Blu-ray Review The Sting Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by haineshisway /t/321256/the-sting-blu-ray-review/30#post_3935509
...This was a film, I must say, that never looked that great in theaters - it was grainy and not especially well printed. But when the camera negative is used (IF the camera negative was used) none of those issues should come into play. I always go to bat when the doom and gloom brigade start ragging on a transfer before they've even seen a screen shot let alone the actual disc - I always give the benefit of the doubt and sometimes that benefit is rewarded with a transfer like Pillow Talk. But this thing is just not good.

You are quite right in that it never did look that great in theatres. I saw it several times during it's original release and it's re-release. The print always looked like it had a couple of months on it, even in the first week. I always took it that George Roy Hill and Robert Surtees was going for the old 1930's film look. Even though it was shot in color, it seemed they were shooting as if in black & white. I remember a lot of grain in the theatrical showings, especially during the outdoor shots which I thought helped with the atmosphere of the film, and miss it in the DVD and now in the Blu-ray.

 

[Kosty]

Kosty, yes, this will look worse than your HD-DVD when projected like that.   You'll see softness all over the place.  This release does have better sound, what with the DTS-HD MA, but I don't know that this would override the picture issues.  The Blu-ray also has the new 100th Anniversary featurettes, but you can get all of them on other releases.  If your intent is to watch the movie projected on a large screen, I'd recommend staying with the HD-DVD.  If you were using a 65" monitor or smaller, and if you didn't have the HD-DVD, I could see someone picking it up cheaply, with the knowledge that it will not play well on a larger screen.

Thanks for the advice. *sigh* I had hopes that the Blu-ray versions would always be the best quality, twas not to be. I always want to watch my favorite movies in the best quality available and that's usually the Blu-ray version but not in this case.
Well, I will always keep my HD DVD version anyway and my Toshiba HD XA2 and HD XA1 are still going strong so I'll take your advice and watch it again on HD DVD. I might pick up the Blu-ray again in the future when its on sale just to get the special features or to lend to family or friends (who know HD DVD only by legend and my format war stories) but I'm not going to be in any hurry about it then.
BTW, my HD XA2 with its old Silicon Optix Reon HQV video processor is still the best upconverting DVD player for my home theater setup that I still have seen as I can tune it to match the output of my PS3 and display calibration. My 2006 HD XA1 built like a tank (with its remote that can double as a personal self defense weapon) is still an excellent CD transport as well with its Brown Burr DACs. So my HD DVD version of The Sting will be always playable for me even if I have to find a player on eBay.
For that matter my chubby 2007 era PS3 is still going strong as well. I certainly have gotten my monies worth out of that bleeding edge format war kit over the years.

 

[Yorkshire]

So my HD DVD version of The Sting will be always playable for me even if I have to find a player on eBay.

I wouldn't worry too much, Kosty.
Way cylinder players pop up on ebay every now and then - I don't see there being a shortage of HD DVD players any time while I'm still alive.
Steve W

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Just completed watching my Blu-ray of The Sting.

Have to fully agree that this transfer is all over the place.

We go from highly detailed shots that look gorgeous (and
reveal the seams of matte paintings and live action) to those
that are soft and sometimes blurry.

BTW, I am watching on a 60" plasma.

It's a constant back-and-forth of "Wow, this looks tremendous"
to "Wow, you think they could have made this look a lot better."

 

[Cinescott]

"The Sting" is watchable on my 55" LCD, but it could have been so much better. My pet peeve with the digital tinkerers at the studios are the moire patterns visible in a film like this. The Sting is packed with minute, textured detail and had it been done correctly, I wouldn't be seeing the strobe effect on textured suits or wallpapers. (And yes, I've toned down my sharpness setting).

This is a problem that 1080p and Blu-ray, when done correctly, can eradicate. It's too bad that on a monster title like this that some more care couldn't have been taken to eliminate this entirely preventable problem. I can personally testify that The Sting is not very satisfying on a 55" set. Maybe a 40? 32? How small do we have to go on this one?

I bought it even after the mediocre quality reviews, because frankly it's The Sting and the pricing point was good. I'm not really the boycott type, but c'mon Universal! Step up your game, please!

 

[Edwin-S]

Why would they step up their game? They know people will buy whatever they vomit onto a disc.

 

[TravisR]

Why would they step up their game? They know people will buy whatever they vomit onto a disc.

If we were talking about a new release, I'd agree. However when it comes to catalog titles, message boards might have some sway in keeping people away from poorly done discs simply because people here represent a much bigger chunk of the potential buyers than they do on new movies.

