Inferno - Now You Own It - Your Reactions

[Nemesis]

And now we have two, so what is wrong with comparing them? Should we stick our heads in the ground?

Not normally no, but you have to remember that this is an unprecented case - CO has decided to trash Arrow's product by turning it into a competition with the screencaps and running commentary. It's inviting a deliberate compare and contrast contest.

Consequently you now have people plugging a rival release on Arrow's forum, which considering the circumstances, is incredibly disrespectful and premature especially when all we have are a few measly screencaps. I would also emphasize that CO has a competitive advantage over Arrow as it has seen Arrow's print and it is deliberately looking for weak spots to improve upon. This is a given amongst dvd companies - the only difference is they do not advertise it.

Personally, I think we should be keeping our counsel until we see the finished CO blu in motion and not screencaps.

I know I said earlier that I preferred the soft image, but now I'm not that sure anymore. I've discussed the grain issue with some other blu-ray enthusiasts and they've convinced me it is a vital part.

Exactly - this is what I'm talking about. You liked what you saw originally, but now you trust what others are telling you rather than what your eyes could see. And their information is not necessarily right. As a result history has been rewritten - what you've thought was a good release is now not such a good release.

It's one thing to prefer a rival release; it is another thing trying to persuade others on Arrow's own forum that its release was not good, which is blatantly wrong. That is the objection here.

[Nika]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Exactly - this is what I'm talking about. You liked what you saw originally, but now you trust what others are telling you rather than what your eyes could see. And their information is not necessarily right. As a result history has been rewritten - what you've thought was a good release is now not such a good release.

It's one thing to prefer a rival release; it is another thing trying to persuade others on Arrow's own forum that its release was not good, which is blatantly wrong. That is the objection here.

So you are telling us it is wrong to learn from other people? If we all blindly trust our own judgement and don't try anothers point of view we wouldn't get very far would we? To live is to learn.

[Nika]

Originally Posted by vinncent

Exactly! A couple of months ago we didn´t even have a Inferno on BD...and now that we do people complaine! Incredible!

It isn't about complaining, it's about being disappointed with the thus far only BD of Inferno which was anticipated for a long time. It could've been better. It's all even more strange when you look at Arrows COTLD which is a truly stunning BD! With COTLD they didn't scrub away the grain structure, why did they do so with Inferno?

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nika

It isn't about complaining, it's about being disappointed with the thus far only BD of Inferno which was anticipated for a long time. It could've been better. It's all even more strange when you look at Arrows COTLD which is a truly stunning BD! With COTLD they didn't scrub away the grain structure, why did they do so with Inferno?

I don't know how much grain there is supposed to be in Inferno but I definately see some grain.

[Kenro199x]

I've had the old Anchor Bay Inferno DVD for years. I'm perfectly fine with this new home video release. Personally I'm not a huge fan of film grain in my BR films but I accept it. My American Werewolf in London BR is full of grain but that's mainly on the type of film that was used. I don't mind it but I'd rather not see it. Inferno doesn't have that and I'm fine with that.

In an age where the Code Red release of Madman (released around the same time as AV Inferno) is horrifically color corrected and interlaced, where the 90 minute supplemental video is pretty amateurish in many technical aspects (as I've stated before I'm a professional video editor myself so I'm picky in certain things, although I've been told I'm not picky enough) I can't believe that the AV Inferno is getting the amount of grief it's getting. To each his own I suppose but as a consumer who's re-purchasing movies I already own in order to get the Arrow Video versions at extra expense I'm obviously very pleased with my purchases.

[Nemesis]

So you are telling us it is wrong to learn from other people? If we all blindly trust our own judgement and don't try anothers point of view we wouldn't get very far would we? To live is to learn.

I think people should trust their own judgment, not necessarily blindly, because at the end of the day the best kind of critic is one's own critic. I certainly do not think one should modify their position to go with the flow, because several people hold a certain position e.g. grain at all costs on blu.

To give an example, I'm sure many people do not agree with the best film of all times lists: examples such as Godfather, Casablanca, Third Man, Seven Samurai, Schindler's List.

I bet some people find some of these absolute stinkers - should they alter their position just because they are in the minority?

[Nika]

After sleeping on it a night I've decided to answer to this post, mostly to clear up some misconceptions. I have to do it in two posts, because the site wouldn't allow one. First let's tackle this whole silly CO smear campaign:

Originally Posted by Nemesis

However, what I can guarantee is that when BU makes its push, you will not see it bragging on forums or websites how better its release is, like CO is doing over Arrow. It will submit its version let the picture stand and then let the supporters and detractors fight it out. Both Arrow and BU released COTLD at around the same time - you did not see them pull these tactics on each other.

