A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Bridge on the River Kwai-- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Stephen_J_H]

I previewed the first 40 minutes or so of this last night. Stunning. As for the "spread-out" mono track, it is definitely more of an atmospheric thing than a radical overhaul. My dad kept asking when I was going to turn the surround sound on and I simply told him it was originally a mono movie, which should give you some idea just how much tinkering has been done on the soundtrack.

 

[Edwin-S]

I finally decided to upgrade from my DVD copy of this film. When I started watching the the BD, I couldn't help but feel concerned that I had wasted 30 bucks. The very opening shot of the film looked bad to me: not much better than DVD. Thankfully, the rest of the film looked excellent. Definitely worth the upgrade. Still one of the better WW2 epics.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I finally decided to upgrade from my DVD copy of this film. When I started watching the the BD, I couldn't help but feel concerned that I had wasted 30 bucks. The very opening shot of the film looked bad to me: not much better than DVD. Thankfully, the rest of the film looked excellent. Definitely worth the upgrade. Still one of the better WW2 epics.

Edwin, you've been a member here ten years and you still don't understand that opticals are grainy?

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert
Edwin, you've been a member here ten years and you still don't understand that opticals are grainy?

Well, I have to admit to being lazy when it comes to studying the finer points of filmmaking. I've never studied a film to the point where I could instantly differentiate the exact technique used to produce an effect. I have read quite a lot on here about how opticals can be grainy due to the production process; however, I thought that opticals were mostly used in effects shots. I didn't think a shot of a bird flying would need to be an optical effect.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I seem to remember (and perhaps someone in the know can correct me if I'm wrong) reading years ago that the original materials used to create the titles in Kwai were lost, so that it's not only that the titles have opticals, it's that the only source available is many generations removed from what the available sources were for the rest of the film.

I haven't seen the BD yet, but I was lucky enough to see one of the new 35mm prints struck from this restoration, and that was one of the very best movie-going experiences I had last year (if not all-time). I'm a little embarrassed to admit I hadn't seen the film before that, but in a way, it was worth the wait to see a beautiful looking 35mm print on the big screen.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Well, I have to admit to being lazy when it comes to studying the finer points of filmmaking. I've never studied a film to the point where I could instantly differentiate the exact technique used to produce an effect. I have read quite a lot on here about how opticals can be grainy due to the production process; however, I thought that opticals were mostly used in effects shots. I didn't think a shot of a bird flying would need to be an optical effect.

The shot of "the bird flying," a golden crested eagle, is derived from a 16mm Kodachrome print, unsqueezed to fit the scope frame, and duped to 35mm.

RAH

 

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Quote:
The shot of "the bird flying," a golden crested eagle, is derived from a 16mm Kodachrome print, unsqueezed to fit the scope frame, and duped to 35mm.

RAH

That explains it. No wonder it's so grainy in that one scene....

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Quote:
The shot of "the bird flying," a golden crested eagle, is derived from a 16mm Kodachrome print, unsqueezed to fit the scope frame, and duped to 35mm.

RAH

Thanks, I always thought it had something to do with a blow up of the shot.. This explains it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Quote:
The shot of "the bird flying," a golden crested eagle, is derived from a 16mm Kodachrome print, unsqueezed to fit the scope frame, and duped to 35mm.

RAH

In other words, that shot will never look good on any video format.









Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
In other words, that shot will never look good on any video format.


Crawdaddy

On Blu-ray, it looks perfect, and as it should.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Quote:
On Blu-ray, it looks perfect, and as it should.

In comparison to it's accuracy of how it was filmed and it's elements. However, it's still not a pretty shot in my humble opinion nor will I use it to demonstrate the quality of Blu-ray to those with a less educated educated background to such things.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
In comparison to it's accuracy of how it was filmed and it's elements.

Which is the only criteria that matters.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

Which is the only criteria that matters.

For enthusiasts that's obvious, but most people I know and socialize with, don't care about such a criteria.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
For enthusiasts that's obvious, but most people I know and socialize with, don't care about such a criteria.

Robert,

I fully understand what you're saying. But all must acknowledge the fact that BotRK will not be a disc that most would pull off the shelf to demo a Blu-ray system.

The shot was never pretty, but it remains transparent to the original.

RAH

 

[Cinescott]

Personally, I think it's crossing a very dangerous line when we consider "improving" upon the source material of any film. It's especially dangerous when directors like David Lean can no longer be consulted about said improvements. IMO, the purpose of high definition is not to make every piece of media look like it was filmed yesterday; it's intended to recreate the source material as closely as possible in a home environment.

If there are flaws in the presentation and Blu-ray makes the flaws more noticeable, that is not a reason to correct them. Restorations are wonderful ideas provided the goal of the restoration is to regain any lost information due to degradation and time. It's not the goal of anyone other than the creator of a film to decide what would look better than what is there. If pieces are missing ala the title sequence material on Kwai, then by all means recreate what experts believe to be the intended look from whatever materials are available. However, it concerns me when people start making statements like "this would look better if we yada yada." It's not our place to decide what would look better.

Older, classic films are particularly vulnerable to people's inherent impatience for the technological limitations that may have been present at the time of filming (budget, camera, lighting, film, etc.). It's a very slippery slope. What's next? Do we digitally re-light day-for-night shots because they don't look real? Should we have modern-day singers re-dub musical voices because we think they would sound better? These are exaggerations, yes, but not by much. My view is leave them alone, warts and all. Personally, I want to see what was on the screen back then, not what someone thinks I ought to be seeing now.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
Personally, I think it's crossing a very dangerous line when we consider "improving" upon the source material of any film. It's especially dangerous when directors like David Lean can no longer be consulted about said improvements. IMO, the purpose of high definition is not to make every piece of media look like it was filmed yesterday; it's intended to recreate the source material as closely as possible in a home environment.

If there are flaws in the presentation and Blu-ray makes the flaws more noticeable, that is not a reason to correct them. Restorations are wonderful ideas provided the goal of the restoration is to regain any lost information due to degradation and time. It's not the goal of anyone other than the creator of a film to decide what would look better than what is there. If pieces are missing ala the title sequence material on Kwai, then by all means recreate what experts believe to be the intended look from whatever materials are available. However, it concerns me when people start making statements like "this would look better if we yada yada." It's not our place to decide what would look better.

Older, classic films are particularly vulnerable to people's inherent impatience for the technological limitations that may have been present at the time of filming (budget, camera, lighting, film, etc.). It's a very slippery slope. What's next? Do we digitally re-light day-for-night shots because they don't look real? Should we have modern-day singers re-dub musical voices because we think they would sound better? These are exaggerations, yes, but not by much. My view is leave them alone, warts and all. Personally, I want to see what was on the screen back then, not what someone thinks I ought to be seeing now.

What are you talking about? I don't see anybody talking about messing with the source material.







Crawdaddy

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
For enthusiasts that's obvious, but most people I know and socialize with, don't care about such a criteria.

That's what I'm talking about. If most people "don't care," then they likely won't care if some tweaking is done to source material to make it look better.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cinescott
That's what I'm talking about.

I think you took a leap that wasn't necessary because most of my friends have little knowledge about film elements and the work associated with getting transfers from those film elements for producing Blu-rays.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's funny how an insignificant comment from me about one small scene in a great film can muster this many responses. I guess it's one of the crosses to bear when communicating on internet boards.







Crawdaddy

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
It's funny how an insignificant comment from me about one small scene in a great film can muster this many responses. I guess it's one of the crosses to bear when communicating on internet boards.


Crawdaddy

I guess it's just that we don't understand your point. It's not a scene that you will show off to demonstrate bluray quality, therefore.......what?