Member Rhythm-X Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 I think its a case of Celestial sending over an interlaced master OR the new authoring at Vivendi is sub-par. May not be a fault at DD's end but... ...a PAL-NTSC Killer? You must be joking! It becomes their fault as soon as they don't say "Are you joking? Send us a real master pls k thx." In other news, discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member The Running Man Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 You're full of shit RM. I've had plenty of goes at DD in the past, mainly for that awful Tai Chi Master disc. My point is, sometimes the authoring house lets down the producers and it has happened in the past with other companies. I certainly agree that DD makes far more mistakes that is acceptable for a DVD company but that's no excuse for you to accuse me of being a sheep. Which is all you've been able to do over the past ten years on these forums. 10 years? That's quite an over estimation of my participation in forums. And I've contributed far more than what you are accusing me of. Whatever though. Point is, don't turn everything else I wrote upside down because you are concentration on one section of my reply. Digest my entire message because it's not an insult to you. No decent company would ever allow such a low quality transfer to be packaged and sold like this DD BR transfer here and fans shouldn't excuse it. It can't be Celestial's fault because the French had no problem with theirs. If it was an authoring problem then it would have to be a pretty phenomenal failure to manage a screw up like that. And if it was that then that's what quality control is there for, assuming they even have one. It's simple. They just don't care as has been proven with the whole DD line which has been riddled with badness. However, some people still support it, defend it and that is why more releases with blunders keeps on happening. Oh, and cut back on the expletives, okay? I'm not cursing at you nor did I call you any names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Killer Meteor Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 It can't be Celestial's fault because the French had no problem with theirs. If it was an authoring problem then it would have to be a pretty phenomenal failure to manage a screw up like that. . Celestial is rather inconsistent at such matters, and the French master appears to be a different master - ala Heroes Two's Siren transfer vs the Media Blasters one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member The Running Man Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 Siren? Is that the Australian company? Celestial made two different kinds of transfers for many of their films didn't they? One that were not anamorphic and then ones that were but were "frame cut"? The better of the two are the frame cut ones and that's should be the ones on their plate. If not, then should've rejected it and made sure Celestial gave them the right master to work from. That's all assuming of course that the problem was along those lines. Whether the case is, it is DD's fault because the product came out that way and they didn't need to release it as such. They could've delayed the release as long as they needed to so that they can sort out the problem. If they needed to release something on Blu Ray, they have a good enough collection of other films they could've use to start their Blu Ray line. The only pass that can be given to a company releasing Shaws so far with having to suffer with the limitations of Celestial is Media Blaster's "The Master" DVD. From what I understand, Celestial has yet to make a new genuine anamorphic master to work from for that movie. So it was either getting the crap PAL sourced non-anamoprhic print that was blown up to anamorphic on the IVL DVD or using a genuine NTSC print non-anamoprhic print and keep it that way. MB seemed to have chosen the lesser of two evils and it was a good decision because even when zoomed up on a 16:9 TV, it still looks better than the blown up non-anamorphic print on the IVL disc. However, MB still screwed up with that DVD. Not only were the subtitles the weakest of the new subs they made (they have improved greatly since then though), but they didn't make the subs 16:9 friendly. A big mistake on their part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member chen lung Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 Celestial is rather inconsistent at such matters, and the French master appears to be a different master - ala Heroes Two's Siren transfer vs the Media Blasters one. Speaking of different masters, these circumstances are unusual. Usually with a Celestial title if there's a dramatic difference on releases: First master: Non-anamorphic, poorer colour and less picture info, but uncut. Second master: Anamorphic, better colours and more picture info, but cut (frame splices and snippets). In this instance, it's actually the potentially first master on DD that has the more image info. Usually Celestial employ their cuts for the era of second masters, but the French master seems a whole different kettle of fish compared to any other release, and seems to maintain the same length. There's a slim chance both are the same master, but there's dramatically different processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member chen lung Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 Siren? Is that the Australian company? Yeah. It'll be the best version of the first master (genuine PAL), unless the German DVD is genuine anamorphic. The French DVD uses the second one, whilst I