Goldeneye: R1 SE vs. R1 UE

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 14 Dec 2006, 23:52

Any particularly bad scenes IM? So CJ can check and report back.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 15 Dec 2006, 16:40

captainjoe wrote:I never noticed the aliasing in the new transfer...
I have to keep an eye out when I watch it next time.
I'll do Live and Let Die tomorrow as I have a lot to do tonight.

Were you even watching the UE version? The aliasing affects just about every scene! And I'm not exaggerating either. It really is that bad.

bradavon wrote:Any particularly bad scenes IM? So CJ can check and report back.

All of them! I am watching on a 37" plasma screen though, so people watching on a smaller screen may not notice as much. I'm positive I would definitely notice all the aliasing even on my old 24" widescreen CRT (which I don't have anymore).

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 15 Dec 2006, 21:11

Maybe it's just your copy because on my 56' HDTV I saw none at all. And I always notice these things.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 15 Dec 2006, 21:20

I just check on two TVs and my computer and there is none at all. It looks better on the TV and computer if anything.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 15 Dec 2006, 22:35

captainjoe wrote:Maybe it's just your copy because on my 56' HDTV I saw none at all. And I always notice these things.

I seriously doubt that. How could it just be my copy? They're all the same! I'm telling you the problem is there. It is only on the GoldenEye UE, not any of the other UE Bond films I have.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 16 Dec 2006, 01:08

Well I didn't see it at all.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 16 Dec 2006, 18:10

Don't forget guys IM you're watching the UK and CJ the USA DVD.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 16 Dec 2006, 18:35

true. That could mean something. I swear though there is none at all on the R1.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 16 Dec 2006, 20:33

Ah yes, sorry I forgot about that. I suppose it could be something that went wrong on the UK disc which was then fixed for the US version?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Dec 2006, 00:35

I'd be willing to test it when the R1 comes out on it's own but they still messed up the cropping good and proper :shock:

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Dec 2006, 00:52

Sad thing is: that the HD versions will be from the same master.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Dec 2006, 07:17

Markgway wrote:Sad thing is: that the HD versions will be from the same master.

It'll also be the master used for all home entertainment format releases for many years to come...

Barbarian King · Post by **Barbarian King** » 21 Feb 2007, 15:25

Personally, I think the UE has the superior picture and the framing looks better on the UE as well. Also, the more subdued colors and slightly darker image look closer to the way it looked in theaters 12 years ago. By comparison, the SE transfer looks overly bright and the framing looks off. I'd imagine since Campbell supervised all of the new extra features, he was also involved quite a bit with the transfer. It's director approved, so that's all I really need. Remember, just because the original DVD came before, doesn't mean it was correct.

Plus, just as a transfer, it's much better.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 21 Feb 2007, 22:50

Barbarian King wrote:Personally, I think the UE has the superior picture and the framing looks better on the UE as well. Also, the more subdued colors and slightly darker image look closer to the way it looked in theaters 12 years ago. By comparison, the SE transfer looks overly bright and the framing looks off. I'd imagine since Campbell supervised all of the new extra features, he was also involved quite a bit with the transfer. It's director approved, so that's all I really need. Remember, just because the original DVD came before, doesn't mean it was correct.

Plus, just as a transfer, it's much better.

Agree with what you say, but we still need to get a good answer from Lowry or MGM/Sony/Fox. Many can only assume the UE was badly monitered. As of now I'm kind of split down the middle.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 28 Mar 2007, 05:54

The new evidence that has come up with the different titles used during the title sequence prove something is fishy with this title.

This has another example which shows it more clearly than my capture:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/sho ... 65&page=31

Barbarian King · Post by **Barbarian King** » 28 Mar 2007, 10:34

I saw that. Could it be that Campbell requested new placement of the titles since he was involved so much with this Ultimate Edition set? They look different in style and even kinda in the font than the ones on the old DVD.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 28 Mar 2007, 15:01

I just wish we had something official from the Studio. If they announced that Martin Campbell personally approved the transfer then I'd be fine. The cropping doesn't affect my viewing experience but I hate knowing I'm not getting all that the director intended. So if Sony announced that Campbell approved the transfer I'd be satisfied.

Barbarian King · Post by **Barbarian King** » 28 Mar 2007, 15:31

I get the sense that he did, since he was very involved with all of the new supplements, which were very plentiful.

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 28 Mar 2007, 15:50

I thought of that after writing my previous comment. That's a good point, yuo'd think if he was so highly involved in the new release that he'd at least take an interest in the restoration. That goes for the other films with the directors involved in extras.

Barbarian King · Post by **Barbarian King** » 28 Mar 2007, 18:24

captainjoe wrote:I thought of that after writing my previous comment. That's a good point, yuo'd think if he was so highly involved in the new release that he'd at least take an interest in the restoration. That goes for the other films with the directors involved in extras.

