James Bond on Blu-ray/4K

1110111112113114116»

Comments

  • Posts: 18,129
    Agree, "Pop Art" might be the best way to describe these covers. I was thinking earlier today actually, that the DN one would look great as a big poster on my living room wall :D
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 1 Posts: 18,801
    Yeah, it's pretty stylish!

    I guess the issue has been how to make them look like they're all part of the new series of releases. Just putting the poster art on the front won't do that as the posters are so varied. And putting them in some sort of holding device like a box or something is naff and does no favours to the original artwork. The 90s Special Edition covers were aiming to create a unified series of covers too, as much as I'm not keen on them with their weird little hands grafted on to everything. There were those ones in the early 90s or 80s where the posters appeared inside a sort of blue gunbarrel, I'm not too keen on those either.
    I think these are possibly the most stylish and artistic set of covers we've had, but I sympathise with folks who would like a bit more action on there. I guess ultimately, these films are so old that you're not really trying to appeal to new buyers on the shelf, folks will either know the films or they won't so having the title big works for that.
    I mean I watch the complete Blu Ray set, and that comes in completely white, blank covers! These new ones are much cooler.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,858
    The covers would probably be fine as paperback novels, but for movies? I think uniform design could be done a lot better. It just bewilders me that they would not even use Connery’s image. I wasn’t crazy about the 2015 designs, but I think those could still work as the uniform design, preferably with better still images and retaining the original title font, with the 007 logo prominently displayed. Done in a way that can work perfectly as thumbnail images when scrolling on streaming services. I’m not sure the paperback style is ideal for grabbing eyeballs.
  • edited August 2 Posts: 18,129
    Compared to the complete Blu-ray set which @mtm mentions, these are indeed much better – at least "different". With the number of releases we've had of these films over the years, I'm sure it's not easy to come up with something "new" while retaining a uniform design language. I don't think they've succeeded completely here, but it could be a lot worse!

    If I were making these covers, I'd probably choose a very recognisable image or some form of recognisable imagery from each film, with the title featured prominently. Not necessarily big, but still prominently. It might not have been something that different to what we have seen done before, but it could have worked I guess.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred San Monique
    Posts: 1,428
    Covers seem fine for me! I don’t mind the options to buy the films solo in 4K. Hopefully they keep going on the next set. I’m sure we will have the all the films by the time Bond 26 is out .
  • Posts: 308
    Oh boy this ain't good
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,548
    He's an intelligent dude and certainly knows his stuff. That said, he's also an overly picky bitch at times lol.
    It's a fine release. My only real issue was the goof in the Atmos track.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,801
    That’s nearly as long as the film.
    The disc looks great in my opinion.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,858
    Remington wrote: »
    He's an intelligent dude and certainly knows his stuff. That said, he's also an overly picky bitch at times lol.
    It's a fine release. My only real issue was the goof in the Atmos track.

    Even on reviews he’s generally positive about, he does have a tendency to strongly emphasize the negatives more than the positives.

    “This is a very good release and probably the best it’ll ever look BUT MY GOD THEY DESECRATED THE PICTURE, AND IF YOU SIT A FEW INCHES FROM YOUR TV YOU CAN SEE SOME ARTIFACTS! RECALL! RECALL!”

    The goof on the Atmos track definitely took me out though. A pity because I would have loved a perfect Atmos that was more true to the sound aesthetic of the mono, but at least the actual mono mix is available. Otherwise I thought the disc looked great. You have to be REALLY nitpicky to call the picture quality unworthy.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 771
    It certainly wouldn't be the first disc ever to be released with a goof when it comes to the Atmos thing among other shortcomings (I remember the initial release of Rocky on 4K was raked over the coals), so I'm sure it'll get corrected in the next run. I had a great time with it and thought it look spectacular - better than the Blu-ray to my eyes.

    Funny enough, I wouldn't have ever known about the Atmos thing because despite my desire to have the best picture possible, I'm not a die hard audiophile with respect to surround mixes. Give me a stereo or mono mix any day. I watched with the theatrical audio.
  • Posts: 308
    Remington wrote: »
    He's an intelligent dude and certainly knows his stuff. That said, he's also an overly picky bitch at times lol.
    It's a fine release. My only real issue was the goof in the Atmos track.

    Even on reviews he’s generally positive about, he does have a tendency to strongly emphasize the negatives more than the positives.

