A Few Words About A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray (1 Viewer)

[Michel_Hafner]

Yes but you specifically said...
So I was asking where they would get an SD version that was 4:4:4.
Doug

By downsampling the HD you end up with SD in 4:4:4.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

You may laugh, but I recently had to "erase" some pockmarks on an actor in one brief shot of a sequence in an HD project...

You were not trained in seeing the effect of your manipulations on stills when playing in real time, I would say. The stills define the lower limit of resolution. The eye can integrate from them at normal speed and give the impression that there is more than you can actually get from single stills. So if at 24 fps the result is lacking detail you are not going to find superb detail in the stills which then somehow suddenly disappears.

 

[Edwin-S]

Which is why it isn't enough to vote with your wallet. I think you have to TELL the studio via LETTER (not phone call or e-mail) the very reason WHY you are not buying their product which you actually WANT to buy.

I think the volume of mail that studios would receive on this issue would be so small as to be statistically insignificant. In other words, studios would just ignore it.

 

[JPCinema]

To not buy PATTON ( which I feel the BD is excellent) could slow down even more the release of classic films on Blue Ray. Cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[Robert Crawford]

To not buy PATTON ( which I feel the BD is excellent) could slow down even more the release of classic films on Blue Ray. Cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Their choice though. The idea about letters not emails or phone calls is a good one, but the volume of such letters is questionable as to how it will catch the attention of the studios. However, it's still a good idea that needs to be followed up on.
Crawdaddy

 

[PaulDA]

It is fine to make studios aware of one's concerns, but the with the number of reviews of Patton on BD that I've read that are ecstatic about the video quality vs the number of reviews that complain of its video quality--it's a lost cause (at least on this title). Don't buy it if you wish, but be aware that not buying the release WILL (not "may") signal to the studios that the TITLE is unwanted--not that the "look" is not correct. When the first BD of The Fifth Element came out, the uproar about its poor quality was unanimous--and thus there was a correction. It ain't gonna happen here, though.

 

[captain_celluloid]

To not buy PATTON ( which I feel the BD is excellent) could slow down even more the release of classic films on Blue Ray. Cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Ken, I can't totally agree or disagree . . . . I would reframe and restate the point.
Yes, the BD of PATTON is good.
I think RAH's point was that it could be BETTER and that there appears to be no good reason for NOT making it better.
Yes, I want to support the studios to release their back catalog material
I just don't want to let them think it's OK to release a product that is not as good as they can make it.
A quandary to be sure.
-30-
Captain Celluloid
Film Guy Finishing On Digital

 

[Paul Arnette]

Their choice though. The idea about letters not emails or phone calls is a good one, but the volume of such letters is questionable as to how it will catch the attention of the studios. However, it's still a good idea that needs to be followed up on.

Over on bluray.com insider Penton-Man made mention of the fact that a letter-writing campaign would certainly do some good about the DNR situation. However, he did mention another avenue that I prefer to use, which is telling individuals that have the 'ear' of the studios about our likes and dislikes. I tend to find that Bill Hunt, who does have the studios 'ear' and generally has our best interests at heart, is more than willing to assist in that capacitiy.

 

[captain_celluloid]

It is fine to make studios aware of one's concerns, but the with the number of reviews of Patton on BD that I've read that are ecstatic about the video quality vs the number of reviews that complain of its video quality--it's a lost cause (at least on this title). .

Again, what I took away from the point RAH was trying to make was that perhaps these reviews are wrong . . .
. . . or at best under-informed as to the POTENTIAL quality that is available in the film elements.
"Good enough quality" is not good enough.
The studios don't automatically deserve a free pass because of some
good reviews.
RAH's review as written sums it up just fine.
-30-
Captain Celluloid
Film Guy Finishing On Digital

 

[Edwin-S]

Yes, I want to support the studios to release their back catalog material
I just don't want to let them think it's OK to release a product that is not as good as they can make it.
A quandary to be sure.
-30-
Captain Celluloid
Film Guy Finishing On Digital

It's a quandry all right, but I have pretty well decided that if the choice is between supporting a release that is very good -but not perfect- and potentially sending the wrong message that classic films are unsalable on BD, then I would support the release.
For that reason, I think I will go ahead and order this one from Amazon,along with a couple of others. I would have liked to buy locally, but none of the B&Ms have brought any of these films in.
The same thing happened with BREAKER MORANT. I was looking for that film in the local B&Ms. No one stocked it or is stocking it. How do you like that for support of catalog titles?
BTW, for anyone who has the disc. How does it look?