Yeah, perhaps there some continuity problem or something along those lines that made John Glen tighten in some of the framing during the beginning of AVTAK. I know he was pretty involved in a lot of the new features on his films as well.

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 30 Mar 2007, 06:16

Hello, I'm new here and this is my first post. I've been reading the forum for over two years. You should know some professionals check it from time to time (no, I won't tell who). 8)

I doubt Martin Campbell was involved beyond giving a couple of afternoon to get the interviews done, nor that John Glen decided out of the blue to reframe AVTAK. I say the culprits are Lowry Digital, who are in my opinion a bunch of overpriced overrated hacks. When you do a restoration like the Bond series, you should not be allowed one single error. Especially when accounting the insane amount of money you are paid for it.

I'd say the telecine technician just did the reframing on the fly, and no one noticed. Perhaps the negative or interpositives they used had some minor damages on the corners, and they reframed to hide those, rather than digitally correct them. I do direct HD telecine myself on occasion, and did a bunch of blockbusters, I watched other technicians at work, and it send shivers down the spine, when you watch two guys in another booth, who decide on the fly what is the framing of a 1963 movie switching from 1.66 to 1.85 to 2.35 until the say "that MUST be it".

Many older movies have "safe areas", which means a 1.85:1 movie may actually have enough safe area on one side or another, to frame in 2.35. When all you get is the interpositive, with no or little indication on the box about the final format, it's of course easy to get confused. Techs are paid by the hour. They may have one or two days to do an entire movie. They don't fuss around, hence the many weirdness the fans will find later on when the movie is out.

Barbarian King · Post by **Barbarian King** » 30 Mar 2007, 15:52

MGM provided the negatives to Lowry. All Lowry were required to do were clean up the prints and re-colortime the films to the specifications that MGM requested. Lowry just did the work, they didn't decide to change anything that wasn't approved by MGM. So if Campbell and Glen, who were both very involved in the new supplements for these DVD's, requested MGM for certain changes, then it was their doing. Lowry is basically just the work-horse here. Any changes requested by MGM or the directors were solely those made by MGM and worked on based on said specifications by Lowry.

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 30 Mar 2007, 16:30

I doubt someone from MGM sat in the booth color correcting each frame of each Bond movie. It's not MGM who decides the colors, it's the Lowry guys handling the Spirit machine. Are you saying there was a guy from MGM who was in charge of the whole restoration, who okayed everything ? Then he should be fired and give his salary back. He apparentely didn't know shit about the Bond movies.
If you are saying that MGM sent the negatives, with a list of the colors that should be in every frame and that all Lowry had to do is conform it, it's wrong, it's impossible to do such a thing.
At the HD section, you receive a negative or interpositive. You run it, and just adjust the colors on the fly, to anything you find acceptable, within the limitations of the material you got. Usually, there is no chaperone, except others guys from the same company. Because time is limited, you also often don't have the time to check the original colors on olders DVDs or VHS. Unless, that is, someone is assigned by the owners of the movie, be it the director, of photography, or just a guy who knows the movie inside out, to make sure the final results is top nocht.
So far, we never heard, anywhere, that those transferts were director approved. And I seriously doubt that Martin Campbell authorized, or instigated, the reframing of GE. Ditto John Glen for AVTAK.
Perhaps they got a DVD-R, and just browsed throught it and didn't notice. I mean Glen had 5 movies to OK, and MC was busy on CR. It could happen that they just said great, without really bothering to check everything inside out. But so far, we never heard anything about those being director approved, and in the case of Thunderball, (washed out colors), OHMSS (blue lagoon opening), it's obviously impossible to say the directors said great. They're dead.
Most of these transferts are great thought, but when they fucked up, they fucked up big time, and in ways that could easily have been avoided.

I'm just saying, there's too much of a gap between scanning all those in 4K or 8K or whatever, and fucking up so big time frame issues, colors issues, and the whole Pal DVD issues, which are inferior and obviously a work in progress. It's like feeding your dog Bollinger 62 champagne and caviar.

I do agree thought, that it's possible that both Glen and Campbell may have asked for the movies to be zoomboxed a bit. But in this age of 16/9 TV, you have to wonder why they didn't do that the first time around, when all there was was 4/3 TV in most homes, and why, in the case of Glen, all his 5 movies weren't reframed that way. One can't tell, unless asking the directors.

Barbarian King · Post by **Barbarian King** » 30 Mar 2007, 18:21

MGM supplyed the negatives and the instructions on how to restore the films to their specifications. Lowry followed their orders.

They had the negatives, which were in terrific shape from the begging, to work with. There wasn't a huge amount of tinkering done other than cleaning up the images; removing dirt, scratches, etc. Whatever other instructions for Lowry were made by MGM and MGM alone. MGM supplyed the prints, Lowry merely restored them to MGM's specifications.

chenlung · Post by **chenlung** » 30 Mar 2007, 18:37

Barbarian King wrote:Lowry followed their orders.

Not really

.