 

[Yorkshire]

If we were talking about a new release, I'd agree. However when it comes to catalog titles, message boards might have some sway in keeping people away from poorly done discs simply because people here represent a much bigger chunk of the potential buyers than they do on new movies.

An interesting thought.
There's been some discussion about Twilight Time being given the rights to release As Good As It Gets. They limit their release runs to 3,000 copies.
If that's the ballpark-typical sales expectation for non-blockbuster back catalogue releases, then people who read these forums probably do make up at least a sizeable minority of those in the market for the disc.
Steve W

 

[Kosty]

If we were talking about a new release, I'd agree. However when it comes to catalog titles, message boards might have some sway in keeping people away from poorly done discs simply because people here represent a much bigger chunk of the potential buyers than they do on new movies.

An interesting thought.
There's been some discussion about Twilight Time being given the rights to release As Good As It Gets. They limit their release runs to 3,000 copies.
If that's the ballpark-typical sales expectation for non-blockbuster back catalogue releases, then people who read these forums probably do make up at least a sizeable minority of those in the market for the disc.
Steve W

Its a lot more than that for most new to Blu-ray studio library catalog releases that go to major retailer distribution.
Don't confuse Twilight Time or Criterion's low volume high non discounted fixed price business model with the unit sales distribution model that the studios use with major retailers and normal catalog releases. Most studio catalog titles sell for less and sell far more units if they are in national distribution.
Essentially most of those do 10,000 to 30,000 units within the first four weeks of release.
Twilight Time is gaining the rights to titles that the studios have lower priority to release and were not scheduled for Blu-ray treatment yet along with some sweetener better releases. Their model iis direct to consumer selling without retail allocation of margin and a higher price point so they can get more revenue from sales of a limited run. Kinda like a Criterion lite sorta model.
Most any release that is on Blu-ray from the studios that has national distribution at Best Buy Target Walmart and Amazon is distributing 3-10 copies or more to 10,000 retail store front locations and generally now is replicated in 30,000 to 50,000 or 100,000 unit production runs in routine cases. Blu-ray inventory does not go bad and is easy to store so generally production runs are based on the high side of anticipated demand for the major studios.
Smaller content providers are another story but generally the most economical production runs are in the over 10,000 unit range and that's the typical low side of a production run as set up and authoring etc are actually more of a percentage of costs than letting more incremental units come off the replication line. Its kinda like printing, where the setup and not the actual numbers of copies run is the larger cost.

 

[Doctorossi]

Kosty, retail distribution (sell-in) does not equal sales to consumers. Larger print-runs (which are then subject to retailer returns or below-cost clearances, reducing retailers' future order commitments for subsequent titles) only count against the profits of a release if no one is buying it.

 

[rsmithjr]

Its a lot more than that for most new to Blu-ray studio library catalog releases that go to major retailer distribution.
Don't confuse Twilight Time or Criterion's low volume high non discounted fixed price business model with the unit sales distribution model that the studios use with major retailers and normal catalog releases. Most studio catalog titles sell for less and sell far more units if they are in national distribution.
Essentially most of those do 10,000 to 30,000 units within the first four weeks of release.
Twilight Time is gaining the rights to titles that the studios have lower priority to release and were not scheduled for Blu-ray treatment yet along with some sweetener better releases. Their model iis direct to consumer selling without retail allocation of margin and a higher price point so they can get more revenue from sales of a limited run. Kinda like a Criterion lite sorta model.
Most any release that is on Blu-ray from the studios that has national distribution at Best Buy Target Walmart and Amazon is distributing 3-10 copies or more to 10,000 retail store front locations and generally now is replicated in 30,000 to 50,000 or 100,000 unit production runs in routine cases. Blu-ray inventory does not go bad and is easy to store so generally production runs are based on the high side of anticipated demand for the major studios.
Smaller content providers are another story but generally the most economical production runs are in the over 10,000 unit range and that's the typical low side of a production run as set up and authoring etc are actually more of a percentage of costs than letting more incremental units come off the replication line. Its kinda like printing, where the setup and not the actual numbers of copies run is the larger cost.

Thanks, Kosty, nice to see you over here.
What are the current manufacturing costs of Blu-ray disks and especially compared to DVD? I haven't found any recent numbers for this but it would seem, from the marketplace pricing, that Blu-ray must be very close to DVD now.

 

[rsmithjr]

You are quite right in that it never did look that great in theatres.  I saw it several times during it's original release and it's re-release.  The print always looked like it had a couple of months on it, even in the first week.  I always took it that George Roy Hill and Robert Surtees was going for the old 1930's film look.  Even though it was shot in color, it seemed they were shooting as if in black & white.  I remember a lot of grain in the theatrical showings, especially during the outdoor shots which I thought helped with the atmosphere of the film, and miss it in the DVD and now in the Blu-ray. 

