Twin Peaks 1990-91 on Blu-ray

Is there another thread on this? I searched and it appears this one was closed; not sure why: Twin Peaks on Blu-Ray Due 29th July 2014

Please merge this if I've overlooked another.

A basic question: There now appears to be a bunch of different Blu-ray editions available on Amazon of the original series. Is there any reason to prefer one over another? Why such a price difference?

Here's a cheap one: https://smile.amazon.com/Twin-Peaks...pID=51KLBD-R4UL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

Here's a Swedish (?) import for $100: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B0186R6...1d08bb6d778&ref_=pd_luc_rh_sbs_02_01_t_img_lh
Any reason to choose this one over the domestic?

And a 2014 release that now sells for what looks like collectors' prices? https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KCTG4PO/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Why? Weren't there some sync or dropout issues with this original release? I cannot remember but think I read something here about it.

Thoughts anyone? If I just want to watch the original series, is the $27 version the way to go? Or is there a streaming edition with comparable picture quality? (I don't care about surround sound.)

Thanks folks,

SB

 

why go for the blue ray, it was not shot for that, its square format anyway, just get the regular 2 dvd

Also unless you are 21 and sitting 3 feet from the TV most post-25 humans cant see the difference anyway (or so my film school taught me. to me it just looks like fake cartoony oversaturation)

 

The video might not be improved much by the Blu-ray but the audio sure is.

 

1.) The series was shot on film and new HD transfers were done for this release.

2.) Contains both versions of the Pilot.

3.) DTS-MA quality audio

4.) All the extras. Including the Missing Pieces.

If you are a fan you need this set.

 

Um your film school as wrong. I can see the difference between 4k and even BD (and I'm 58). It's not just the colors looking as they were intended but the depth and detail is remarkably improved.
The Blu-ray is a huge improvement over the DVDs. Who the heck taught at your school anyway? They need to go back to school. Seriously. If you believe this you also might be blind in L.A. as well as deaf.

As to the original post, the first boxed set had audio synch issues only for some players as I recall. There is a Twin Peaks thread on here that discusses the BD but you might have to dig for it.

The transfer looks marvelous.

 

It's definitely worth getting. I meant that even if you can't see much difference ( I did) the audio was a nice upgrade as well.

 

Depth of field is determined by the lens and aperture chosen by the filmographer at the shoot. no combo of recording medium or tv can change the depth that's in your head

 

Are you suggesting there was a depth of field (focus) issue with the original filming?!

That, along with the statement, it was shot for “the square format”, are highly dubious and at least one is factually incorrect.

 

I'm aware of that after four years in UCLA's film school and working in the business for a number of years, this isn't simply about depth of field but reproducing the natural depth that was captured during the shooting of the film. A transfer, depending on the medium, will either improve quality of the image. Videotape, for example, because of it's lower resolution can't begin to give one a sense of the image depth as it appears on film (I'm not referring to depth of field). I'm referring to the perceived distance between objects in any film. DVD can't begin to portray the image properly (videotape even less so) from a film. No, the depth of the image, detail and clarity aren't just in my head (well they are to a degree because it is being translated there). If you can't see the difference between Blu-ray and DVD, then you probably don't have a television that can do justice to the image. The difference between DVD in terms of resolution and Blu-ray is 720×480 pixels vs. 1080p and 4k at 2160. Image quality is defined as the pixels. Film, for example, is naturally a high definition format and the higher resolution WILL improve the overall image quality. To suggest that Twin Peaks won't benefit from the higher resolution is absurd. It is that much closer to the quality of the original film source.

While the show was shot in Academy ratio that doesn't mean that it can't benefit from a higher resolution. The aspect ratio has nothing to do with the actual image quality.

 

This is the UK release which is region free. It's what I bought and it contains everything. The difference is the packaging. It's just a plastic case with a cardboard slip on cover.

 

That's actually a great alternative to the U.S. Blu-ray.

 

old style 1991 televisions, it was shot for those old tv ratios. not literally square

theres no focus problem, one guy said the depth of field looks deeper on his 4k tv, that's now how that works, the DOF is determined by the camera lens.
I am not going to argue any further

 

Actually, that's not what I said at all--I stated that the image appears to have more depth to it (this has nothing to do with depth of field as stated above please at least get your quotations correct) when looking AT THE IMAGE and that detail is sharper. We are talking about two different things--the clarity and depth in the image itself looks remarkable. If you truly believe that there's no difference in an older show shot in academy ratio and that film can't look better in high def, then you are misinformed. The perception of depth in a filmed image and depth of field (focus) are different things entirely.