    “This is a very good release and probably the best it’ll ever look BUT MY GOD THEY DESECRATED THE PICTURE, AND IF YOU SIT A FEW INCHES FROM YOUR TV YOU CAN SEE SOME ARTIFACTS! RECALL! RECALL!”

    The goof on the Atmos track definitely took me out though. A pity because I would have loved a perfect Atmos that was more true to the sound aesthetic of the mono, but at least the actual mono mix is available. Otherwise I thought the disc looked great. You have to be REALLY nitpicky to call the picture quality unworthy.

    What does he mean by frozen film grain?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited August 10 Posts: 8,858
    Remington wrote: »
    He's an intelligent dude and certainly knows his stuff. That said, he's also an overly picky bitch at times lol.
    It's a fine release. My only real issue was the goof in the Atmos track.

    Even on reviews he’s generally positive about, he does have a tendency to strongly emphasize the negatives more than the positives.

    “This is a very good release and probably the best it’ll ever look BUT MY GOD THEY DESECRATED THE PICTURE, AND IF YOU SIT A FEW INCHES FROM YOUR TV YOU CAN SEE SOME ARTIFACTS! RECALL! RECALL!”

    The goof on the Atmos track definitely took me out though. A pity because I would have loved a perfect Atmos that was more true to the sound aesthetic of the mono, but at least the actual mono mix is available. Otherwise I thought the disc looked great. You have to be REALLY nitpicky to call the picture quality unworthy.

    What does he mean by frozen film grain?

    They’re basically what looks like botches of film grain frozen. It’s an artifact due to use of DNR (a fairly common practice from big studios). It’s not something that really jumped out at me, but I’m sure if I get close enough to the tv I’ll pick up on it.

    The worst I’ve ever seen of frozen grain was for the 2009 blu-ray for STAR TREK VI. That was a very grainy film due to being shot in Super35, and the DNR applied was so aggressive that so much of the picture detail was ruined. Made the characters have a waxy look. Even fabrics of their uniforms looked like clay.
  • Posts: 1,978
    Oh boy this ain't good

    Thanks, but I think I'll skip this. Sometimes I just don't need to know and willfully be blissfully ignorant rather than overly informed so that I'm looking for it. If I see something on my own then so be it.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,664
    Had some experience with frozen grain growing up on a farm in Upstate New York, agree it's not desirable.

    That's all.
  • Posts: 308
    Remington wrote: »
    He's an intelligent dude and certainly knows his stuff. That said, he's also an overly picky bitch at times lol.
    It's a fine release. My only real issue was the goof in the Atmos track.

    Even on reviews he’s generally positive about, he does have a tendency to strongly emphasize the negatives more than the positives.

    “This is a very good release and probably the best it’ll ever look BUT MY GOD THEY DESECRATED THE PICTURE, AND IF YOU SIT A FEW INCHES FROM YOUR TV YOU CAN SEE SOME ARTIFACTS! RECALL! RECALL!”

    The goof on the Atmos track definitely took me out though. A pity because I would have loved a perfect Atmos that was more true to the sound aesthetic of the mono, but at least the actual mono mix is available. Otherwise I thought the disc looked great. You have to be REALLY nitpicky to call the picture quality unworthy.

    What does he mean by frozen film grain?

    They’re basically what looks like botches of film grain frozen. It’s an artifact due to use of DNR (a fairly common practice from big studios). It’s not something that really jumped out at me, but I’m sure if I get close enough to the tv I’ll pick up on it.

    The worst I’ve ever seen of frozen grain was for the 2009 blu-ray for STAR TREK VI. That was a very grainy film due to being shot in Super35, and the DNR applied was so aggressive that so much of the picture detail was ruined. Made the characters have a waxy look. Even fabrics of their uniforms looked like clay.

    I mean are these films worth shelling out now for 4k or should I wait till they do a redo or is this the only remaster they will do?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,858
    Well Spencer (also known as @hegottheboot_ ) who was pretty critical in that video still ended up recommending anyway, for what that’s worth. The leap in quality from the old blu-ray is definitely apparent. There’s just a few things MGM/WB could have handled better like the new Atmos mix.

