Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The BD of RAN is terrible!

This is topic The BD of RAN is terrible! in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000850

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-17-2010, 04:27 PM:

I was very happy when Criterion had announced they were releasing RAN on Blu-Ray and was looking forward to buying it but they suddenly cancelled it and I was very disappointed. Although it was not going to be from Criterion, I was very happy when Lionsgate had announced they were releasing it through their Studio Canal series. Although I had bought substandard Lionsgate Blu Ray discs, they were bought at bargain basis prices and they included titles such as DIRTY DANCING, RED TIDE and a few other titles but I was expecting something much better with RAN. In fact, Because Criterion had planned to release this movie on BD, I was expecting Lionsgate to mach Criterion's disc quality with their new Studio Canal series. I WAS WRONG! the quality of the disc is soooooooo bad, I had to convince Best Buy to take it back and give me a refund because it was unwatchable. I had no problem with the sound but the picture was awful. I knew it was bad from the very beginning when I saw an image that looked like a color transparency that was a little over a stop over exposed. The image was very flat with no contrast and on the bright side that made reading the English subtitles extremely difficult. I have the movie on a Japanese imported laserdisc with no subtitles as well as a American release. I had the DVD once but sold it because I was not happy with the quality. On a scale of one to ten, the DVD was about a six. The Blu-Ray was about 3. If the picture quality was much better than the DVD, I would not have a problem with it but it is much worse!!

I love the cinematography of RAN and consider it among the best I have ever seen and that is the reason I want to have a perfect copy of it in my collection.

-Claude

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 03-17-2010, 06:04 PM:

That's very disappointing to hear, Claude, because not only is RAN a masterpiece but as you say the cinematography is also sumptuous. I don't blame you for taking it back.

Hopefully this transfer will get fixed, but you have to wonder how it got past QC. Perhaps another company will release it in Japan with better quality.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-17-2010, 10:12 PM:

I took the disc back to Best Buy and the girl at Customer Service refused to take back the disc and give me a refund no matter how hard I tried to explain the disc's picture quality was unacceptable. It did not matter that I am a Silver Rewards Zone member and a loyal customer. She said it it is a federal crime for the store to return a opened copy of a DVD or Blu-Ray disc through the mail or with Fed Express & UPS. She said it was a violation of the federal copy Right laws. At that point I became very upset because it was bad enough that they would not take the disc back and give me a refund but to lie to me was worse. What is wrong with stores not taking care of their loyal customers? Target refused to honor the special they had advertised in the newspaper and I told them to 'shove it' it and walked out never to return again and now this. I kept my cool this time because I like to buy my movies in a store as much as possible rather than shopping online and I cannot burn any more bridges. If I did, I will only have Walmart and the 'bandits' at Sam Goody who charge almost full list for their DVDs and Blu Rays.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-17-2010, 10:33 PM:

She didn't lie to you, it is most, if not all stores policy to not accept opened DVD's/CD's/BluRays etc, because if they did, people could simply copy them and return them. It's not the stores fault that the company gave the film a crappy transfer.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-17-2010, 11:13 PM:

She didn't out and out lie, but what she said was not the truth. It is not a federal crime. It's simply against store policy.

This happens in theatres all the time too. I cringe every time I hear a box cashier or a door person deny entry to an R rated feature because it is "against the law." It simply is not.

Some manager found that it was a convenient excuse to give customers for a common complaint. Now every clerk thinks they are a mini cop.

I have unfortunately already opened my copy of RAN, but have not popped it in yet. I'll report back my findings.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-18-2010, 01:44 AM:

Being in the CD and DVD biz, I can tell you that manufacturers and distributors absolutely hate to take product back. Some labels' product is not returnable at all, and with others, there is a hefty "restocking fee" to make returns. Most "defects" aren't returnable either, because the manufacturers don't think they make any defects.

Back in the '80s there was a "price reduction," somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%, that was supposed to cover the very few defects that slipped into the hands of retailers.

