›

Back to the Future Blu-ray Review

xChri5xxChri5x
edited December 2010 in Back to the Future
DVDbeaver posted a detailed review with screenshots on their site. The restoration job looks incredible.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews52/back_to_the_future_blu-ray.htm

Comments

  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited October 2010
    Those images are so clear I'm literally using one of them as a desktop background now.
  • LaserschwertLaserschwert
    edited October 2010
    xChri5x wrote: »
    The restoration job looks incredible.

    gruebel.gif

    Obviously you've never seen a good looking restauration.

    I'm really disappointed by the image quality. Sure, it's much better than the DVD, but considering it's a Blu-ray anything else would've been even more suprising. Still, there's way too much digital tinkering going on there... Digital Noise Reduction to remove grain, causing too soft skin textures in some shots, some Auto-Cleanup-Tools for dirt removal, which also caused the removal of some image elements like sparks (just like with the f*cked-up release of Gladiator, which - gladly - Universal realized and corrected a few months later), and edge-"enhancement", faking image sharpness (which isn't there) while causing slight halos around edges.

    You might call this nitpicking, but this is "Back to the Future", for crying out loud... one of the crown-jewels of Universal. And this isn't cutting it for such a prestige title. And the argument about the age of the trilogy (and how it was impossible to make it look better because of that) isn't working. Just take the James Bond restaurations as an example. "Dr. No" was made in 1962 and the Blu-ray looks stunningly crisp and detailed... and that's real detail, not "lets sharpen the image, they won't notice it's not real"-detail.
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited October 2010
    Thanks for that review. I would have bought a BR player just for the triology (in fact, I had planned this for months), but sudden monetary impossibilities have prevented this. I'm glad there's at least some criticism so I don't feel left out. ;)
  • StevenMcFlyJrStevenMcFlyJr
    edited October 2010
    The best wallpapers will come from this BluRay edition. ;-)

    By the way ... as much as all the extras in this, I am quite disappointed by the BttF1 BR disc lacking the cleaned up copies of the actors/actresses "screen tests". They aren't on it ... :-(
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited October 2010
    Laserschwert wrote: »
    gruebel.gif

    Obviously you've never seen a good looking restauration.

    I'm really disappointed by the image quality. Sure, it's much better than the DVD, but considering it's a Blu-ray anything else would've been even more suprising. Still, there's way too much digital tinkering going on there... Digital Noise Reduction to remove grain, causing too soft skin textures in some shots, some Auto-Cleanup-Tools for dirt removal, which also caused the removal of some image elements like sparks (just like with the f*cked-up release of Gladiator, which - gladly - Universal realized and corrected a few months later), and edge-"enhancement", faking image sharpness (which isn't there) while causing slight halos around edges.

    You might call this nitpicking, but this is "Back to the Future", for crying out loud... one of the crown-jewels of Universal. And this isn't cutting it for such a prestige title. And the argument about the age of the trilogy (and how it was impossible to make it look better because of that) isn't working. Just take the James Bond restaurations as an example. "Dr. No" was made in 1962 and the Blu-ray looks stunningly crisp and detailed... and that's real detail, not "lets sharpen the image, they won't notice it's not real"-detail.
    After seeing this restoration in a theater, I do have to agree with all of this. The film simply doesn't look as good as other notable restorations like(and I hope I don't embarrass myself in front of a far more intelligent videophile here) The Wizard of Oz, Metropolis, or Walt Disney's Snow White. It definitely looks "Good", in that it looks better than previous DVD releases, it's definitely high definition video and it's perfectly watchable. Still, it is by no means amazing, in motion or in stills.
  • LaserschwertLaserschwert
    edited October 2010
    I've made a little test, taking a screenshot from the 2 year old HDTV-broadcast of the first film, and spent just a couple of minutes color correcting it and applying some filters (slight grain removal and sharpening). The shocking result: It now looks damn close to the Blu-ray image (except for compression artifacts, as the broadcast was, of course, compressed):

    Canal+ HDTV-broadcast
    Blu-ray
    Edited Canal+ Shot

    In other words: There was no restoration! (other than spending a couple of minutes adding some filters). I'd even say, that the broadcast shows a little more detail than the Blu-ray. Sadly I still think that the Blu-ray is probably the best we'll ever see of the trilogy :(

    Some more comparisons between HDTV-version and the Blu-ray can be found HERE.

    I really think that Bob Gale should look into this. In an interview he said he was told how many hours went into the restoration of the trilogy
    Our technicians just recently gave me some data on this. For the first film we required 147 hours to master it; the restoration process with dirt removal and color re-polishing took 420 hours.
    but what did they actually do all those hours?? Universal released a messed up Blu-ray before, Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", which suffered simliar issues. Customer outcry on the web was so big that Ridley Scott himself oversaw a newly mastered Blu-ray, which looks just stunningly good. (and people who bought the first release were able to get the replacement free of charge from Universal).

    I think now that Telltale is working with Bob Gale, they should bring this to his attention, as it's probably the only possibility to get in touch with him...
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited October 2010
    Amazon.com has chosen to display the reviews from the DVD-set for the Blu-Ray as well, thus obstructing actual detailed criticism from BR-afficionados with the quality of this specific product. At the time, the "most helpful" review remarks on the "error on disc 2 and 3", which is of course only applicable to the earliest 2002 DVD release. Oh joy.
  • SilverwolfpetSilverwolfpet
    edited October 2010
    Laserschwert wrote: »
    *shocking example*

    Oh my God. Dude...you're right!!

    ...

    Man... It's... a bit sad.
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited November 2010
    I wonder if this will ever get fixed - I mean, if they're selling this as the "restored" version, they might not see the need to. And Bob Gale is obviously really thrilled about this version.

    Weellll... back to my DVD set. Yes, the one with the framing problems. ;)
  • taumeltaumel
    edited November 2010
    Looking at one of the Lazerschwert pics, my first impression was, that i don't understand the shadows in the scene.
  • OrigamiOrigami
    edited November 2010
    Lol....shadows are all over the place!
  • derexderex
    edited December 2010
    I just found this and WOW:eek:! I'm probably going to order it real soon.

    check it out: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Future-Trilogy-Limited-Collectors-Blu-ray/dp/B003U5UQCE
  • PrivateJokerPrivateJoker
    edited December 2010
    The extras are exceptional. Like over two hours of in depth stuff, including footage of the first Marty before Michael J.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.