Jaws

[Gopher]

A few thoughts- - The BD is the best transfer I've seen (though I don't have a lot of classics on BD). It looks like a 70s period film shot maybe five years ago. Astounding. - It's interesting to see Speilberg experiment as a director here. He was still an up and comer here (IMO it wasn't until Raiders where he found his full voice as a director). Some of the shots and editing tricks are so interesting and compelling but never distracting. And we get some distinctly Speilbergian moments here (Brody mimicking his son at the dinner table is my favorite). - The one shot that takes me out of the heart-pounding intensity of the climax every single time is Bruce knawing on the oxygen tank with his back teeth. It looks like my puppy looked when she tried knawing on her food. Otherwise, I haven't seen a shark look so good on screen ever, although it's only competing with stuff like Shark Night 3D. One of my favorite movies ever.

[redfirebird2008]

A few thoughts-- The BD is the best transfer I've seen (though I don't have a lot of classics on BD). It looks like a 70s period film shot maybe five years ago. Astounding.

I've only seen screenshots of it and it looks pretty soft to me. Looks like they DNRed the grain out of it, which is unfortunate. Universal has a habit of doing this on their catalogue releases.

[baumer]

I've only seen screenshots of it and it looks pretty soft to me. Looks like they DNRed the grain out of it, which is unfortunate. Universal has a habit of doing this on their catalogue releases.

Then you need to watch the film. It is unbelievable how well they did with this transfer. I'm not sure what you are watching to make you think it looks soft, but as Gopher said, it looks like a 2012 movie, not a 1975 film.

[redfirebird2008]

Then you need to watch the film. It is unbelievable how well they did with this transfer. I'm not sure what you are watching to make you think it looks soft, but as Gopher said, it looks like a 2012 movie, not a 1975 film.

Which is exactly the problem. A lot of people out there don't mind DNR. You guys clearly fit into that category. I don't want an old film to look like it was shot on digital.

[baumer]

Which is exactly the problem. A lot of people out there don't mind DNR. You guys clearly fit into that category. I don't want an old film to look like it was shot on digital.

Ok, I understand what you are saying. I just like that you can read Ellen's magazines on her bed side table, or that you can see the faces of people on the beach in the opening scene or the name of the beer they are drinking. To me that is stunning.

[redfirebird2008]

Ok, I understand what you are saying. I just like that you can read Ellen's magazines on her bed side table, or that you can see the faces of people on the beach in the opening scene or the name of the beer they are drinking. To me that is stunning.

As opposed to VHS or DVD on a small TV, I can definitely understand where you're coming from. Even a DNRed film on Blu-ray will still have a ton more detail than its DVD or VHS counterpart.

[vc2002]

Yeah I saw the screenshots and that definitely doesnt look a good transfer. Besides the DNR problem, the color and the contrast dont look good either. If you look for a great transfer, check 2001: A Space Odyssey Blu-ray. Man that's one heck of a transfer, and its image quality puts many films after it in shame. That's a tranfer that makes you think the film was shot last year. You can check these screenshots on blu-ray.comI think the studio might just be milking it, and probably a couple of years later they will annouce a remastered version which they actually put money on revising the image quality and or that. JP trilogy had the same problem on blu-ray, as the transfer was even worse. Yeah it's Universal isn't it. :rolleyes:Speaking of which, Titanic also had a incredible transfer. Check these screenshots of the blu-ray.http://imgbox.com/advvgaqwhttp://www.imagebam....e44120207963185http://www.imagebam....937e8f207963142http://www.imagebam....dd1e3e207963168

Edited August 28, 2012 by vc2002

[redfirebird2008]

The most frustrating example I can think of recently was a Universal release: Gladiator. I bought the original version of it. There was huge backlash on Blu-ray forums across the Internet about how much DNR and EE had been applied to the transfer. It looked like digital shit instead of film. They ended up doing a remaster of it a few months later and that one apparently was a hell of a lot better. Grain field was actually intact and detail level was a lot stronger. They had an exchange program set up for those who wanted to replace the original version, but I didn't feel like spending the time or money to mail it in and get the replacement. I barely watch the film anyway, so it's not too big of a deal. It's one of those movies that is on TV so often that there isn't much reason to pop in the Blu-ray.

