For a direct link to his review:
Last edited by Brian L; 05-29-2011 at 10:12 PM.
Twitch - We Know Stuff
When people make claims that they spoke with a professional who concurs with them, it's really up to them to name that other person. Otherwise, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It can't be factchecked and is thus utterly dismissable, whether it's true or not.
"I actually discussed this disc, among others, the other day with a highly respected film restoration and preservation expert, and we were very much on the same page as regards what is wrong with transfers like this and a number of other Italian cult titles. In a nutshell: no actual detail, just a whole load of harsh noise."
And titties! You likes big titties, don't ya?Oh, you know I loves big titties.
That wasn't really my point... In fact, I think the truth lies somewhere between Michael and Troy's reviews. This BD does not look like utter crap but it's definitely not the best Argento HD release out there. Not even in the top 3 in my opinion.
You can take almost any transfer, go into a QC bay and scrutinize the shit out of it frame by frame and find things wrong. In fact, that's what QC people are supposed to do. Whether anyone, watching under a normal home set up would see those flaws is a judgement call the folks putting these things out have to make. I'm not saying Mackenzie's review is incorrect any more than Troy's. They're both reflections of their viewing enviroments and levels of expectation. I suspect Mackenzie's is more accurate, but Troy's reflects a "real world" view. For myself, I usually take a consensus of five or six reviews, see if there's a pattern of complaint and if there is if it's the type of "defect" I can live with.
Also, and I mean no disrespect to anyone here and am not talking about specific sites, but complaints such as DNR, edge enhancement and so on get misindentified a lot in situations where they're not the problem (or certainly don't appear that way to me). So I don't get scared off by that unless, again, it pops up repeatedly in a cross section of reviews.
"One cannot 100% trust a screenshot that someone else made."
The REAL truth is this:
In the past year there have been ZERO evidence of this "DVNR fake grain" that some people say these titles have.
Like I put it on Michael page:
"If one looks at ANY of the big hollywood movies that we know have massive DVNR, they all (that I have seen at least) have a LOT less sharpness and detailed image than ANY of BU "massive DVNR and fake grain" titles".
So if I get this straight. A small company releasing old low budget movies pays a lot of extra for DVNR and THEN adding fake grain, and magically get a much sharper and detail image than what big studies get on big budget films? "
So, how about use the eyes and compare:
*BIG budget film, big studio and just 10 years old, with massive DVNR
*Small budget film, much smaller studio (BU), 40 years old, "with massive DVNR and fake grain?"
So, magically Blue underground have a technology that even the biggest studios don't have (or maybe they cannot afford on such small title as Gladiator), because a much older, smaller European film that, rumoured, have massive DVNR and added new grain, STILL can look shaper and more detailed than such "small" film as Gladiator.
As I see it, unless proof is putting forward, this is just another "loose change cult following".
I guess Beaver picked the finest looking screengrabs then, because in those still shots it looks extremely good.
I'll admit I'd prefer this softness in this case, it would make it look less harsh.
Amazon currently has my copy as "Shipping Soon". I wonder if pre-orders exceeded the first shipment, as the release date is tomorrow and it's probably just going out tomorrow. I preordered on April 2nd.
I don't buy into the fake grain thing. It seems to be an extra cost that'd cost more money than it's worth for an indie label. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it seems far fetched and more trouble than it's worth (for any company let alone one like BU). I could believe it's a scanner/equipment that has been used that captures/processes the grain in the manner that has been reported by some reviewers. Maybe I'm less picky than others too (which may save me a lot of trouble in the long run).
Kundun Rat Terrier: 8/16/02-3/26/11. RIP, Ku.