Cult Labs

Go Back   Cult Labs > Film Discussions > Horror > Before The 1970's > The 1950's

Like Tree167Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 19th October 2012, 07:03 PM
Cultist
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rik View Post
What's wrong with the BD of Dracula:POD?
Excessive noise reduction and an unnatural greenish/yellow tint that gives everyone a weird looking waxy pallor.
oaxaca and zane like this.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 19th October 2012, 07:11 PM
Rik's Avatar
Rik Rik is offline
Cult Veteran
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax,UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert W View Post
Excessive noise reduction and an unnatural greenish/yellow tint that gives everyone a weird looking waxy pallor.
Can't say I've noticed TBH and I've watched it a few times
__________________
If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the ****ing car!
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 19th October 2012, 07:51 PM
oaxaca's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: West Mids UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert W View Post
Excessive noise reduction and an unnatural greenish/yellow tint that gives everyone a weird looking waxy pallor.
Totally agree, was really disappointed with the DPOD transfer. However, I'm glad Curse of Frankenstein looked pretty decent. The colours were a bit washed out in places and detail wasn't great but I think its probably about the best they/anyone could do with it. At least they didn't resort to heavy handed DNR etc
__________________
*Charles Bronson makes Duke (Juan Fernandez) swallow his Rolex Watch*
Duke: "I'm dying!"
Bronson: "No you're not... But you are gonna have to stick your head between your legs to tell the time."

Blu Rays ---- Vinyl ---- For Sale / Trade ---- Blu Spaghetti
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 19th October 2012, 08:58 PM
Cultist
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaxaca View Post
Totally agree, was really disappointed with the DPOD transfer. However, I'm glad Curse of Frankenstein looked pretty decent. The colours were a bit washed out in places and detail wasn't great but I think its probably about the best they/anyone could do with it. At least they didn't resort to heavy handed DNR etc
From what I've read the source materials for the new CoF bd were the same ones that were used by WB for their R1 disc.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 19th October 2012, 09:12 PM
Seasoned Cultist
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Same source, new 4k scan by WB.
__________________
Kundun Rat Terrier: 8/16/02-3/26/11. RIP, Ku...
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 20th October 2012, 01:39 AM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert W View Post
There seems to be some disagreement amongst genre enthusiasts as to just what aspect ratio best befits this title. According to one review I've read the 1:66.1 version seems a little "off" looking, while the 1:33.1 version, some say, looks a little better, albeit with a little more head room than the 1:66.1 version. Further confusing the issue is the fact that the source materials used for the bd are framed at 1:77.1.

A very confusing state of affairs, if you ask me.
I'd substitute 'genre enthusiasts' with 'anal retentives', but that's just me.

Some good, reliable friends have told me this HD release is really good. So, y'know, I'll go with that recommendation. This is someone who has actually watched it and not run it through some Krypton Factor testing first.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 20th October 2012, 12:37 PM
TJ Doc's Avatar
Active Cultist
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Default

Okay, I'm somewhat confuzzled. I saw the screencaps on Hammer's blog (regarding the aspect ratio), and was initially pleased, but THEN I read all the angry evidence to the contrary, which made me a bit frowney.

But I still don't know what to think.

So my question is: what are the fatal downsides of this apparently bastardised fullscreen version? Is there a quarter of an inch missing from the sides or something?

Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 20th October 2012, 07:05 PM
Cultist
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJ Doc View Post
Okay, I'm somewhat confuzzled. I saw the screencaps on Hammer's blog (regarding the aspect ratio), and was initially pleased, but THEN I read all the angry evidence to the contrary, which made me a bit frowney.

But I still don't know what to think.

So my question is: what are the fatal downsides of this apparently bastardised fullscreen version? Is there a quarter of an inch missing from the sides or something?

If you look at the screencaps, you'll see that the fullscreen version actually contains more visual information than either the 1.66:1 or 1.77:1 framed versions.

So in answer to your question, no, there really aren't any downsides to this this disc, as 1) the fullscreen version contains the most information, and 2) the disc has great extras. What's more, this is the first, at least to my knowledge, that the uncensored versions of CoF has ever been available on disc.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 20th October 2012, 07:43 PM
TJ Doc's Avatar
Active Cultist
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Default

Well yeah, that's what I thought too!

But there's so much vitriol being directed towards this release, I figured I must be missing something. I did hear about Hammer incorrectly framing the 1.66:1 version (hence the cropped heads), so maybe that has something to do with it.

Or I dunno, maybe it's just a hardcore purist thing.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 20th October 2012, 08:01 PM
Cultist
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Default

Well according to Hammer, the film was originally meant to be viewed in the 1.66:1 aspect ratio, but judging by the screencaps, I'm a little leery of that claim, as the fullscreen/1.33:1 version does looks, at least to my eyes, the better framed of the two.

Still, I really don't see how you can complain about the 1.33:1 version, as it does contain more information than any other previous version released to date. That and the fact that Hammer didn't decide to "juice up" the special effects with some new CGI shots, make this, imo, the definitive release of the film.

Of course there's always the old WB R1 disc.
Reply With Quote
Reply  

Like this? Share it using the links below!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Our goal is to keep Cult Labs friendly. If you feel discouraged from posting by certain members' behaviour then you can e-mail us in complete confidence.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All forum posts are contributed by members of the site; Cult Labs cannot take responsibility for all content posted on the site. If you have an issue with content posted on the site please click the 'report post' button.
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.