A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Sting -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[TonyD]

I watched Apollo 13 today and thought it looked somewhat like what Robert described here for The Sting.
So I went back to find his thoughts on Apollo 13 and they are almost exactly the same as on the Sting.
That disc was released two years ago I think, so it looks like Universal is still up to the same old stuff.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by seangood79 /t/320885/a-few-words-about-the-sting-in-blu-ray/30#post_3928436
But for now on, they are done with the old way of releasing blu rays, all future releases will be like these 13. And "Vertigo is coming". I don't know how I feel about that yet.
I came away from the panel thinking Universal knows they haven't been perfect, and they want to do better, but they just don't get it.

Can you elaborate on what they meant when they said they are done with the old way of releasing blu rays. ?

I ask that, because from memory, i believe their very first two blu ray releases were The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, both have ample helpings of noise reduction and some edge enhancement applied to various scenes, does this mean they are done with applying that or does it mean that it used to be an automated procedure and now its going to be all hand applied by an individual watching every moment of the film. ?

 

[Kevin Collins]

RAH, how do you think it differs from the HD DVD release that came out during the format wars?

If you haven't compared it to the HD DVD, I am almost tempted to buy it to compare it to the Blu-ray...

 

[TonyD]

Kevin, I think he did that in post 32.

 

[seangood79]

Can you elaborate on what they meant when they said they are done with the old way of releasing blu rays. ?
I ask that, because from memory, i believe their very first two blu ray releases were The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, both have ample helpings of noise reduction and some edge enhancement applied to various scenes, does this mean they are done with applying that or does it mean that it used to be an automated procedure and now its going to be all hand applied by an individual watching every moment of the film. ?

As I said, my memory is a little fuzzy, and my lack of knowledge on the technology means I can't go into much detail. So I'm trying to be careful not to misrepresent what was said.
How I understood it was they will no longer be releasing poor quality Blu Rays like Apollo 13, Spartacus or Out of Africa ver. 1. That starting with these 100th Anniversary films, they will not be using old masters, but starting from scratch, going to the OCN if available, or the best possible elements, and scanning on an Arri, which they didn't use before.
I have not yet seen any of these new Blu Ray, I can only go off of RAH's reviews, and it seems the difference is they're putting in the time and effort these movies deserve, where before it seemed that they just slapped whatever old master they had available on a Blu Ray with the label "The Perfect Hi-Def Movie Experience". I just hope they realize there's room for improvement.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

The clueless knob turning has been done for a loooooong time. Already in the LD and DVD era, then in the DI era (some films were destroyed that way) and HD master era and now the BD era. It's only a small minority of cases where the results are horrible, but if it affects a film you love it's incredibly annoying nonetheless. And then there are the other cases like (apparently) this one that look quite good in their own way, just not like the original film. It's not the real thing but pretty enough for most to applaud what they see.

 

[Richard--W]

The clueless knob turning has been done for a loooooong time. ...

You can say that again. And again and again and again and again.
Just look at the The Searchers and Gone With the Wind with their yellow bricks and orange skies. And a dozen other classic Warner Brothers titles. It is remarkable how one individual can consistently ruin the classics and keep his job doing it. Just because customers don't know enough about color timing to complain doesn't make it right, or excusable.

 

[RobertR]

Ok, I'm keeping my HDDVD. Universal wasted an opportunity.

 

[Yorkshire]

Firstly, thanks to RAH for getting back to us on the HD DVD. I think my BAH HUMBUG! was in order.

At SXSW last March I attended this panel discussing the "restoration" of these 13 movies for Universal's 100th anniversary. I didn't take notes, and as I volunteer for SXSW I was quite fatigued, so I apologize for my lack of details.
They spent a lot of time talking about The Sting, cleaning up blemishes and color correcting. They also discussed the fixing the "problems" with the dupes, and the effort they made to have all the optical zooms and wipes match the rest of the film. Seeing as they were changing the way the film looked on its initial release, I've been waiting patiently for reviews to come out to see how they did.
We did see some before and after footage, and the results certainly looked better than the faded scratchy "before" picture, but that doesn't mean it was correct.
During the Q&A portion, someone did ask about Universal's poor reputation for its use of DNR and EE. To their credit they acknowledged it, basically explaining as relying on computers to do most of the work, where now there's a greater human element twisting the knobs. But for now on, they are done with the old way of releasing blu rays, all future releases will be like these 13. And "Vertigo is coming". I don't know how I feel about that yet.
I came away from the panel thinking Universal knows they haven't been perfect, and they want to do better, but they just don't get it.
One question:
They created new 35mm prints and DCPs for these 100th Anniversary movies. Could these issues only be on the Blu Rays? Here in Austin the Paramount Theater will be showing all them, but I will out of town for a lot of them, including The Sting.

