A Few Words About A few words about... Goodfellas -- In High Definition (1 Viewer)

[Peter Apruzzese]

Except that films don't look like that - and never have looked like that. The transfer, to be "perfect", must look like the film does.

If you want window-clear perfection, there are plenty of shot-on-HD tv shows to watch - the content is lacking, but it sure looks good.

 

[Jordan_E]

Really. Movies don't have that looking-out-a-window look. When have you gone to a movie theater and said: Hey, that's like looking out a window!

 

[Vincent_P]

Interesting, and here I thought this was the "hometheaterforum", not the "lookingoutthewindowforum".

Vincent

 

[Lew Crippen]

Even on DVD, I get frustrated with releases that have cleaned up the image so much, that the grain is lost or sharply reduced from what is was on film (or at least what I remember).

In cases where the DP is trying to achieve a ‘looking out the window’ effect, fine—but I don’t believe that is the intent of most DPs.

 

[JediFonger]

alright folks, let me show you what i'm trying to say:


that ain't supposed to be there.


and neither is this. i mean my GOD, what happened? i see this frequently in HD cable, many SD-DVDs (even lawrence of arabia).

that's why i'm asking, is goodfellas and other older films suffering the same treatment?

 

[Robert Harris]

To YiFeng...

Sorry, but you're stretching a bit here.

These films are not being "mistreated." There are no studio executives putting fingerprints on film or dragging it across the floor. Original negatives are not decorating their offices.

The films are being shot, cut, conformed, spliced, duped and printed.

Every film has some form of processing defect as seen in your first frame.

EVERY film.

There has NEVER been a film produced that has run through cameras and been processed to dailies, that did not have some processing or lab flaw.

The bit on your second frame could either be a like processing problem or a bit of detritus which attached itself to the interpositive.

The basis of all this is film, not video.

Can it be cleaned up. Sometimes.

The only really poor example that I've seen lately was Capote, the negative of which was extemely dirty with both negative and positive dirt. But this is extremely rare.

And for the record, Lawrence of Arabia as a film element, is unmitigated trash, as are most the the great large format films, and virtually anything that was both popular and from which blow-ups to 70mm were created. These cannot be compared to normal productions.

Try to enjoy these films in your home theater for what they are. Film. But without scratches, people talking or receiving cell phone calls, and usually with the reels run in proper order.

RAH

 

[JediFonger]

yesh, of course. scratches+defects of film comes with the territory, goes without saying. but you have to admit that there is a level of QA+responsibility that goes a long way to ensure stuff like this happens LESS than it does, especially for preservation for HD discs no less.

let's take top gun+star trek 3 (both paramount, both important $ movies), both came out around the same time. but the transfer of trek (almost all TOS trek) to DVD is unforgivable. the transfer of Top Gun to DVD is awesome. it looks every bit as new as a NEW film (like in the past 5 years) transfer. why is that?

re: mistreatment. i'm not saying that studios purposely do it, but neglect is a big factor. as a film preserver you know that given the limited quantity of resources (time, $, investment, etc) a studio can't give royal treatments to EVERY film, but WB certain makes a run for its $ when transferring films old and new. when you compare how WB takes care+time to transfer a large portion of their film library to digital mediums vs. how paramount does it (dump film to telecine->digital like an abortion) it's appalling. inaction (in this case) is worse than action. isn't there a sort of consistency home video divisions can give when transferring any film to digital mediums? aren't there some sort of a standard?

re: defects in film. the caps above came from star trek 2 wrath of kahn. if those were the *only two* defects of the entire film, i wouldn't really have seen it. the problem becomes noticeable when the batting avg of the defects start to affect your enjoyment of the film. it is very noticeable during brightly lit scenes. you compare this to star trek nemesis or even a poor transfer like generations, it's VERY noticeable to the point that can inhibit one's enjoyment of film for enthusiasts like us. i don't get why they couldn't either find a better struck element or call up lowry to give it the old scrubbing and dirt-removal. this title is certainly worth the $ in the market. don't they have computer algorithms that can detect&remove these sort of things for older classics? most of the times, i can ignore it and enjoy the film. it's a compromise, but sometimes it can irritate the hell outta me when the dirt+grime becomes a noisy-filter that it distracts me from the story of the film itself. i mean, here you are enjoying a nice story (like when kirk screams KAAAAHN!) but all a sudden you see a huge blotch of crap popping up here and there across the screen. it is REALLY annoying when it is highly visible.

with more movies shot on HD cams, we'll slowly see less defects. it won't be gone 100%, but it won't be noticeable nor distracting. i think there's a balance that CAN be achieved. to me, most of the trek transfers (especially 2-5) are just terrible and unacceptable for a franchise that has Paramount so much $. and that's only 1 example. there are a myriad of films that can do BETTER than what is currently released.

 

[Robert Harris]

Kahn was initially released in 2000, with an SE arriving several years later.