Claude, your situation was caused by the general behavior of people. Unfortunately there are too many who would do exactly as has been noted above: Take the disk home, make a copy, then take the disk back for credit (and probably uploading the disk to the internet in the process). That's why most stores will only give you another copy of the same title. You can't blame the store; they are only protecting themselves.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-18-2010, 01:00 PM:

I usually read reviews on new Blu-ray releases before buying. Very often if there is a problem with the disc someone at Home Theater Forum, Blu-ray.com, DVD Beaver, The Digital Bits and perhaps a few other web sites will warn potential customers about it.

I avoided buying Gladiator on Blu-ray over that issue. Now Universal Studios is planning to release a new 10th anniversary edition on Blu-ray this fall with a new (and corrected) video transfer.

Lionsgate's BD release of Ran hasn't received good reviews for its video quality. Blu-ray.com gave it a mediocre 3 out of 5 stars, which is really a worse rating than it seems. The site usually gives slightly more generous 3.5 out of 5 stars to movies with so so video quality. Anything under 3 stars and the video quality will likely be crap comparatively speaking to other top notch Blu-ray releases.

I don't know why Ran was seemingly botched in its Blu-ray debut. It could be a bad encode job. The disc reportedly has a rather small 17Mb/s average bit rate, which is significantly lower than the bandwidth used by most other Blu-ray releases. The source print could have had issues or errors may have been committed during the datacine/telecine process.

It's too bad Criterion wasn't able to manage the BD release of Ran. Criterion generally does good work. Their upcoming release of Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven is getting outstanding advance reviews. Robert Harris gave the disc his highest recommendation and Blu-ray.com gave it a 5 out of 5 score on image quality. Not bad for a movie made in 1978.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-18-2010, 03:06 PM:

I checked the screenshots for the BD at blu-ray.com and there is a lot of artificial sharpening going on, lots of halos.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-18-2010, 09:03 PM:

Which movie? Ran?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-18-2010, 11:07 PM:

I had some free time this afternoon and spent it looking at the RAN Blu-Ray disc Best Buy had refused to take back and found it not as bad as I had originally reported. Compared to all of the great BDs in my collection, it is far from perfect but I can live with it until the day Criterion is allowed to release it. For some reason, the contrast looks much better and because of that, the subtitles are much easier to read. I cannot understand what had happened because I made no adjustment to my set. Do you suppose there is something internally going on with my HDTV? I had the set for almost a year now and I have been happy with it so far. The 1080p picture quality is very stunning when I play BDs like THE WIZARD OF OZ & THE PRINCESS & THE FROG. I bought it from Costco and I believe I have a two year extended warranty on it so I am not too concerned. I have a 26 inch Samsung and if I have to replace it, I will get a larger model.

-Claude

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-18-2010, 11:47 PM:

Just thinking out loud here Claude - did your viewing area lighting conditions change between your first and second looks at this disc? Like daytime versus nighttime viewing? Does your set have dynamic picture settings available and enabled? Many HD sets have ambient lighting sensors and can adjust the brightness and contrast levels in an attempt to compensate. Also, many sets look at the incoming video signal itself and adjust contrast and brightness on the fly in an attempt to maintain a fairly constant overall picture level. Or possibly did your set change your selected preset levels? Any of these things could cause the differences you're reporting.

Personally, I don't like any of these automatic picture adjusting features on consumer sets. I go through and disable all of them. But then again, I tend to keep the room lighting more or less the same when I'm watching something I want to be critical about (closing the window shutters in the daytime, and having certain room lights on at night).

I too was looking forward to seeing Ran on Blu-ray. Thank you for the "heads up" on this one. Fortunately due to lack of $$$ I won't be buying any BDs for a long time, hopefully long enough for a proper remaster to become available. I hate having to "double dip" a title purchase, especially for reasons like this.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-19-2010, 01:38 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Which movie? Ran?

Yep, the one this thread is about.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 03-19-2010, 01:56 AM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I had to convince Best Buy to take it back and give me a refund because it was unwatchable.

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
I took the disc back to Best Buy and the girl at Customer Service refused to take back the disc and give me a refund no matter how hard I tried to explain the disc's picture quality was unacceptable.