Well, first of all, they really didn't have to, because sites like DVDBeaver did it for them. They posted a comparison, so people could make up their minds as to which one is better. Camera Obscura is a pretty small company with not so much exposure, I don't think I've ever seen one of their titles compared on DVDBeaver, so it's really very logical they seek out other ways.

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Another example is the recent version of Hausu - MoC released a dvd version earlier this year and Criterion is just releasing the Blu. If you look at dvdbeaver caps, the blu blows the dvd out of the water. But nevertheless, there is no sign of triumphalism on Criterion's part and many people who bought the dvd will either keep it and double dip, or upgrade. They enjoyed the dvd release for the time, then something better came along. You do not hear the sort of criticism from them that you are applying here.

Well, you're wrong there. As you can see on their official website Criterion actually posted a comparison between their version of 'L'enfance nue' and the MoC and explaining the rationale behind the differences. I really don't see how that's different from what CO does. Also, when the screencaps of MoC's La vie de Jesus on Beaver were completely unrepresentative of the actual film, MoC themselves stepped in and make their own grabs, as seen in 'More captures from the MoC'. In both instances I only see a company trying to protect its product, which seems perfectly logical to me. Also, it seems a bit contradictory to say the least, that you're charging CO with elitism and lack of visibility, but when they try to become more visible by putting out a few sceenshots, all hell breaks loose.

But besides, a lot of people here are actually implying or are just saying that people shouldn't buy the CO disc because of their so-called dubious tactics. One person actually went so far as stating he didn't care about picture quality but only bought releases from labels he trusted or something to that effect. I'm sorry, but that's the logic of a ten year old. When the product of a label is good, buy it, when it isn't don't. I really don't see how all the other things could possibly matter. If it turned out CO was run by a bunch of Nazi's, I really couldn't care less - it's their product that matters. And just to be clear, I have no affiliation whatsoever with CO, I've never even bought one of their discs - Inferno will be the first.

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Naturally, rival companies will then have the advantage as they will try to find ways of bettering the release, thereby raising the bar. CO will naturally try to better Arrow's release, and in turn BU will have its turn and try to better both releases. Most companies will always want to better the version out there - it's a fact of life.

And it's not exactly gone unnoticed that CO originally promised a September release which is now being pushed back even further. They no doubt waited for a frame of reference - the Arrow release - to work with and to look for things they could do better. At this point, I would not even be surprised if they pushed it back further to wait and see what the BU looks like.

This is all pure speculation. Yes, sometimes companies learn from other mistakes, but that doesn't really account for the discrepancies between releases. Every good label has it's own vision and makes their product accordingly. Both Criterion and MoC released 'Vampyr' in 2008, with Criterion beating MoC to the punch by a couple of months. But do you really believe MoC actually tried to better the Criterion when they released quite a different version of the same film? I think not. The differences are readily explainable by the different strategies both labels constantly adopt, with MoC always preferring as little digital clean-up as possible and Criterion always slightly boosting their picture a bit, with the difference that MoC always has a more natural feel and Criterion a slightly 'better'/cleaner. You'd only have to look at the releases of, say, 'M' (both on Blu) or 'The Burmese Harp' to see exactly the same differences. Accordingly, I really can't believe CO is really trying to 'better' the Arrow, they're just trying to make look 'Inferno' as best as possible and they understand grain is quite simply an essential ingredient. Also, as you so cheerful pointed out to me, most critics disagree with me and think the Arrow Inferno looks stunning, so when we follow that rationale there isn't much to improve upon, right? Or are you now more or less acknowledging Arrow really dropped the ball on this one?

Originally Posted by Nemesis

But please tell me - even if CO's Inferno turns out to have better PQ, what is the point if most people will not be able to see it? CO is pretty much an exclusive afficionado distributor from its current track record - it does not seem to sell in stores and seems to sell on only 4 or 5 online outlets - none of them big like Amazon de. It will not have mainstream appeal and only those in the know will know how to track it down. A case of elitism, at its worst.

As well as care and trying to gauge its cosumers, at least Arrow allows easy access to its products.

So, you're actually saying here that potatoes are better than caviar, because the former are widely available at every supermarket and the latter only in a few delicatessen shops?