Regarding the part in bold, this appears to be a similar thing to what they've done with To Kill a Mockingbird.
It looks like Universal have changed their practice of blanket DNR. They now seem to be aware that this is a problem, and instead have tried to hold back a little, and use more as a tool to even out the look of films. I could be wrong, but that's how I'm reading it.

I think that this review is better than Chinatown. With Chinatown, I got the sense that what was wrong was that Parmount used an old transfer that really was not up to the quality that more recent technology allows. Here, the problem seems to be that Universal had the potential for an A+ blu ray, but lost a grade by messing with it too much.

Hi Joe. Just to be clear, I wasn't saying the issues were the same. It was more a case of the standard of the two discs falling into a similar area. It would appear that they're both pretty good, but both could have been better still.
Steve W

 

[Yorkshire]

I don't want clearer than the DVD, i want the film look, i just will not waste money on anything else these days...

But in this instance (and many others) it's clear that there's more detail on the film than the DVD is capable of reproducing. Even if grain reduction has been used, the Blu-ray Disc is more like the film in that respect. "I want..." is fair enough. But when what we want simply isn't on offer, it's a case whether or not you buy what's on offer. The Blu-ray Disc clearly isn't perfect, but why insist on sticking with a DVD that's worse?

...and this is yet another Universal release that i will not buy, the person in charge of the video department of Universal considers edge enhancement and noise reduction as standard, he said as much in an interview which can be found somewhere on the internet, that's why most Universal blu ray releases are being robbed of their absolute full potential, they see film grain as a bad thing, only a handful of catalog releases escape the grain reduction massacre.

Foxy, your comments, with phrases like "...edge enhancement and noise reduction as standard...", "...they see film grain as a bad thing..." and "... grain reduction massacre..." bare no resemblance to RAH's more balanced and measured review.
Steve W

 

[Robert Harris]

This entire discussion has left out a major element.

I went to the mount yesterday, and called Gordon Willis. While I didn't take down his every word, his take on the way some films are handled on Blu-ray, couldn't be more simple.

******

Apparently, there are studio execs who, for whatever reason, think DPs aren't a terribly intelligent group. That they don't think about film stocks, and emulsions, and how lighting, exposure, filtration, processing and printing will affect an image.

And they're wrong.

It is the characteristics of each particular film stock and emulsion batch that make up the look and textures of a film. The grain structure is the very essence of what appears on screen. Everything is tested, and the DP knows precisely how the film is to look, and how to use the selected film stock to get it there.

The mind of the DP is programmed to think with absolute knowledge of the specific film stock(s) while planning, testing, shooting and printing. Nothing is left to chance. And grain structure is a part of the final equation.

******

Let me take this a bit further. Dupes are a part of the finished film. In certain eras, the duping stocks weren't as transparent as they began to be in the late 1980s. Be it replacement footage for damaged original, or production dupes for varying purposes. Take a look at the 1935 Mutiny on the Bounty, and you'll see a perfect example. Or look at cut-in printer functions in something like Giant!

What Universal has been attempting to do is to equalize the look of those earlier, less transparent, duping stocks to match production footage. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if it works. In The Sting, it doesn't. Nor did it work in Mockingbird, as it could have been handled differently, and better.

To my eye, their success has been dampened by taking things too far, and affecting the production footage, and that's where things go terribly wrong.

Remove grain, especially from a dupe in the 5254 era, and what you achieve is an image that looks out of focus. Attempt to modify grain in dupe or original, and don't get it perfect, and what you end up with are digital artifacts. And there are artifacts in The Sting.

The film grain isn't a layer of something covering the film, that needs to be excised, so that the beauty of the original can shine through. This isn't the Sistine Chapel or a 500 year old oil, with layers of added material that need to be removed.

Remove the original grain, and you remove what controls the actual image, and along with it the planned look of the film.

