Felix Martinez
Screenwriter
Sam, this was in fact the first Blu-ray I ever bought and the reason I jumped into the Blu-ray camp. I was fully prepared to remain with my player and this title alone had the other side won the format war.
Yeah, the photography here isn't even half as extreme as some other Zsigmond films of the era. He was not afraid of film grain, that's for sure. I have a hard time believing that this film, which was shot by Vilmos on 35mm, would have looked anywhere near glossy especially blown up to 70mm. I just don't believe it. As far as opticals go yeah they were done 70mm and then combined with negative but still you are going to have some degradation. As far as color goes I see nothing wrong with the colors here. Everything looks very natural with frequent pops of brilliant color....Neary's red shirt comes to mind.Felix Martinez said:With Mr. Zsigmond's penchant for flashing and pushing/forcing (referring to photography, of course), I don't believe glossy is an adjective I would describe his work during that era.
Colour can certainly fade and shift over time, but I've never heard of film becoming grainier as it ages. I can't claim to remember exactly what the film looked like in 1977 - I was nine when it came out - but I've seen it projected theatrically many times over the years since and it's always struck me as a grainy film. I think the sharpness and stability of blu-ray (or digital cinema in general) has a tendency to exacerbate grain more than a film print, which is softer, smoother and less harsh.Cinescott said:Regarding grain, this title has a lot of it. It's not all on night shots or shots that are optically composited, either. There are some broad daylight scenes where the background of the shot appears to be crawling. I find it hard to believe that a theoretical Blu-ray struck from a print in 1977 would have looked like this and if not, by definition it must have gotten worse over time. It's not a significantly detracting factor for me, but it's undeniably there.
Originally Posted by Worth
Colour can certainly fade and shift over time, but I've never heard of film becoming grainier as it ages. I can't claim to remember exactly what the film looked like in 1977 - I was nine when it came out - but I've seen it projected theatrically many times over the years since and it's always struck me as a grainy film.
I think the sharpness and stability of blu-ray (or digital cinema in general) has a tendency to exacerbate grain more than a film print, which is softer, smoother and less harsh.
Originally Posted by TonyBouchard ...
“We pushed it a stop for all the night scenes because we needed the stop with the long lenses. We did a test and it looked great. The grain holds up. In fact I wouldn’t have minded more grain. I’m not afraid of grain at all.”
I think maybe 35mm projector focus might have more to do with the softening effect more than the actual prints themselves. With a bluray it's like having just about 100% perfect focus, and stability (no gate weave) like you said.Worth said:Colour can certainly fade and shift over time, but I've never heard of film becoming grainier as it ages. I can't claim to remember exactly what the film looked like in 1977 - I was nine when it came out - but I've seen it projected theatrically many times over the years since and it's always struck me as a grainy film. I think the sharpness and stability of blu-ray (or digital cinema in general) has a tendency to exacerbate grain more than a film print, which is softer, smoother and less harsh.