5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Miller's Crossing [Blu-ray]  (Blu-ray)
This is a slightly dubious transfer, in my opinion. Generally things look sharp, with the exception of Gabriel Burns pasty face, which, at times is more or less featureless. In fact the whole film has problems with faces, or rather skin tones - all too regularily did mouths appear by far too red and stood out of the face, which is very off putting. Also, there are times when detail (such as clothing texture or wood grain) is totally lost, probably down to some digital noise reduction sheenangins. Overall it's fair to good, but it is a lazy transfer.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 18 Dec 2011 22:47:07 GMT
I've recently retired after 40 years in film & TV mainly working with picture quality, my Blu-ray viewed on a good projector system was fine and very consistent with the feel that the director would have wanted.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Dec 2011 11:33:40 GMT
Mark A. Streets says:
MelAus, I'm sorry but I don't agree, I have a z series Sony TV - the flagship model - which displays an incredible image (despite the backlighting being a tad substandard), I'm a now photographer and I too spent many years in the AV industry at the technical end of things. When I compare this title with BluRays of Zulu, Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange and a host of other older films, Miller's Crossing just doesn't stand up...it's a great film, but a poor transfer, there are moments when Miller's Crossing looks fantastic, unfortunately these moments show up the poor moments to an even greater extent.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Dec 2011 12:28:38 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 28 Dec 2011 12:30:30 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2012 21:58:10 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Jan 2012 02:05:52 GMT
Mark Barry says:
Thanks for the head-up on the BLU RAY print.
As a long-time reviewer myself - and having put in my fair-share of BLU RAY reviews too (especially on reissued classics) - more often than not I'm bitterly disappointed at the laziness of most transfers to this great format. And worse - if you point this out to potential buyers - you get bawled out by disappointed punters refusing to believe your view - even if you provide examples.
I post negative reviews rarely - but there are occasions when you absolutely must - "A.I.", "The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen", "French Connection", "2010 - The Year We Make Contact", "American Graffiti", "The Assassin". It's depressing to hear that another title I wanted to buy ("Miller's Crossing") needs to be rented first before I waste money on a purchase.
Some movies on BLU RAY like "The Road To Perdition" and "The Aviator" where you would think the new format would allow them to shine - just don't impress - despite the so-called production values they were given (and huge budgets).
Then there's someone like Roger Deakins who of course was involved in so many Coen films - and on BLU RAY - man does his brilliance show ("A Simple Man", "True Grit" - you should also see his beautiful work on "The Company Men").
Also I find that movies of the 80's and early 90's were shot in a certain way - so the HIGH DEF only accentuates the lipstick and blusher to a point where they are `so' noticeable that it interferes with your viewing.
On the upside - I've reviewed some superlative reissues and own two of the three you mention. Goodies include "Back To The Future", "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", "The Italian Job", "Kelly's Heroes", "Ice Station Zebra", "North By Northwest" and many more. The common denominator is that they are all fully restored (usually frame-by-frame) - I've reviewed nearly all of them.
As much as I hate to say it - I welcome a negative view if it's backed up with details - I just wish there wasn't a need for them at all.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›