This is absolutely in line with my recollections. A lot of early-70's films had a deliberately gritty look to them, and I thought the film matched Henry Bumstead's wonderful production design pretty well: everything looks old and rundown.
I see some of the things others are seeing on the Blu-ray and can't account for them all, I don't know the film as well as many others, but overall I am ok with the Blu-ray.

 

[Kosty]

Kosty, retail distribution (sell-in) does not equal sales to consumers. Larger print-runs (which are then subject to retailer returns or below-cost clearances, reducing retailers' future order commitments for subsequent titles) only count against the profits of a release if no one is buying it.

Agree that retail distribution does not equal consumer sales and those factors apply but catalog title shipments are modest compared to day and date title volumes so it does not matter much. Blu-ray catalog sales are steadily increasing over time so a retailer can pretty much determine he can sell the inventory to exhaustion anyway in the future.
Pretty much now most catalog titles sent out are sold to exhaustion or sale priced to move at retail.at sale prices if too much on hand inventory is determined.
Major day and date new releases are sold through for 8-12 weeks and if excess inventory remains above evergreen long term sales projections, its usually boxed up and sent to an third party inventory management like DVA to cart off and sell back to discount stores like Big Lots or packaged again for standalone displays at minor secondary retailers.
Most Blu-ray catalog titles that are shipped forward to retail from major studios are in small enough lots not to be bothered with that, its easier just to reduce the price and sell it at a discount at the brick and mortar individual store level. Now the smaller content providers that may be begging for retail placement and distribution at Best Buy or Target or even Walmart may have different arrangements as they have no leverage and may be desperate, but that does not apply to normal studio distribution.
Actually, it was the case before 2010 and AFAIK still now that the studios have actually no procedures in place to accept direct returns from retailers for Blu-ray invenotry and if that even is still happening for DVD right now, I don't know. All the small and even larger chain retailers I know only deal with third party liquidation and never returns directly to the studios even for DVD and especially not Blu-ray.

 

[Kosty]

Its a lot more than that for most new to Blu-ray studio library catalog releases that go to major retailer distribution.
Don't confuse Twilight Time or Criterion's low volume high non discounted fixed price business model with the unit sales distribution model that the studios use with major retailers and normal catalog releases. Most studio catalog titles sell for less and sell far more units if they are in national distribution.
Essentially most of those do 10,000 to 30,000 units within the first four weeks of release.
Twilight Time is gaining the rights to titles that the studios have lower priority to release and were not scheduled for Blu-ray treatment yet along with some sweetener better releases. Their model iis direct to consumer selling without retail allocation of margin and a higher price point so they can get more revenue from sales of a limited run. Kinda like a Criterion lite sorta model.
Most any release that is on Blu-ray from the studios that has national distribution at Best Buy Target Walmart and Amazon is distributing 3-10 copies or more to 10,000 retail store front locations and generally now is replicated in 30,000 to 50,000 or 100,000 unit production runs in routine cases. Blu-ray inventory does not go bad and is easy to store so generally production runs are based on the high side of anticipated demand for the major studios.
Smaller content providers are another story but generally the most economical production runs are in the over 10,000 unit range and that's the typical low side of a production run as set up and authoring etc are actually more of a percentage of costs than letting more incremental units come off the replication line. Its kinda like printing, where the setup and not the actual numbers of copies run is the larger cost.

Thanks, Kosty, nice to see you over here.
What are the current manufacturing costs of Blu-ray disks and especially compared to DVD? I haven't found any recent numbers for this but it would seem, from the marketplace pricing, that Blu-ray must be very close to DVD now.

BD50s are pretty close to DVD9s now especially at the volumes a typical studio release uses. Blu-ray packaging in a standardized case, title insert and possibly slipcover is actually cheaper than many average and customized DVD packaging and weighs less so its incrementally less to ship as well.
Consumer replication quotes from sites like pacificdisc and others show BD50 prices closing in on DVD9 in 10,000 unit quotes and the studios pay far less than that.
Compared to the retail price of a Blu-ray unit sold averaging around $20 each the replication cost is pretty minor now a days. That was a huge concern for cost, yields and capacity for catalog title production of Blu-ray, especially on BD50s during the format war for me and that's been essentially solved as an issue. Blu-ray still costs a little more than DVD but not enough to be significant anymore.

 

[Bryan^H]

Variable transfer, of one of my favorite films. Very good to poor. Inconsistancies abound, but what looks good(on a 40" tv) looks really good.
B-