With a production such as The Sting, neither the director nor the DP are here to discuss their work. The studio, which owns the copyright to the film has the right to modify it, or if they so desire, possibly to destroy it. I don't believe they have the moral right to do so, without the permission of the filmmakers.

My perception is that with the 100th Anniversary era, we are dealing with a new mindset at Universal. I know many of the execs working on these films. They are intelligent. They do care what the final product looks like. And their hearts are absolutely in the right place.

A great deal of work is going into the preparation of these new releases. My only caveat is that in certain situations, there is too much work being performed.

As to 5254, it was a spectacularly popular stock. When the newer incarnation, the re-named 5247 arrived around 1975 or so, and 5254 was to be dropped, the filmmaking community requested that Kodak leave 54 in their line-up, as many DPs wanted to continue using it. It is, to this day, one of the beautiful and painterly stocks that Kodak ever produced.

It has controllable grain, and wonderful fading characteristics, and by that I mean that properly stored, fading should be nil. It is as robust a stock to wear and damage as anything produced. It is easily printable and yields superbly detailed and controllable images when harvested in a digital scan.

The trick here is not so much "not minding that it hurts," but rather, just leaving the stock alone, and allowing the original look of the film, as planned and produced, to shine through, and to replicate the looks and textures of an original print.

Universal is almost there.

Do they have the capability to create perfect Blu-rays, and archival data files?

Yes.

"It's only a matter of going."

RAH

 

[Felix Martinez]

Ok, I'm keeping my HDDVD. Universal wasted an opportunity.

And I just picked up the HD-DVD for $8 and change, free shipping via Amazon (or "fulfilled," etc.).
This will keep my HD-DVD player in some use, along with Apollo 13, The Thing, Monty Python's Meaning of Life...hmm...all Universal titles...

 

[Alan Tully]

I know I'm going to end up buying this, I enjoyed it so much at the cinema & I'm sure it will be better than any transfer I've seen. What the studios need is someone over 50 with a good eye who knows what they're talking about (& know what films should look like). Robert Harris & others (& a few posters here!), their job would be to be a real pain in the arse, & say to hard working talented people...You're doing a great job, but you're going the wrong way, it should look more like this & less like that, & shepherd the project through. Of course it's not going to happen, it's not cost effective (a bit like quality control, which is a thing of the past).
Thinking about it, it's what Robert Harris does! Sorry. But maybe the studios should be using him more.

 

[Yorkshire]

Wondeful thread. Great discussion.
Thanks for the expert comments (RAH and others).
Steve W

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /t/320885/a-few-words-about-the-sting-in-blu-ray/30#post_3928494
But in this instance (and many others) it's clear that there's more detail on the film than the DVD is capable of reproducing. Even if grain reduction has been used, the Blu-ray Disc is more like the film in that respect. "I want..." is fair enough. But when what we want simply isn't on offer, it's a case whether or not you buy what's on offer. The Blu-ray Disc clearly isn't perfect, but why insist on sticking with a DVD that's worse?
Foxy, your comments, with phrases like "...edge enhancement and noise reduction as standard...", "...they see film grain as a bad thing..." and "... grain reduction massacre..." bare no resemblance to RAH's more balanced and measured review.
Steve W

Sorry but here's the thing for me, i have SEEN all these classics many times in the past, i'd only buy if i knew they had laid off the processing controls as now we have a technology capable of producing a film like experience in the home, some studio's are not delivering that, they are delivering a higher resolution image but there is more than resolution to think about, you and i have had this discussion at AVS forums where i strongly disagreed with your view of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, we all have different standards and thoughts on this, but when i see the great work Sony has done in recent years and when i watch something like Jason and the Argonauts or Fright Night and see a truly film like look, well i just cannot get enjoyment from processed looking titles, grain reduction adds a slight blur to the image, it's very noticeable to me, look online and you will find a quote from Roger Deakins, he is the cinematographer of many a Coen brothers film, he says the same thing.

Steve, they said in an interview that grain reduction and edge enhancement was a standard practice, therefore the person in charge of their video department does see film grain as a bad thing, in many Universal releases it is a grain reduction massacre, its that simple, sure some escape the treatment, usually when a director or cinematographer intervenes but too many have that processed "clean" look.

I'd love to see what Universal would have done to Vera Cruz, well actually i'd not like to see but you get the picture.

Oh and Steve, nice tagline so let me say i'm a wise man and not a fool, no way i'd part with my money for this release, i can thank Mr Harris for his thoughts on that one.

