Questions about 'remastering' films

[Brad]

DVDBeaver has significant and inconsistent issues with their screenshots, including overcompression, incorrect color matrices, and some unknown factor that often completely kills the resolution. Sometimes they are accurate and sometimes they are terribly misrepresentative.

When I emailed the site owner about one particular Star Trek season review with heavy aliasing in the screenshots he fixed the issue promptly. Then the next review that was posted had the same problems. I also know that a DVD producer on Doom9 had issues getting them to correct the shots of a project he worked on. As nice of a guy as the siterunner is, he doesn't seem to be particularly tech-minded.

[intracube]

DVDBeaver has significant and inconsistent issues with their screenshots, including overcompression, incorrect color matrices, and some unknown factor that often completely kills the resolution. Sometimes they are accurate and sometimes they are terribly misrepresentative.

Interesting.

For an example of a pristine 4K remastering effort: http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/titanic-blu-ray-disc-review/
(lots of samples at the bottom of the page)
Hard to believe that was 16 years ago.

[smrpix]

Titanic also brings up a couple of knotty issues in remastering.

Shooting full aperature (Super 35mm) allows for aleternate compositions. Indeed Cameron has been known for utilizing this option for theatrical vs television versions of his films for years. Specifically, the 3D version of Titanic contains "extra" image information in its 1.77:1 frame. More of the negative is utilzed, but still not all of it. And where does a "fake" 3D version fit into the thinking regarding future preservation and restoration?

[jman98]

intracube and vaporeon800 - the point of my post was NOT to say "DVDBeaver is perfect and whatever they say comes directly from the mouth of Gad and cannot be challenged." Are we clear on that?

The point was to give a dissenting point of view against the OP and they just happened to be handy.

Are we clear on that?

Good grief.

I'm not suggesting that DVDBeaver is perfect, but you do need to consider something. They ONLY review films they like. So you should not expect them to post negative reviews ever because they don't do it. The worst they will ever say is "the movie is great but the transfer is flawed". Again folks, it was just an example to make my point about the OP being overly fussy. It wasn't intended to be taken as anything else.

[manono]

I'm not suggesting that DVDBeaver is perfect, but you do need to consider something. They ONLY review films they like. So you should not expect them to post negative reviews ever because they don't do it.

Are you speaking of the DVDBeaver site owner, Gary Tooze? Because that's not true at all:

Every once in a while I need a refresher course in why I don't watch a lot of modern Hollywood films.

With all the subtlety of a train wreck, Steven Spielberg continues his infamous Hollywood legacy, by continually appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator, in his newest film, a remake of the 53' classic, War Of The Worlds (loosely based on H.G. Wells novel).

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews19/war_of_the_worlds_2005_dvd_review.htm

But you're sort of right. He doesn't often watch or review films he knows he won't like. Can't blame him for that. There are already enough reviewers of Hollywood's output. He's carved out his own niche reviewing and commenting on the DVDs and Blu-Rays of lesser-known and often times 'art' films.

[Brad]

the point of my post was NOT to say "DVDBeaver is perfect and whatever they say comes directly from the mouth of Gad and cannot be challenged."

And my post didn't reference anything about what they SAY.