 

Perfect: region free and $27. Doneski. Thank you!

Edit - no sync issues with this version? I see it was released in 2016 - so perhaps anything that happened was resolved by then? Thanks again

 

It wasn't shot for DVD either, since that format wasn't even around in 1990. What's your point? You think the "square format" has can't benefit by being on bluray?

 

I personally don't think video shot for 4:3 television broadcast airing can benefit from bluray. Other than line some pockets, it doesn't make it higher quality Like transferring a 78 onto cd does not make it hifi.

I certainly don't mean to discourage any fans, if you wanna spend a bunch to get twin peaks on different formats, the worlds your oyster

 

What forkin' film school did you go to?!?

 

...and you shouldn't.

 

There was never a fix for it. It's a weird issue, and I'm not sure if it's an actual issue with the bluray or some weird compatibility issue with some players. Sometimes I've experienced it on my PS3, but on a bluray player I had, I had no issue. And when I took my PS3 over to somebody's house and watched it there, no issue. Some people experience it, while others don't.

 

If they use the videotape transfer for the show then, yes, it won't benefit but since they went back to the original film elements, then yes it does. Have you seen it? I think if you had you could make a more definitive statement but judging something without having seen it doesn't work.

Your comparison doesn't work--this would be akin to finding an 90's master tape and using that to transfer it to CD or high def audio. It would, indeed, make a difference. Your analogy might hold water if you were comparing, say, an old beat up print of a movie from the 1920's but a show that's 30 or so years old? Of course it's going to benefit. As long as the original film elements are available. Lynch shot and edited this on film which makes all the difference in the world.

 

I had heard about the issue with the PS3 and, if I recall correctly, that was resolved with another firmware update (my memory is fuzzy on this). Having said that, I had no issues on my BD player or even my 4k.

 

But as for the OPs question, the $27 Euro Blu-ray release is the way to go? I'd love the fancy US packaging but I really just want the original series on Blu-ray before I buy the new season

 

The UK edition is the safest way to go, because it has 10 discs, for sure.

The risk of buying the US edition is that there have been two releases - 10 discs in a expensive box, or 9 discs in a lower cost box.

 

Deaf_in: "I personally don't think video shot for 4:3 television broadcast airing can benefit from bluray. Other than line some pockets, it doesn't make it higher quality Like transferring a 78 onto cd does not make it hifi.
I certainly don't mean to discourage any fans, if you wanna spend a bunch to get twin peaks on different formats, the worlds your oyster."


Twin Peaks was shot on 35 mm film, with all the resolution and quality that format has. It was shot in "Academy" format since TVs then were 1:1.33 in picture format, no surprise there. Just because it was "shot for Television showing" has nothing to do in this case with the inherent quality of the original shooting format. 35 mm is still 35 mm. If it were 2-inch video, that's a whole different ballgame, but film...
Transferring carefully from the original 35 mm elements to either 2K or (preferably) 4K video for authoring to Blu-Ray will yield a high-quality picture that will look a lot better than a regular DVD edition.
That's a technical fact that you will be able to see if you have an even half-way decent screen to view it on.

One benefit of mastering to a high-quality format is the ability to more readily work on flaws in the source material. This shows up again and again in much improved BR sets of older TV programs.
Have you ever seen "The Twilight Zone" on BR? That was shot for TV some 30+ years before "Twin Peaks", also on 35 mm film, also in 1:1.33 and it looks absolutely stunning, because the original was such high quality.

A 78 will never sound like hi-fi. But a rare, damaged 78, run through some high-end programs such as Cedar, will sound as good as it possibly can. That's the improvement. That's why it's done.

The bottom line is simple: can you see it or hear it? If you can't, then you shouldn't waste money on it. But that doesn't mean the improvements don't exist. And we are not talking small, esoteric details here, like we can get into with hi-fi; these are readily noticeable quality differences in visuals (and, increasingly, with audio, as restoration programs are advancing.)