Did you call them the first time and they said they would take it back and then when you showed up refused?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-19-2010, 04:16 AM:

Yes, Jeremy

As it turned out, I am glad I still have the disc because I watched a few more scenes and they looked very good. Not perfect but good.

-Claude

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-20-2010, 12:40 AM:

Sorry to drift off topic a bit, but I'm curious (and too lazy at the moment to read any of the reviews)...

quote: Bobby Henderson
Criterion generally does good work. Their upcoming release of Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven is getting outstanding advance reviews. Robert Harris gave the disc his highest recommendation and Blu-ray.com gave it a 5 out of 5 score on image quality. Not bad for a movie made in 1978.

Has the "Days Of Heaven" Blu-ray been transferred in its 35mm 1.85:1 aspect ratio or in its 2.00:1 70mm blow-up ratio?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-20-2010, 02:03 AM:

quote: Michael Coate
Has the "Days Of Heaven" Blu-ray been transferred in its 35mm 1.85:1 aspect ratio or in its 2.00:1 70mm blow-up ratio?

According to Blu-ray.com, Criterion opened the 35mm film frame to fill the 1.78:1 aspect ratio for HDTV screens. So the BD is neither 1.85:1 or the 2.0:1 ratio that may have been on the 70mm blow up prints. I'm annoyed by the 2.0:1 ratio nonsense these days for the cropping work Vittorio Storaro has done to his own 2.39:1 masterpieces. We don't watch TV on square TV sets anymore, dude! Eat some ziti and open up that rectangle!

The screen shots from the DVD Beaver website review look pretty nice for frame grabs. And then there's this comment from Robert Harris in his "A few words about" review at the Home Theater Forum:

quote: Robert Harris
If one only purchases five Blu-ray discs in 2010, this should be one of them. It belongs in every serious library.

Extremely Highly Recommended.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 03-21-2010, 12:32 PM:

Watched it. I can't believe this caused so much commotion! It' not that bad. Not as good as many, but not bad at all.

Butch Cassidy is still the worst looking blue ray I have seen.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-21-2010, 03:43 PM:

See Mike...that is your problem...you were watching a knock-off disc. The proper version of Butch Cassidy is a Blu-Ray...not a Blue-Ray!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-26-2010, 01:42 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Criterion opened the 35mm film frame to fill the 1.78:1 aspect ratio for HDTV screens. So the BD is neither 1.85:1 or the 2.0:1 ratio that may have been on the 70mm blow up prints.

Thanks. I thought I would ask about the 2.00:1 thing because I imagine there are some "purists" out there who will cry foul thinking that the movie should be 2.00:1.

I'm not sure I agree with the purists since I imagine the film looks just fine at 1.78:1, and 1.78:1 (aka 16:9) is what many widescreen-era 1.85:1 spherical films get transferred at these days anyway. However, I do think an argument could be made that 2.00:1 is the most correct ratio for the film since that is what was on the film's 70mm blow-up prints, and it's that 70mm "showcase" version that the critics saw at the media screenings, it's what audiences in the major markets experienced, and certainly was the version that prompted the film's Oscar nominations for cinematography (which it won) and sound mix.

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm annoyed by the 2.0:1 ratio nonsense these days for the cropping work Vittorio Storaro has done to his own 2.39:1 masterpieces.

Yeah, I agree. I kind of understood Storaro's reasoning twenty years ago when all of us had rather small 4:3 TVs, but if he's still doing this in our current era of higher-rez software and 16:9 televisions, then it's nothing more than revisionist tinkering. Which makes me wonder if in regard to "Days Of Heaven" if the lab personnel arbitrarily came up with the idea to crop a bit from the top and bottom to make the image "wider" or if the film's DP, Nestor Almendros, composed the imagery during production with an eventual 2.00:1 crop in mind.

quote: Bobby Henderson
2.0:1 ratio that may have been on the 70mm blow up prints

May have been? If you or anyone is questioning my sanity on this 2.00:1 thing, I should point out that just a few years ago I had the pleasure of attending a private screening of one of the few surviving 70mm prints of "Days Of Heaven" and verified the matter first-hand by both viewing the film and hand-inspecting a reel. Until that screening I too thought it was bunk whenever I heard or read people claiming 2.00:1 was that film's aspect ratio.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-26-2010, 02:29 PM:

I haven't seen Days of Heaven in 70mm. I don't have time to write a research paper on it to confirm every technical detail and don't care enough to do so either. I figured using the term "may" -which is still a positive, affirmative term, would have been a safe choice to write.

