Res. Dogs: R1 15th Ann vs UK vs UK SE vs. R2 Scan vs. R4 SE

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 27 Oct 2006, 23:24

I've taken the liberty of correcting the proportions of the r4 grabs:

01aus, 02aus, 03aus, 04aus, 05aus.

Matching R1: 15th Anniversary grabs below:

01, 02, 03, 04, 05.

However, I think the original 5 grabs were poorly chosen to accurately judge what the brightness levels should be. It's clear that the original and scandinavian R2 DVDs exhibit a much brighter image than the others, but just look at the final grab where Harvey is giving Buscemi a light, the image is so bright it looks like there's about 5 Halogen lamps focused on Harvey's face. I have a feeling that these 2 transfers have been considerably boosted, the interior scenes are not supposed to be as bright as the exterior sequences.

The only way to tell is by comparing bright, outdoor sequence grabs, so here are some from the R1 and if anyone can take matching grabs to any of these, it'd aid the comparison considerably:

06, 07, 08, 09.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Oct 2006, 00:20

It looks similar to the UK R2 SE but sharper which makes it the winner.

The Scandinavian and UK R2 Single Disc their jackets are blue not black.

IMO the NEW R1 SE is the best followed by the UK R2 SE (it's not hugely better but is definitely sharper). I don't much like the brightness of the UK R2 and Scandinavian (agreed about the lap capture).

Although the original UK R2 is sharper than the UK R2 SE (what a cock to squeeze it on a DVD-5). It does show how shit the R1 Original SE and R4 are though, easily the worst of the lot.

Hmm I don't think it's leaps and bounds better than the UK R2 SE (which has great cover art too). I think I'll stick with that one.

p.s - Thread updated.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Oct 2006, 00:41

Fuck it for £7.99 I can see for myself. Brad wanders off to order from CD WOW.

What's the new Audio Remix like? Does it sound any different?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 28 Oct 2006, 00:44

You know what?

The R1-15th and R2-Single are so different that I can't say absolutely one is better than the other.

It's purely down to which style you prefer.

I always figured the movie's lighting was harsh, bright and 70's-style like the R2, which is just one reason I preferred it over the poor R4.

The new R1 is redder, darker, probably more "natural" looking as far as slick movies go, yet I'm just not sure it's "more correct"...?

That make sense?

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 28 Oct 2006, 05:06

I seriously doubt Tarantino used as much lighting needed to create the look of the final grab of Keitel lighting up Buscemi - hell I doubt they used much lighting at all and relied mostly on location shooting (almost every scene in the film is set during daytime).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 28 Oct 2006, 05:14

Don't you think that last cap looks like intentional stylistic lighting though rather than the image just being too bright? It's too different from the R1 to be an accident of transfer methinks. I've always found 'Dogs' to have a harsh, oppressive look reminiscent of gritty 70's crime dramas. I seem to remember at the time a lot of critics talking about the distinctive photography.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 28 Oct 2006, 14:18

I gave my UK R2 SE ago last night and it holds up well yes it should've sharper but otherwise it's a nice transfer.

That and I own the LE version (before they turned it into a yucky white keep case). The digi-pack has hand written drawing of some of the main characters + it opens up to a lovely hand drawn montage of the warehouse.

It seems really dumb to me to keep it just for the packaging but boy it's nice. Hmmm tough one.

Markgway wrote:Don't you think that last cap looks like intentional stylistic lighting though rather than the image just being too bright?

Nope they look like angel gangsta's

Markgway wrote:It's too different from the R1 to be an accident of transfer methinks.

Accident no but somone falling asleep on the brightness button yes

. Did you miss where I said they have navy blue suites? They're supposed to black.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 28 Oct 2006, 18:11

Markgway wrote:Don't you think that last cap looks like intentional stylistic lighting though rather than the image just being too bright? It's too different from the R1 to be an accident of transfer methinks. I've always found 'Dogs' to have a harsh, oppressive look reminiscent of gritty 70's crime dramas. I seem to remember at the time a lot of critics talking about the distinctive photography.

Reservoir Dogs cost around $1million to make, I seriously doubt Tarantino had the budget to get creative with the lighting. I'm willing to bet that most of this film was shot with natural or only minimal lighting.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 28 Oct 2006, 19:34

I still think I prefer the R2.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 Nov 2006, 01:33

My R1 New SE arrived today and I'm impressed. It's only taken Lionsgate 3 attempts to finally get it right:

1. R1 Barebones
2. R1 Crud SE
3. R1 New SE

It's also my third copy after:

1. R4 Crud SE - Taken from the R1 Crud SE Master, this one really sucked!
2. UK R2 LE (although labelled as an SE)
3. R1 New SE

Comparing the two (UK R2 SE vs. R1 SE) the New Remaster looks gorgeous, definitely sharper. That said the UK R2 still holds up very well IMO, it's not as sharp and the colours are muddier/not as well defined but it's still a decent looking DVD.

I'm keeping my R1 New SE but it puts me in a quandary on what to do with the UK R2 SE. I own the Limited Edition version made up of digi-pack which has some wonderful hand drawn artwork inside.

It seems really stupid to me to keep a DVD just because of the packaging but I'm not sure I can part with it. The artwork and general packaging is just lovely. It also has different extras to the R1 New SE (not that I care about them particularly)

p.s - As for the R1 New SE the Tin Petrol Can packaging is certainly different.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Dec 2006, 18:51

I hummed and harred for ages whether to sell my Reservoir Dogs: UK R2 2 Disc LE for ages as the artwork is lovely but I finally did and someone has paid £9.99 "Buy-it-now" for it

The DVD contents is the same but instead of a cruddy keep-case it comes in digi-pack with some lovely artwork inside. You can check out the listing and all the photos I took here:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ... 0061174909

I really don't need 2 DVDs of the same film when I'm keeping one just for the packaging.