    I don’t think they’ll fix them, but even IF they do WB does have a disc replacement system.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,059
    If you actually listen to the review he's actually quite positive on the visuals, which I'm assuming is the main reason people are buying 4K UHD discs. In addition, he clearly states Dr. No is the worst of the bunch. I thought it looked fantastic - I can barely pick up on frozen grain.
  • Posts: 464
    Yes you can pick them up, just don't play the awful Atmos remixes. The films won't look better until you're probably on your way to your grave. The mono mixes aren't the best versions, as they are maxed out, but they are tolerable depending on your set up.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,801
    Remington wrote: »
    He's an intelligent dude and certainly knows his stuff. That said, he's also an overly picky bitch at times lol.
    It's a fine release. My only real issue was the goof in the Atmos track.

    Even on reviews he’s generally positive about, he does have a tendency to strongly emphasize the negatives more than the positives.

    “This is a very good release and probably the best it’ll ever look BUT MY GOD THEY DESECRATED THE PICTURE, AND IF YOU SIT A FEW INCHES FROM YOUR TV YOU CAN SEE SOME ARTIFACTS! RECALL! RECALL!”

    The goof on the Atmos track definitely took me out though. A pity because I would have loved a perfect Atmos that was more true to the sound aesthetic of the mono, but at least the actual mono mix is available. Otherwise I thought the disc looked great. You have to be REALLY nitpicky to call the picture quality unworthy.

    What does he mean by frozen film grain?

    They’re basically what looks like botches of film grain frozen. It’s an artifact due to use of DNR (a fairly common practice from big studios). It’s not something that really jumped out at me, but I’m sure if I get close enough to the tv I’ll pick up on it.

    The worst I’ve ever seen of frozen grain was for the 2009 blu-ray for STAR TREK VI. That was a very grainy film due to being shot in Super35, and the DNR applied was so aggressive that so much of the picture detail was ruined. Made the characters have a waxy look. Even fabrics of their uniforms looked like clay.

    Yeah the most recent ST releases look stunning, especially next to that waxy VI, you’re right.

    What’s wrong with the Atmos on these Bonds?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,858
    mtm wrote: »

    Yeah the most recent ST releases look stunning, especially next to that waxy VI, you’re right.

    What’s wrong with the Atmos on these Bonds?

    I only sampled the films rather than give full watches, so there’s only two instances that stuck out to me.

    DN - After Bond tells Mr. Jones “get up”, the music score has a weird hiccup effect. It just sounds to me that in sound mixing they accidentally goofed up on the music cue and so for a few seconds it’s out of sync before being abruptly cut off.

    Only other thing I noticed is that the Atmos for DAF isn’t faithful to the original sound mix, but has some foley effects that were added in the 2006 5.1 remix. It’s a little weird because it restored some sounds from the mono that the 5.1 replaced, like Blofeld’s cat screeching before the title credits.

    I haven’t had time to give these movies a full rewatch. I was only halfway through DN when I tried. I’ll eventually get around to them.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,801
    Thanks, yeah I've only watched about one and a half myself so far (truth is, I have seen these films before! :D )
  • Posts: 464
    I remember in 35mm copies of DAF, right after the opening credits, when there's the shot of M and Laurence Naismith talking, that is mute now on all home media, until you hear the voice... Well the opening bars of DAF the song, played again. This for some reason is now lost in time. You had the opening bars playing, and then cut to the moment you hear the voice. It's on some old rental videos from Warner, if anyone want to check, including foreign dubs.
  • Posts: 308
    Well Spencer (also known as @hegottheboot_ ) who was pretty critical in that video still ended up recommending anyway, for what that’s worth. The leap in quality from the old blu-ray is definitely apparent. There’s just a few things MGM/WB could have handled better like the new Atmos mix.

    I don’t think they’ll fix them, but even IF they do WB does have a disc replacement system.

    he is on the forum? @MakeshiftPython
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,858
    Yes, though it looks like he hasn’t logged in since November 2023. I’ve chatted with him a lot about video transfers on another Bond forum, discussing the many varying qualities of LaserDiscs and so on.
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 771
    On a similar note - does anybody know if the proprietor of 007homevideo.com is a member of this forum? I enjoy that site immensely - I'd just be happy to congratulate his work (and bug him to make a dedicated section for NSNA so it's easier to find).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,858
    I was about to say that was me, but then I double checked and had no idea that place existed! I only made my own blog which gets into screencap comparisons.

    And nope, I haven’t updated it with 4K discs. https://007homemedia.blogspot.com/2021/11/dr-no-1962.html
Sign In or Register to comment.