' who get quite a lot wrong, and try to strong arm their opinions on what you or I ('non-experts') should be seeing.
(I know 'experts' who are just fine with TVs set to Motion Smoothing!)
Just go with what looks good to you. Pass your opinion on. There will be some people who agree with your opinion and some who don't. It's like anything else – gather all available knowledge, and then make a judgment call.

 

[lolwut]

I just use those sites and their screencaps as a barometer. Everything is subjective (even if you want to try to be decisive with math and numbers.)
I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer when 2 transfers are done by reputable companies. (As opposed to an obvious crap release). There are so many factors and variables involved, along with subjective opinion. And I know of many 'experts' who get quite a lot wrong, and try to strong arm their opinions on what you or I ('non-experts') should be seeing.
(I know 'experts' who are just fine with TVs set to Motion Smoothing!)
Just go with what looks good to you. Pass your opinion on. There will be some people who agree with your opinion and some who don't. It's like anything else – gather all available knowledge, and then make a judgment call.

Reputable companies make mistakes. Universal (DNR) and WB (low bitrate, 25GB, VC-1 discs) are notable examples. The UK Don't Look Now is an obvious crap release to me and I'm hardly alone. I'm backing up my opinion with visible examples for you to directly compare and contrast. You're free to think that a smoothed over, grain reduced, detail-lacking transfer is better than a natural, film-like, detailed transfer, but it's not an informed opinion that's shared by people who care about preserving the best, most accurate PQ.

 

[C.C. 95]

Reputable companies make mistakes. Universal (DNR) and WB (low bitrate, 25GB, VC-1 discs) are notable examples. The UK Don't Look Now is an obvious crap release to me and I'm hardly alone. I'm backing up my opinion with visible examples for you to directly compare and contrast. You're free to think that a smoothed over, grain reduced, detail-lacking transfer is better than a natural, film-like, detailed transfer, but it's not an informed opinion that's shared by people who care about preserving the best, most accurate PQ.

I have the Criterion, and have not yet seen the Optimum. So I have not 'chosen a side'.
My informed opinion will be when I can have both copies side by side.
And if you go back, the 'experts' loved the first PATTON release- before they became educated about DNR and recanted.

 

[Ricker]

Bummed its an older movie, I really like the artwork