[Nika]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

You may be a grain purist but I'm sorry the grain = film argument has not been won, not by a long shot. Quite simply, some people do not like grain even if it is authentic and presents the film in the form that it was supposed to be seen - they may not care if the film looks waxy, but to them it looks good. Look at some of the comments of Predator Ultimate on Amazon. For the reverse, some people hated the grain on the Ghostbusters blu. With such a division of views, DVD and Blu companies will have one heck of a time trying to please both sides.

I'm sorry to rock your little world, but it really isn't an argument. Grain = film is a fact, not an opinion. It's just that a lot of people have a very distorted view of what a film should look like, because of years of watching second-rate duplications like DVD and TV. Because the resolution of DVD isn't high enough, it wasn't able to render grain good enough, so on most DVD's it wasn't visible or at least not very much. Blu-ray is the first home-video medium that's capable of maintaining a good grain structure, so an element that's always been an essential ingredient of film has long last been restored. So in fact, some people are now for the first time in their lives actually seeing grain and when they see all those funny little dots on the screen, they go 'hey, wait a minute, I've never seen this before, it isn't what I'm used to, so this most be bad'. Well, that's quite unfortunate for them, but the only thing those people have to do is changing their concept of what film should look like. Thank god, virtually every label out there sees BD (rightfully so) as an opportunity to approach the way films looked upon release in theatres and try to recapture this on BD. And for that grain is essential, it's really as simple as that. So unless, you're actually trying to say that a BD shouldn't look like film always has, but instead like some plastic fantastic travesty of the original film just to cater to some people with a distorted view of film, you're just talking nonsense. Yes, some people probably prefer to see Arnie look like a plastic action figure instead of a man of flesh and blood, but instead of catering to such people, labels should try to educate them. Eventually, they will probably see the ways of their error and change their minds.

And why do you think is it, that for every Predator or Patton DNR disaster, there are, say 100 releases that actually do show grain? Why do you think that virtually all releases of highly regarded companies like Criterion, BFI, Blue Underground, MoC or even most of the major studios, show grain in abundance? Just because it strikes their fancy? No, because that's the way film is supposed to look. Labels like that have an obligation to their films and film-makers, not towards some idiotic nitwit consumers who prefer a waxy DNR image, just because they just don't know where it's at.

Also, the rendering of grain is very much dependent of the quality of your blu-ray player. I recently switched from my relatively cheap Momitsu 899 to a much more expensive Oppo 83 and the differences are very pronounced. I suspected it for some time, but wasn't really sure until I watched the beautiful Arrow BD of 'City of the Living Dead' again, the first BD I had watched on both systems. Because of the differences I hooked up my Momitsu again and watched them back to back and it turned out the image on the Oppo was much less grainy than on the Momitsu. On the Oppo the grain is still very much there, but much less obtrusive. The Oppo is actually capable of the making the grain an integral part of the image, so you still have all the advantages of grain (detail, texture, depth etc.), without being 'bothered' by it. So I would suggest to people who call themselves grain-haters (which is really a silly word, it's exactly the same as saying 'I don't like the way celluloid film looks), should invest in a better BD player if they are so much bothered by grain. The differences can be quite spectacular.

Finally, let me say something again about the Arrow Inferno. Some people have said that it's not as bad as I make it out to be. Well, I still stand by my convictions 100%, and I shall clarify a bit why. Last night I watched the BD of 'Rio Bravo' for the first time. Throughout the whole picture (except for the last 20 minutes, where it inexplicably suddenly disappears), there is some unfortunate brown, sluggish hue on everything - Dean Martin looked like he had been sunbathing in olive oil for a couple of days. It's far from perfect, but I actually didn't mind that much, because almost everything else looked fine, and most importantly the image was very much alive and breathing - exactly what a BD should do. But all the strong points of the Inferno disc become pretty irrelevant, quite simply because the image never comes to life. So, yes it's sharper, colors are better and the music is spectacular, but what does that all matter when the image is as dead as a doornail - courtesy of the scrubbing out of grain?

You can compare it with a dead man: you can dress him up real nice, do his hair and everything and he will look pretty for his funeral, but not only will he never come back to life, he will look dead at all times. The fancy clothes and make-up can never quite conceal that little fact. So that's what the Arrow pretty much boils down to: a dressed-up corpse.

[Pete]

Potatoes are better than caviar. Caviar is horrible

[Almar@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Nika

If it turned out CO was run by a bunch of Nazi's, I really couldn't care less - it's their product that matters.

I think this is comment is in extremely poor taste given that this is a German company you're referring to and totally unacceptable behaviour. As such this thread is now closed and I can only offer my apologies that a member on here has decided that this is appropriate language in a debate about Blu-rays. This is very disappointing indeed.