don't know about the UK one. Celestial made two different kinds of transfers for many of their films didn't they? One that were not anamorphic and then ones that were but were "frame cut"? Yeah. I think it may have been select titles they chose to re-do, but it's not entirely clear. According to this, 20 films a year will be HD, whilst the rest are PAL SD. For the SD ones, they really should have been anamorphic:sad:. The better of the two are the frame cut ones and that's should be the ones on their plate. If not, then should've rejected it and made sure Celestial gave them the right master to work from. Think the non-frame-cut ones are SD. Although in this situation, I don't think '36th Chamber' has a frame-cut version. I'd be interested in knowing what masters Celestial made for this film, etc so there's a clear understanding. MB seemed to have chosen the lesser of two evils and it was a good decision because even when zoomed up on a 16:9 TV, it still looks better than the blown up non-anamorphic print on the IVL disc. CRTs seem to be the one display that don't handle non-anamorphic zoom well (you can see the lines). However, MB chose the move that would retain as much of the original detail as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Killer Meteor Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 Yeah. It'll be the best version of the first master (genuine PAL), unless the German DVD is genuine anamorphic. The French DVD uses the second one, whilst I don't know about the UK one. Yeah. I think it may have been select titles they chose to re-do, but it's not entirely clear. According to this, 20 films a year will be HD, whilst the rest are PAL SD. For the SD ones, they really should have been anamorphic:sad:. Think the non-frame-cut ones are SD. Although in this situation, I don't think '36th Chamber' has a frame-cut version. I'd be interested in knowing what masters Celestial made for this film, etc so there's a clear understanding. CRTs seem to be the one display that don't handle non-anamorphic zoom well (you can see the lines). However, MB chose the move that would retain as much of the original detail as possible. It is technically possible to make a decent anamorphic master out of a non-aanmorphic one and Media Blasters should really have done this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member The Running Man Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 I think MB took the "better safe than sorry route" which was best. However, they screwed up with sub translation and the placement of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member chen lung Posted February 22, 2010 Member Share Posted February 22, 2010 I think its a case of Celestial sending over an interlaced master OR the new authoring at Vivendi is sub-par. I would say Vivendi are just a distributor of Dragon Dynasty products (they bought Genius Products) and have no input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member kungfusamurai Posted February 23, 2010 Member Share Posted February 23, 2010 Question about the Wild Side french Blu Rays: Do they play on North American Blu Ray players? From what I've read, Blu Rays from Asia are the same region as North America, but Europe is different. But some discs are region free. KFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member OldPangYau Posted February 23, 2010 Member Share Posted February 23, 2010 Question about the Wild Side french Blu Rays: Do they play on North American Blu Ray players? From what I've read, Blu Rays from Asia are the same region as North America, but Europe is different. But some discs are region free. KFS Apparently they are Region B "locked", and on top of that, they aren't "English friendly" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member kungfusamurai Posted February 23, 2010 Member Share Posted February 23, 2010 Apparently they are Region B "locked", and on top of that, they aren't "English friendly" The lack of english subs wasn't too big of a deal for me, but that's too bad we can't play them here. I can't wait for the day when remote control region hacks work for Blu Ray players too! KFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Asmo Posted February 24, 2010 Moderator Share Posted February 24, 2010 Being in Australia, I can play the French discs. I've seen the films before but I have to ask myself if the lack of subs would bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Ronin Posted February 26, 2010 Author Member Share Posted February 26, 2010 Further confirmation that this is one screwed up blu-ray release: "buuuut holy crap, this is the most unbelievably screwed up, mangled, flawed piece of crap Blu-ray ever released. The reason it runs 5 minutes shorter than the DVD releases is because it has mangled frame-interpolation from the 25fps/50hz master. It's 1080i60 but it doesn't have any inverse telecine to play at the original 24fps. Instead it's purely interlaced, every frame of it. So it can only be played at 60fps. Instead of 25fps to 24fps, they did 25fps to 60i with frame-blending. The conversion causes every frame to blended together, so there's constant blurring and chopiness. Also, the audio is an unlistenable mess, screwed from the conversion as well. It's completely distorted; pitched too higher, raspy, constantly echos. This just might be the worst disc on the format. I really can't believe this horrific thing was released for this classic. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid..." From this thread: AVS Forum Thread I strongly recommend waiting for reviews before purchasing anymore product from Dragon Dynasty. My bet is that The Killer blu-ray is going to have the same problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member OldPangYau Posted February 26, 2010 Member Share Posted February 26, 2010 This is what I was saying, once I saw the shorter time for the blu-ray, yet it looked similar to the IVL DVD runtime, I knew it had to be an improper PAL-to-NTSC release. Hopefully DVDBeaver will have a review soon. Seriously, I've never seen, let alone heard of, a PAL-to-NTSC blu-ray! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Killer Meteor Posted February 26, 2010 Member Share Posted February 26, 2010 This is what I was saying, once I saw the shorter time for the blu-ray, yet it looked similar to the IVL DVD runtime, I knew it had to be an improper PAL-to-NTSC release. Hopefully DVDBeaver will have a review soon. Seriously, I've never seen, let alone heard of, a PAL-to-NTSC blu-ray! I assumed it would be a PAL transfer on Blu Ray but a PAL-NTSC??? Why is it always HK films that get screwed on DVD and now Blu Ray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member OldPangYau Posted February 27, 2010 Member Share Posted February 27, 2010 The situation is bad enough in general, it's just worse knowing that even the damn *DVD* had a proper 24p NTSC/film speed transfer. Ugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member The Dragon Posted February 28, 2010 Member Share Posted February 28, 2010 I wonder if Bey saw the writing on the wall and it helped in his decision to leave DD. You may be on to something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member kungfusamurai Posted September 24, 2010 Member Share Posted September 24, 2010 I decided to double dip on this one because I figured it might not look so bad, since some people said it looked okay. Well, I have to admit it is really bad. I mean, it basically looks like a DVD played on a standard def DVD player using component cables. I think they just took the transfer they received for the regular DVD and attempted to upconvert it. I won't be giving DD my money for Blu-Ray anymore until they get their act together. KFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member kungfusamurai Posted November 14, 2010 Member Share Posted November 14, 2010 I just got the Wild Side Blu Ray, which for some reason isn't being sold by Amazon.fr anymore. I found it elsewhere, and it looks a million times better than the DD blu ray disc! A number of years ago, I watched bunch of Shaw movies at a film festival and I'd saw all of the prints were newly struck 35mm by Celestial. I can't remember if the Celestial logo played before the Shaw. They were clean, and in their original language with subs. So for that to happen, they must have restored the original prints in a digital HD format, otherwise it would look like crap if they put an SD image onto a new 35mm film print. DD must have balked at paying more money for a proper HD master and upconverted their SD copy. KFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member chen lung Posted November 14, 2010 Member Share Posted November 14, 2010 DD must have balked at paying more money for a proper HD master and upconverted their SD copy. I don't think it's upconverted, just improperly converted. DD likely had the HD master (Celestial provide PAL HD D5 masters), but didn't convert it to NTSC properly. Both look different though (as if there were two restorations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member kungfusamurai Posted November 14, 2010 Member Share Posted November 14, 2010 I don't think it's upconverted, just improperly converted. DD likely had the HD master (Celestial provide PAL HD D5 masters), but didn't convert it to NTSC properly. Both look different though (as if there were two restorations). I've never understood why one needs to worry about PAL or NTSC when it comes to the HD format. I thought we were past all that with the digital format?! At least the TVs should be no different from computer monitors, which don't care whether something is in PAL or NTSC. I say that it looks like they upconverted because the image lacks the crisp definition of an HD format. It looks like my DVD version as seen through a standard DVD player using component cables on an HD TV. The colors look blocky, if that makes sense. None of the fine highlights or shadowing one sees with a high def image. KFS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member chen lung Posted November 14, 2010 Member Share Posted November 14, 2010 I've never understood why one needs to worry about PAL or NTSC when it comes to the HD format. I thought we were past all that with the digital format?! At least the TVs should be no different from computer monitors, which don't care whether something is in PAL or NTSC. Although the resolution is universal, the rates aren't. Content can be filmed in 24/25/30p (also interlaced rates as well). Some European studios work in PAL-rate apparently, so it's not uncommon. Some Entertainment In Video BDs aren't proper 24 fps. Not sure why 24fps film isn't outputted as that, but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member Tigerstyles Posted November 14, 2010 Member Share Posted November 14, 2010 http://www.imagebanana.com/view/nbm640uv/36chambersus.jpg http://www.imagebanana.com/view/tb8zv6ww/36chambersfr.png http://forum.cinefacts.de/210089-36th-chamber-shaolin-ab-02-03-2010-auf-blu-ray.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markgway Posted November 15, 2010 Share Posted November 15, 2010 French image is obviously superior. Shame it doesn't come with subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.