 

[Dave H]

I believe Penton-man also mentioned that possibly the original elements of Patton had dirt, hair, etc. which could not be taken out unless DNR was used. Maybe it was a lesser of two evils thing? I know Lowry has a system around this though.

Regardless, I'm curious how Fox will address this issue on this title as it's really gaining steam. Maybe it's something that will make a positive change going forward if it gets enough attention.

 

[Felix Martinez]

You were not trained in seeing the effect of your manipulations on stills when playing in real time, I would say. The stills define the lower limit of resolution. The eye can integrate from them at normal speed and give the impression that there is more than you can actually get from single stills. So if at 24 fps the result is lacking detail you are not going to find superb detail in the stills which then somehow suddenly disappears.

The smearing of high-freq info can in fact give the illusion of detail disappearing in motion. We can agree to disagree. But this thread is about Patton, so my apologies.

 

[Jarod M]

I believe Penton-man also mentioned that possibly the original elements of Patton had dirt, hair, etc. which could not be taken out unless DNR was used. Maybe it was a lesser of two evils thing? I know Lowry has a system around this though.
Regardless, I'm curious how Fox will address this issue on this title as it's really gaining steam. Maybe it's something that will make a positive change going forward if it gets enough attention.

I was lucky enough to view a newly struck 65mm print of Patton earlier this decade. It was absolutely immaculate, perhaps the best I have seen. So, it is difficult to believe that theory about an inferior source element.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

The smearing of high-freq info can in fact give the illusion of detail disappearing in motion. .

It's not illusion then but real. Smearing = loss of detail.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

I believe Penton-man also mentioned that possibly the original elements of Patton had dirt, hair, etc. which could not be taken out unless DNR was used. .

You are mixing up DNR with scratch removal, dirt removal, dust busting and the like. They are not the same. DNR is for filtering out general noise/grain affecting whole images. Scratch etc. removal is for local 'noise' and needs only local filtering, be it by an algorithm or retouching by hand. The rest of the image is not filtered in this case. Using DNR as a general purpose clean up tool for all kinds of random noise is completely inappropriate. The tool is optimised for the kind of noise it's supposed to remove. Just because there are hairs no faces need to become waxy when removing the hairs.

 

[Dave H]

You are mixing up DNR with scratch removal, dirt removal, dust busting and the like.

Yes, I didn't phrase it properly.
Here's his quote for the record/clarification:
The only reason I can fathom for any *excessive* DVNR being applied to this title is that during the restoration, the original element required a significant amount of DSR (dirt and scratch removal) which included as part of the post processing, a hefty load of non- real time digital noise reduction.
Blu-ray Forum - View Single Post - "Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

 

[Robert Harris]

The following has been posted over at High Def Digest:

Several points, if I may...

Grain on release prints is reduced in the duping process from an IP to a printing negative. An Original Answer Print (OAP) or Select Print (SP) derived from the Original Camera Negative (OCN) reproduces the grain structure more accurately than a dupe.

Viewing an OAP or SP is not necessarily a good thing, as the duping process takes a bit of the edge off the grain (literally) as it allows the individual grains to blend into a slightly more cohesive form.

Patton on Blu-Ray appears to be exceedingly clean, vibrant and filled with detail, but this is illusory.

While colors and black levels are portrayed beautifully, there is very little left of the image that sets it apart as a large format film. Any well photographed film could look precisely as Patton does, without the fuss, muss and bother of dealing with huge, light-robbing 65mm equipment.