[vc2002]

The most frustrating example I can think of recently was a Universal release: Gladiator.

LMAO another Universal film? Might just call them THE LAME BLU-RAY studio

[redfirebird2008]

Another Universal semi-screwup recently was Scarface. They didn't completely scrub the grain out of it, but it had a very digital appearance. Overheated contrast, some DNR, and a ton of edge enhancement.

[baumer]

Sorry guys, but imo, you are wrong. Just because you don't like how it looks, doesn't mean they did a half assed job on it or that the rest of us won't like the transfer.

[FTF]

The transfer is amazing, you guys are crazy. (and have you even watched it on br on a 1080p hd tv??)

Edited August 29, 2012 by FTF

[redfirebird2008]

Sorry guys, but imo, you are wrong. Just because you don't like how it looks, doesn't mean they did a half assed job on it or that the rest of us won't like the transfer.

A majority of the public enjoys a Blu-ray transfer no matter how half-assed it might be. TDK is a good example of that. I don't think Jaws was half-assed from what I've seen, I just don't think it's as good as it could have been.

[MrPink]

Screenshots don't always tell the story though, the way they are captured can mislead quite often. I know plenty of Blu-Ray reviewers and I trust when they say it looks phenomenal and they can spot DNR and edge enhancement a hell of a lot better than I can. Also, I believe Paramount handled the transfer for Gladiator, so they were the ones to fuck that up.

Edited August 29, 2012 by MrPink

[redfirebird2008]

Screenshots don't always tell the story though, the way they are captured can mislead quite often. I know plenty of Blu-Ray reviewers and I trust when they say it looks phenomenal and they can spot DNR and edge enhancement a hell of a lot better than I can. Also, I believe Paramount handled the transfer for Gladiator, so they were the ones to fuck that up.

Paramount used a transfer from the early 2000's that came from Universal. Later on Paramount issued a new transfer. But yes, you are right that Paramount screwed it up by not issuing the new transfer in the first place.

[MrPink]

Paramount used a transfer from the early 2000's that came from Universal. Later on Paramount issued a new transfer. But yes, you are right that Paramount screwed it up by not issuing the new transfer in the first place.

Never knew that, the more you know *swoosh*. Either way, Universal still doesn't have a good history with their Blu-Ray transfers, but everything I've read since the Blu has actually made its way into the hands of the public has been overwhelmingly positive. If there were serious issues of DNR and softness, I think people who can recognize DNR and EE from a mile away would have made a bigger stink about it at this point. The only controversies I've heard boils down to Best Buy not stocking their exclusive digibook and whether Brody's line before he kills the shark has always been muffled (nobody knows). Edited August 29, 2012 by MrPink

[redfirebird2008]

Well, Universal does have a good history with new release transfers. It's just their classic material that they tend to fuck up or at least don't give it as good of treatment as it deserves. WB, Criterion, and Fox tend to do the best job on classic transfers. Criterion is the best of all. No DNR, EE, overheated contrast/colors, etc.

[vc2002]

Jaws didnt have a terrible transfer. For some part it's good enough for a 70's film. But overall I can't say it's great, I mean, especially when we have golden standard transfers of older films like 2001.2001http://www.hundland.org/hd/numbers/2001_10.jpghttp://www.hundland.org/hd/numbers/2001_6.jpgJawshttp://www.highdefdiscnews.com/screenshots/jaws_12.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/ll7o1.png

[baumer]

What a weekend. Saturday I got to watch Raiders and Temple at the theater.But yesterday I got to see, for the first time in my life, JAWS at the theater. When the opening scene hit the screen, I had a swell of excitement hit me. I was finally here. I finally got to see it. 38 years after its release, I got to sit in a half full theater and watch the greatest film ever made on the big screen with a bunch of other JAWS enthusiasts. I'm not sure if there is a heaven, but that was as close to it as I can get.I sat back and took it all in. I had a dumb goofy grin on my face the whole time. Seeing Bruce come out of the water the first time was still thrilling, even after the 1000th time seeing it. The Indianapolis story was still as horrific today as it was 38 years ago.I was truly blessed this weekend. I got to see some of my all time favourite films at the theater, where they were meant to be seen. Raiders, Temple, Gremlins ands JAWS. I'm still on a high.

[DAR]

A rewatch should be very soon for me