THE PUNISHER (Mark Goldblatt, 1989)

[Jox]

So the 89:16 min version isnt in HD.....just a standard dvd?

No it's in HD (and great quality), only the (few & very shorts) missing shots are in SD.

I guess the scenes from laserdisc is shown in different/poorer quality compared to the rest of the movie?

Slightly but it's way better than the previous 2005-2006 DVD restoration and at least makes the film complete. I assume it's been very difficult to track proper 35mm material to re-transfer the uncut version in HD so there's nothing to complain about.

Koch Media honestly outdid themselves on this (limited) release and I'm grateful.

[MonoSux]

Thanks Jox

[Jox]

If you don't wanna bother with the German-speaking sites (but pay more)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Punisher-Blu-ra ... 5aefe4b654

[Jox]

In his commentary, Goldblatt gives a much more plausible possible explanation for the cancelled theatrical release in the U.S. other than New World's bankruptcy (they actually sold their assets and got bought by another company) which is simply that the distributor got cold feet because of RED SCORPION's poor score at the box-office earlier that year (though that didn't stop it in other countries)...

[Baconnaise]

Some information why it didn't have uncompressed audio. Strange problem. Koch Media must have made some errors. No one has mentioned any problems with the surround sound on the UK disc.

Quote from the forum below:

http://www.cult-labs.com/forums/336299-post84.html

"Michael, spokesperson for Koch Media, just explained on the cinefacts board that they opted for Dolby Digital 2.0 for The Punisher because they noticed that there are problems with the surround sound with the DTS HD Master audio. This happend when the mediabook was already produced.

You can think of this what you want, but his statement sounds pretty honest. You can read it in full length here (he also comments on the quality of the unrated scenes and the artwork, the latter receiving a lot of negative response):"

http://www.cinefacts.de/Forum/228079-pu ... ost7813766

[Jox]

WORK-PRINT bootleg / new Beta transfer comparison

[Baconnaise]

Yes, big difference in quality. I think the Workprint looks blurry, terrible with murky and faded colours with VHS quality.

[Jox]

It's much better than VHS quality.

But you know, it's a "WORK - PRINT" (do people actually understand what a work-print is in the process of filmmaking and editing?), nothing was polished and certainly not color-graded, it's actually lucky they did a tele-cine on it and made a Beta tape which must have been done quickly. It's meant for reference, not a finished product, it's normal if it looks kind of "blurry".

[Baconnaise]

I know about work prints. I meant the work print screencapture had very poor quality, not the new beta tape version. Which looks to have DVD quality. Either way, i don't have it and i have no desire to watch it.

[Jox]

Ok well thank you, you'll tell that to VLC.

[Baconnaise]

Don't take this the wrong way, i didn't say your screencaptures was poorly made, but the actual picture quality. That is not your fault. As you write here: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p ... stcount=83

You write it is a "1.33:1 VHS-bootleg-rip". You can tell it has VHS quality.

[Jox]

Sorry I thought you meant about the new transfer!
(seen so many rant and complaining on forums lately it making me a little cranky)

[Baconnaise]

Yes, now you understand.

[Jox]

Here's the beast:

[savagesketch]

Any idea if a special edition for the States is in the cards, or is that still a pipe dream...?