Taxi Driver UK R2 vs. UK R2 SE

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Oct 2007, 01:51

BEWARE SPOILERS!

Picture:

The Remaster job is a huge improvement. The colours are much more vivid and vibrant, the picture is sharper too. The old DVD is grainy in places (particularly the finale scene), most of that is now gone. It is also too dark in places, the SE is definitely brighter. I do not know which is DP approved.

Sound:

A mixed bag. The UK R2 has a Stereo remix (not Dolby Surround) and the UK R2 SE a DD5.1 remix (the original Mono is not included on either DVD), both are entirely front focused.

On the whole Sony has done a respectful job remastering the audio into 5.1, this is no Anchor Bay 5.1 remix. The 5.1 is restrained and at times does help a wee bit to bring the audio to life BUT when comparing it to the Stereo remix it is sadly too over the top at times, especially during the music right at the end of the film. Like I said it's a fair effort but in my opinion it was entirely unnecessary and at the very least the Stereo remix should've also been included. Think your average DD5.1 remix from most Big Western Studio and you'll get the idea.

To put it in context I don't consider the 5.1 "that" bad it's worth losing the glorious picture remastering job. I guess that says it all.

Average Bitrates:

UK R2 - DVD9 - 5.34Mb
UK R2 SE - DVD9 - 6.13Mb

Captures:

The mark on the last capture lasts one frame. I counted the number of frames to make sure I had the exact same frame on the SE capture.

Top - UK R2 (1999)
Bottom - UK R2 SE (2007)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Oct 2007, 02:07

If anyone can add captures for any non-UK R2 that would be cool.

Captures were created using Lourdes' instructions. I have used the first frame from a new scene to make it easier for other to add more captures. The mark on the last capture is 16 frames after the proceeding scene.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 06 Oct 2007, 02:25

Thanks brad, I could throw up my R4 caps (I suspect that it'll be identical to the old R2UK though.).

The 2.0 Surround mix was approved by Scorsese BTW, so it's not so bad that we lost the mono (which I only think is on the R2J Superbit anyway).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Oct 2007, 02:41

No worries.

I borrowed my brother's UK R2 (having sold mine) to compare the audio and figured I may as well throw up captures while I have it.

EvaUnit02 wrote:I could throw up my R4 caps (I suspect that it'll be identical to the old R2UK though.).

You could check a capture or so and if it looks identical not bother. I don't see the point if it's a 100% identical disc.

R1 captures would be more beneficial, for those who have them.

EvaUnit02 wrote:The 2.0 Surround mix was approved by Scorsese BTW, so it's not so bad that we lost the mono (which I only think is on the R2J Superbit anyway).

It's a Stereo remix not Surround, at least it certainly doesn't sound like a Surround remix.

The look of the SB is somewhat the same as the SE. I wouldn't be surprised if the SE transfer is the SB transfer, the same goes for the DD5.1. No Mono on the SB just the Stereo or DD5.1/DTS remixes:

http://avplay.avforums.com/index.php?sh ... eview=7521

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 06 Oct 2007, 03:40

bradavon wrote: It's a Stereo remix not Surround, at least it certainly doesn't sound like a Surround remix.

Nope, my R4 has a 2.0 track that's flagged and decoded as surround.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 06 Oct 2007, 06:19

I could add my R1 SE captures but they'd be identical to the UK R2 SE. I probably will eventually.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 06 Oct 2007, 08:17

I like the warmer hues of the remaster. What's taking so long with the BRD?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Oct 2007, 14:36

Good question, pass. It was supposed to be date and date but that never happened.

The remastering job is a big improvement, more so than these captures show. You can see all the oodles of grain in the fifth shot though. The mark on the last capture is inexcusable. I guess no on has spotted it before as it only lasts one frame so would be on the screen for a less than a second.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 06 Oct 2007, 18:33

Why is it that when Tarantino deliberately "grains up" Death Proof you praise the stylistic touch it gives the film, yet you have a problem when a 1976 low budget 35mm feature looks a bit grainy in places? Tarantino didn't use any special kind of grain or anything, just regular grainy film.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Oct 2007, 19:32

As a rule I don't like grain but in Death Proof it works, the whole point of the first half of Death Proof is to look old and dodgy. QT chose to add grain, AFAIK Scorsese didn't. If there was grain on Reservoir Dogs my comments would've been the same.

If grain can otherwise be removed without bringing it's own problems I'm all for it. There is no grain in the real world is there?

It's only my opinion at the end of the day. Just like all the review sites out there, such as DVD Times.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 07 Oct 2007, 02:01

bradavon wrote:If grain can otherwise be removed without bringing it's own problems I'm all for it.

90% DVD transfer softness issues are down to grain removal, so usually as a rule it does come with its own problems.

Just like all the review sites out there, such as DVD Times.

Well in DVDTimes' case the site doesn't have a general techincal reviewing method, so it's really down to the individual reviewer (same as most other sites). Certainly if I reviewed Taxi Driver, I wouldn't be marking it down for exhibiting film grain.

There is no grain in the real world is there?

No, but cinema is an artform that for over a hundred years now has been by & large expressed on a grainy format. Your argument here is like saying art painted on a canvass is unlike the real world or it somehow looks worse because you can see the texture of the canvass.

I agree with you to a point that many directors in Hollywood would want their films transfered to DVD grain free, but just as many (if not more) directors prefer the look of grainy 35mm film (certainly the more artisitic directors do). Scorsese I would say is undoubtedly one of them.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Oct 2007, 02:45

I have no argument

.

I just wanted to post my thoughts on the new SE and particularly the mixed bag 5.1 remix. I only mentioned the grain in passing. I figured I may as well throw up a comparison while I was at it, especially as I currently have both DVDs.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 07 Oct 2007, 03:19

Indeed nor am I trying to be contrary, I guess my initial point is that for certain films, a certain level of grain should be considered a positive thing. A Taxi Driver transfer exhibiting grain is a good thing, but say American Pie had a transfer that was grainy as fuck, well that's a different case!

Essentially you have to look at certain directors and cinematographers and ask yourself whether they shoot their movies like they're trying to evoke true "realism", or are trying to tell a realistic story within the medium of "film". You might disagree with me on this one, but I would rate Scorsese as someone who belongs to the latter.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Oct 2007, 17:04

Shingster wrote:You might disagree with me on this one, but I would rate Scorsese as someone who belongs to the latter.

I agree.

I also agree to an extent grain does work in a film like Taxi Driver. It's no Hero in it's look.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Oct 2007, 03:34

Average bitrates added. I was expecting the SE to be higher.