These days, I reserve my annoyance for more important things, like if my house gets robbed. The 2.00:1 vs. 1.85:1 thing on Days of Heaven falls closer to my "don't give a shit" category. If you say it's 2.00:1 on 70mm, fine. I believe you.

As for the in-camera framing and safe action area of Days of Heaven, who knows for certain? Methods and schools of thought on composition vary from one DP to another. Maybe the video interview with Haskell Wexler on the Criterion BD might provide some insight.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-26-2010, 09:55 PM:

When I saw DAYS OF HEAVEN in 7u0mm at Mann's Bruin Theatre in Westwood (the 6pm show on the Monday before closing (I think the 11th of December), the image was a little bit wider than 1.85, but this was the first time I was at the theatre, so I wasn't sure of the set-up. Fame was a 1.85 film in 70mm, but when it played in Bakersfield, it also showed up wider than 1.85 because the theatre cropped the 70mm image to fit their standard 35mm screen. Anyway, I saw THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS at the same theatre on its opening that Wednesday (first showing) and it was properly 1.85 in 35mm format, I had no idea DAYS OF HEAVEN was shot flat at the time, so I believed I was actually seeing TRUE 2 to 1 70mm ratio that was bandied about.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-27-2010, 01:02 AM:

Man, you guys are talking about a lot of movies I've never heard of. Why weren't these movies very popular? Days of Heaven, Secret Life of Plants, what are these strange movies?

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-27-2010, 05:41 PM:

Secret Life of Plants was a pseudo-documentary released by Paramount about the alleged intelligence of plants. Music by Stevie Wonder. A one-week Oscar qualifying run, it managed to get 0 nominations.

Days of Heaven was a Terrence Malick film starring Richard Gere Brooke Adams and Linda Manz.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-27-2010, 07:04 PM:

We studied "Days of Heaven" in film school. It really is one of the most beautifully photographed films I've ever seen. The best we ever had was a 16mm print, but it was tack sharp, can't imagine what it must have looked like in 70mm.

And the Ennio Morricone score is haunting. It seems to crop up all the time. Lately, I heard this title music in some commercial.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-27-2010, 07:34 PM:

I saw DAYS OF HEAVEN and like Hillary, I thought it was one of the most beautifully photographed movie I ever saw along with films like BARRY LYNDON (19750 and JIGOKU MON (Gate of Hell - 1953). I saw the movie at the Royal Theatre in Waikiki and although it was a 70mm house, I saw the movie in 35mm. The new Criterion Blu-Ray should have an image quality comparable to the 70mm and I will get the movie very soon through my Blockbuster membersp. I will have to be very honest about DAYS OF HEAVEN and other films by Terrence Melick. Although they may be beautifully photographed, they can be very boring.

-Claude

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 03-27-2010, 07:40 PM:

quote: Hillary Charles
And the Ennio Morricone score is haunting. It seems to crop up all the time. Lately, I heard this title music in some commercial.

Of course, that title music was from the Saint-Saens suite CARNIVAL OF THE ANIMALS (no. 7, Aquarium).

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 03-28-2010, 10:03 AM:

I saw "Days of Heaven" in 70MM at the Village Theatre in Westwood in Jan of 1979. It was a outstanding presentation theatre in the before THX days there. [thumbsup]

For the Bruin Theatre "Days of Heaven" was there second 70MM engagement since they installed the Norelco's from the old Fox Carthay Circle Theatre. Their first 70MM in the thetare was "Capricorn One".

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 03-28-2010, 11:10 AM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
Of course, that title music was from the Saint-Saens suite CARNIVAL OF THE ANIMALS (no. 7, Aquarium).

D'oh! Show's how culturally illiterate I am! [Confused]

Thanks for the clarification, Paul. If I ever knew that before, I've certainly forgotten it and now only associate it with "Days of Heaven."