As odd as this may sound, both are from a rather arcane era, and you're giving us no problems on modern releases.

Try to find something wrong with Unforgiven or Million Dollar Baby in HD. Except for an occasional lab defect, these transfers are extraordinary.

With the move to High Definition, the studios have found that transfer, such of these, which might have been approved for either laser or early DVD, are no longer viable for HD.

The fact is that the studios are going back, and either creating new film elements or returning to original HD transfers and doing add'l cleaning. Paramount among them.

Dirt on HD is a major problem, and is being addressed.

The point is that things are moving very rapidly. The problems found in older transfers are being addressed, and should not be found on newer releases.

I believe that, since this discussion is taking place in the HD sector of the forum, your fears will be unfounded.

RAH

 

[JediFonger]

i have both the original and the SE (i'm a huge trekkie and it's virtually identical. there's very little difference between all of the SE's and their original release. the only difference is on motion picture and generations onwards.

re: arcane releases. low budget (for an action/adventure flick) yes, but it is fairly "modern" and new compared to somn like the chaplin collection. funny how much OLDER, but well preserved, films looks BETTER than a film made in the last few decades =). even the kid (1921) bests wrath of kahn in cleanliness.

re: modern releases. i would think striking a HD copy of a new release would yield a pretty good pic since we have better preservation technology now than before.

re: old vs. new. but that's exactly the point i'm trying to make. regardless of how new or old prints are, aren't there SOP's on how to make a good transfer (WB should write the book on this one) from film to a digital medium? shouldn't there be a rule about making sure that that dirt shouldn't distract the viewers? i'm sure it was much dirtier and they've done SOME minimal things to it. i mean watching some of those deleted scenes or dailies, it's amazing how clean a print can look on opening night! but still, i expect more when a picture is "committed" to a digital medium for posterity's sake, it should be as good as it can be. the potential hasn't really been maximized yet on some of the tranfers yet.

i'm glad these types of issues are addressed =). i hope to see pristine (good as new) copies of older classics and epics on hi-def discs. these are the closest thing to owning actual film reels/copies of masters.

 

[Mark Anthony]

I guess it's all down to the individual viewer, I've seen all the ST's on a large screen and never been once distracted by dirt, but Tom and Jerry on the other hand is almost unwatchable as it is frankly unecessarily filthy.

HD will improve things, but I doubt every single title will be pristine, dirt-free and sparkling, unless you watch Direct Digital transfers and modern titles only!

M

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Thanks for taking the time to address film to HD transfers, Mr. Harris.
Besides getting the best elements, I am also hoping for HD transfers that forego the digital processing SD DVD's have been put though to the determent of PQ. Such as EE & filtering.
Hoping for the best!
Long live HD!!!

 

[Robert Harris]

HD processing is quite a bit more difficult than SD. To my eye, the first batch of releases have handled it beautifully.

RAH

 

[willyTass]

Just saw Goodfellas on my HD-xA1 on a broadcast quality Sony CRT monitor. Better colours and a sharper than the DVD version. Oh and Joe Pesci is even more frightening in 1080i !!

Worth the upgrade from SD-DVD for any fan of the film

 

[AaronSCH]

Ummmm...can we change the name of this thread to "More" than a few words ...? In order to get this thread back on track, I would like to pipe in about the subject at hand. This film looks extraordinary in HD and I enjoyed every minute. I did a comparison with the SD DVD version and it is a much more pleasurable visual experience.

 

[Paul.S]

I noticed a period quality to the cinematog/production design that changed appropriately over the years. The 50s neighborhood looked quite different from the prosecutor's office where Harry and Karen sit on the couch discussing entering the witness protection program. Not having seen the SE before (as I knew in the fall of '04 that this pic would hit HD "soon"), I'd surmise HD certainly helped in this regard.

What's going on with that leopard skin draped on the back of the couch at 1:29:19 right before Belle sits down? There's a similar but smaller distortion of vertical lines in the speaker grill on the radio during a horizontal camera pan towards Henry showering at 1:32:52.

 

[PeterTHX]

Sorry to pick nits, but who is Kahn?

I saw a still from "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" there.

Back on topic: I have noticed that Paramount films seem to suffer a lot more print and noise artifacts than say the typical Warner film. Part of the problem with the Columbia BD transfers have been grainy, noisy images. Grain and noise make it more difficult to compress (one reason why the majority of Warner HD transfers look so spectacular).

 

[Robert Crawford]

Are you basing this on actually watching HD DVDs or by reading comments from those that have watched the same?




Crawdaddy

 

[PeterTHX]

Let's just say I have unlimited access to both BD and HD DVD players.

For the record I'm purchasing a PS3.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Whatever that means, but you never answered my question of actually watching Paramount HD DVDS.





Crawdaddy

 

[Scott Calvert]

I saw that too. Whatever it is, I also noticed it on the Stadard Def version.