FinnurE · Post by **FinnurE** » 08 Aug 2007, 02:42

The old UK disc is not as good as the Scandinavian because it is windowboxed and doesn't use the full conceivable resolution.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 08 Aug 2007, 18:17

Now that this thread has been bumped I've reviewed the comparison again... and I still think the R2 single discs (UK/Scan) have the best image.

Look at the asphalt in the second cap. On the single disc it's grey as you would expect and on the rest it's a kinda purple. Am I the only one who sees this?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 31 Aug 2008, 00:58

Isn't the lighting in the bathroom flourescent? Wouldn't that create the stark brightness? Yes, the suits are made blue but that's a natural effect of that harsh lighting. It looks like a 70s movie. And I think that's intentional. More telling for me is the second cap in which the suits are clearly black on the R2 original but reddish-brown on the rest. The asphault is grey on the R2, purple on the remasters. I also think the remasters are too dark - but that's a matter of opinion perhaps?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Aug 2008, 01:02

And your point in bumping an old thread is? You're happy with your DVD, why feel the need to get agreement from others? Eva only said he preferred the R1 SE look, he wasn't asking for your approval

.

Stick with your current DVD, it won't self-destruct

.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 31 Aug 2008, 15:47

Because we were talking about it in another thread. I wanted to have another look at the comparison and thought that others might like to do the same. I've made some points in my last post which you've chosen to ignore. I couldn't give two shits what Eva likes and even less for you. If you don't care then why bother with the smug post? Or do you JUST HAVE to post in every thread that exists?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 31 Aug 2008, 17:38

Markgway wrote:Or do you JUST HAVE to post in every thread that exists?

Coming from someone with a post count of over 10,000 that doesn't mean much

.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 01 Sep 2008, 02:08

At least my posts are (usually) worth something and not designed just to piss people off.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 01 Sep 2008, 10:03

The R4 CE looks worst IMO, the UK R2 is really bright.
Is Harveys face really that white (Scandinavia disc)?

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 01 Sep 2008, 12:27

There appears to be no fluorescent lights in the factory, just normal lightbulbs and windows. The room Keitel and Buscemi have a smoke and chat in is lit by what looks like ceiling windows, so it's basically natural lighting.

The UK R2 DVD is too bright, everyone seems to see this other than you! In the slow-mo credit sequence on the R1 the asphalt does have a violet hue to it. I'm not sure why exactly, it's either down to scattering of light (which is possible, as the hue goes more brownish when the shot switches to a different angle) or the remastered clolour balance of that particular scene (whether that colour balance is correct or not, only Tarantino knows). The important thing is that it's the only scene in the film where Asphalt does not look grey & natural.

I don't get your 70s "heavily lit" "gritty crime thriller" assertion for 2 reasons. 1 it's a gross assumption that you arrogantly state like a fact in another thread, and 2. As I said earlier in this thread, Dogs looks so bright on the UK disc that Tarantino would've had to have used friggin' floodlights on the actors. Keitel would have melt!

If you can think of 5 70s films that have this blown out, over-exposed look in its interior scenes, list them and we can then talk about whether Tarantino was trying to achieve the same look or not. Remember lighting = more time (as shots have to be consistent between scenes) and much more money.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 01 Sep 2008, 12:36

The UK SE isnt too bad, the single disc is worse.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 01 Sep 2008, 14:37

Markgway wrote:Isn't the lighting in the bathroom flourescent? Wouldn't that create the stark brightness? Yes, the suits are made blue but that's a natural effect of that harsh lighting. It looks like a 70s movie. And I think that's intentional. More telling for me is the second cap in which the suits are clearly black on the R2 original but reddish-brown on the rest. The asphault is grey on the R2, purple on the remasters. I also think the remasters are too dark - but that's a matter of opinion perhaps?

I agree its a posibility, and a valid one.

Aside from obvious things like HKL pinking transfers, and John Badham draining the colour from Dracula, frequently I feel that the colour of a transfer can boil down to one's preference. Its not unusual for a new transfer to have a different colour scheme and that can be for any number of reasons

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 01 Sep 2008, 14:54

Did this thread really need to be brought up again? It's been done to death. Get the R1 SE or one of the BDs and Mark can stick with his beloved DVD

.

p.s - Or another DVD, easy.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 01 Sep 2008, 15:42

Shingster wrote:There appears to be no fluorescent lights in the factory, just normal lightbulbs and windows. The room Keitel and Buscemi have a smoke and chat in is lit by what looks like ceiling windows, so it's basically natural lighting. The UK R2 DVD is too bright, everyone seems to see this other than you!

It's just a theory... I'm not stating a fact. But I really don't remember the film ever being that dark. Of course I could be wrong. I accept that. Maybe the ideal brightness is somewhere in between the R1 and R2?

In the slow-mo credit sequence on the R1 the asphalt does have a violet hue to it. I'm not sure why exactly, it's either down to scattering of light (which is possible, as the hue goes more brownish when the shot switches to a different angle) or the remastered clolour balance of that particular scene (whether that colour balance is correct or not, only Tarantino knows). The important thing is that it's the only scene in the film where Asphalt does not look grey & natural.

What about the brown suits? The blacks look purer on the R2. The remasters seem very saturated to me.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 01 Sep 2008, 23:59

bradavon wrote:Did this thread really need to be brought up again? It's been done to death. Get the R1 SE or one of the BDs and Mark can stick with his beloved DVD .

p.s - Or another DVD, easy.

Brad, you're a troll. Go away