 

[Yorkshire]

Foxy, best wishes and each to their own, mate.
You know, I'm not sure we have different standards in some respects. By that I mean that I think we probably both see the same things, most of the time.
It's more a question of what to do then. As I've said, for me, if it's (A) better than the DVD, (B) one of my favourite films, and (C) not too expensive, then I'll buy it. The alternative is to simply not watch the film ever again, or only if it comes to a local cinema.
In some ways I suppose this makes my standards 'lower' than yours. But in enjoying as many films as many times as possible, I suppose the boot is on the other foot.
TGTBATU is almost a text book example. Definitely better than the DVD. Definitely not as good as it could have been. The choice was quite stark - never watch it again on the projector or buy the Blu-ray Disc and put up with the best we've got.
I just love the film too much to opt for the former. I've watched it twice since I bought it, so I feel I've got my money's worth. But if MGM re-release it on a better edition, then I'll gladly double dip.
As I say, best wishes. Good discussion.
Back to The Sting. After reading RAH's comments I was stuck in two minds as to whether or not to buy this, as I have the HD DVD. Then I noticed I have it on pre-order anway, so I suppose that's made my mind up for me.
It'll be interesting to do a comparison between the two discs in light of RAH's comments, and could become a bit of a yard stick for where I draw the line in future. In a strange way, part of me is hoping that I don't see the issues that Robert does, or that I see them but find them such small problems as to not annoy me.
Steve W

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

The Sting is the first motion picture I have any memory of seeing theatrically. My cool Aunt took me to see it in 1973. It was a nice way to kick off a hobby I'd say.

 

[RobertR]

And I just picked up the HD-DVD for $8 and change, free shipping via Amazon (or "fulfilled," etc.).
This will keep my HD-DVD player in some use, along with Apollo 13, The Thing, Monty Python's Meaning of Life...hmm...all Universal titles...

Yeah, The Thing is another title keeping my HDDVD player in use. The utter stupidity, the inability of Universal to "get it" is just sad.

 

[KPmusmag]

Foxy, best wishes and each to their own, mate.
You know, I'm not sure we have different standards in some respects. By that I mean that I think we probably both see the same things, most of the time.
It's more a question of what to do then. As I've said, for me, if it's (A) better than the DVD, (B) one of my favourite films, and (C) not too expensive, then I'll buy it. The alternative is to simply not watch the film ever again, or only if it comes to a local cinema.
In some ways I suppose this makes my standards 'lower' than yours. But in enjoying as many films as many times as possible, I suppose the boot is on the other foot.
TGTBATU is almost a text book example. Definitely better than the DVD. Definitely not as good as it could have been. The choice was quite stark - never watch it again on the projector or buy the Blu-ray Disc and put up with the best we've got.
I just love the film too much to opt for the former. I've watched it twice since I bought it, so I feel I've got my money's worth. But if MGM re-release it on a better edition, then I'll gladly double dip.
As I say, best wishes. Good discussion.
Back to The Sting. After reading RAH's comments I was stuck in two minds as to whether or not to buy this, as I have the HD DVD. Then I noticed I have it on pre-order anway, so I suppose that's made my mind up for me.
It'll be interesting to do a comparison between the two discs in light of RAH's comments, and could become a bit of a yard stick for where I draw the line in future. In a strange way, part of me is hoping that I don't see the issues that Robert does, or that I see them but find them such small problems as to not annoy me.
Steve W

That is how I feel, as well. Some films, like THE STING, I consider friends and I want to visit them again and again. And I have to think that if I actually owned - and could project - a 35mm print of THE STING at home, how good could it look unless I had the $ to own a reference quality print and the $ and knowledge to make sure the projector was set up and maintained perfectly? And how many times could I project it before it started showing wear? That being said, my issue here is more that there is already a beautiful (and highly recommended by RAH) HD-DVD - why should the blu-ray be a step backward? Five years later, the blu-ray should perhaps improve on the HD-DVD but not take away what is good about it.

 

[Bryan^H]

The trick here is not so much "not minding that it hurts," but rather, just leaving the stock alone, and allowing the original look of the film, as planned and produced, to shine through, and to replicate the looks and textures of an original print.

As another member stated in an earlier post, I am worried about 'JAWS'. Being one of Universal's biggest films, the chances of it emulating the original look of film is slim.