In using what seems to be an economy based DNR system to reduce or eliminate grain, the facility doing the work has not only removed grain, but along with it, EVERY BIT OF HIGH FREQUENCY INFORMATION.

Detail!

There is NONE left in Patton. Only the perception of detail.

Yes, one can easily see the netting that attaches the signature Patton eyebrows to Mr. Scott's forehead.

But this is not a function of sharpness. It is certainly not detail, as those eyebrows are HUGE, and would have had a theatrically projected width of probably fifty feet. The DNR actually makes them more obvious then they would have been on a 70mm print, along with projection weave, optics and moving grain.

The point that I want to make is that this discussion really should not be about GRAIN.

GRAIN isn't the problem.

One can properly remove grain -- part or all -- and NOT TOUCH ANY OF THE HIGH FREQUENCY INFORMATION.

By this I mean, that all detail would be left as it was.

The problem is that all digital facilities have not been created equal, and while one will use DNR to reduce or eliminate grain and take probably a full 25% of the image with it, another will leave all of that image intact, affecting only the amount of grain requested.

The only facility of which I'm currently aware that has this capability is Lowry.

Let me allow full disclosure.

I've done some work at Lowry. They're good people. Highly competent and professional. They have wonderful capabilities, but we do not always agree.

Use their capabilities toward good, and one can end of with an extraordinary product. Go in the other direction, and one can end up with a rainless window in Citizen Kane.

But they know this, and one must fully understand how to allow them to use their abilities toward good.

They would like that.

But sometimes the customer wants something else.

So this isn't about a cause to "Save the Grain" as much as replicating the full image quality allowed by the wonders that Blu-Ray can provide.

A technician with a good eye and a background in film, placed on a project like Patton could (possibly at a different facility) have delivered a totally different final result -- a result that could have made everyone smile.

The Blu-Ray of Patton fails at the final moment, not because it was based upon a flawed transfer or poor color or densities.

It fails because someone turned a knob that concurrently removed both grain and detail (High Frequency Information.)

I couldn't care less if grain is reduced slightly. It doesn't matter. As I noted above, grain is reproduced quite differently from OAP or SP to a dupe release print anyway.

But to remove what is in reality a HUGE percentage of actual picture information needlessly is just wrong.

Final point.

If one isn't aware that the information has been removed, one has no way of knowing the reality of the situation. And that is where glowing reviews come from. All well-intentioned, and based upon what people are seeing.

On a screen up to around 40" this disc can look beautiful.

Go above that, and anyone with a knowledge of the film, and of 70mm will immediately know that something has gone horribly wrong.

Master cinematographer Gordon Willis refers to this as the "freshly waxed linoleum floor" look.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

The use of the soapbox has been appreciated.

RAH

 

[Dave H]

Robert,

Thanks for your valuable insight - very intriguing and educational to read.

 

[Travis Brashear]

Though now Mr. Harris is sounding quite a bit more damning of the title than he was at the start...

 

[Douglas Monce]

Mr. Harris,

I posted a reply to you at High Def Digest, so I we re post it here as well.

Thank you for your comments. I think your work with large format films has given you incite into this matter that most of us, myself included, simply don't have. While I have worked in 35mm, Super 16 and HD, to my dismay I've never had the chance to work in 65mm. The sad lack of theaters capable of showing 65mm means that my dream will probably remain a dream. Although with the popularity of blowing up films to Imax, I would think the light bulb would go on over some producer's head and realize that if they only shot in 65mm, the enlargement to horizontal Imax would be a huge improvement.

This brings up and interesting point that I have been meaning to ask you about.

Let's say we do a test shoot. Three cameras side by side. One 65mm, one 35mm anamorphic, and one Super 35. Shooting the same subject, under the same lighting conditions, with the same film stock.

Now here is the question. Do you think that blu-ray, with its 1920 x 1080 resolution, and its somewhat limited color space, would have the ability to display the difference between the 3 respective formats? Particularly between 65mm and the other two? Or would they look more or less identical allowing for the oval bokeh of the anamorphic lens and the shallower depth of field of the 65mm?

Doug