Am I the only person who thinks AI is a lousy transfer?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Eujin, Mar 10, 2002.

  1. Eujin

    Eujin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    My wife and I just finished watching AI. After all the raves about transfer quality, I must say that I was very disappointed. There was grain everywhere! And not just grain that was inherent in the film. This grain does not give the transfer a more "film-like" look--it just makes the picture look like it's crawling. I know it's not my system because I just tested a bunch of other titles I own and they look fine. Am I alone in this universe? Does anyone else think this is a poor transfer? And before you ask, I'm using a RP56 going directly to a Tosh 50H81 via component cables (made from Canare L4CFB cable and connectors).
     
  2. Jeremy Anderson

    Jeremy Anderson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 1999
    Messages:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    0
    Janusz Kaminski uses a lot of offbeat film processes to achieve that look (as he did in his directorial debut, Lost Souls). The result is an excess of grain, which I noticed even in the theater. Part of this is because they did skip-bleaching on the film, leaving the silver emulsion intact (which is why the image has such contrast). Personally, the DVD perfectly emulates what I saw on the big screen, and I think it's an outstanding transfer of the source material.
     
  3. Eujin

    Eujin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jeremy, if what you say is true--and I have no reason to doubt you--then I'm just glad that I didn't see AI in the theaters. I know Kaminski has his style, but I thought it was just way overdone in AI. Oh well, I'm going to exchange my copy for some store credit tomorrow.
     
  4. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,306
    Likes Received:
    817
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    It's not a poor transfer at all - it's what the film looks like. It's accurate and correct.
     
  5. Joel C

    Joel C Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 1999
    Messages:
    1,633
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope you aren't simply exchanging it because it didn't look the way you want it to. The transfer looks good to me because it is supposed to look that way. Taking out the grain would be like colorizing a B&W film.
     
  6. Tim RH

    Tim RH Second Unit

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2001
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is nothing wrong with film grain. DVD owners seem to think that it is the fault of a bad transfer when this "artifact" shows up, but if you really want the most accurate representation of the movie, then it shouldn't bother you. In fact, I wish more DVDs had film grain (like Citizen Kane for instance).
    In my opinion, A.I. has a splendid transfer, and I would have been displeased if they had mucked with the director and cinematographer's original intent. It is still far superior to VHS, so if you enjoyed the movie, please don't return the DVD, okay? Thanks. [​IMG]
     
  7. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,520
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Alpharetta, GA, USA
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    A.I. was grainy when I saw it in the theater.

    Grain isn't a very good thing to judge a transfer on.
     
  8. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,452
    Likes Received:
    4,816
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    There are some members that believe "grain=poor video transfer" which is an incorrect way of thinking.

    Crawdaddy
     
  9. TonyD

    TonyD Who do we think I am?
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 1999
    Messages:
    17,128
    Likes Received:
    388
    Location:
    Disney World and Universal Florida
    Real Name:
    Tony D.
    just because it was intnded to look that way does that mean i can't say i didn't like it lookingt thjat way/ which i didn't.
     
  10. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,452
    Likes Received:
    4,816
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
     
  11. TonyD

    TonyD Who do we think I am?
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 1999
    Messages:
    17,128
    Likes Received:
    388
    Location:
    Disney World and Universal Florida
    Real Name:
    Tony D.
    I agree robert but if one hasn't seen the movie in a theater how could you know?

    i saw it in a theater but my memory isn't that good to remember if it looked that way when i saw it.

    maybe i just didn't notice or .....i may have chalked it up as being a bad presentation at the theater i was in.

    if the theater had a bad copy how could someone know it was really supposed to look grainy? or not grainy?

    maybr this thread should have been titled does anyone else think a.i. the movie had poor picture quality?
     
  12. jeff peterson

    jeff peterson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 1998
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are many instances of film manipulation by the director/cinematographer. The greenish tint in the Matrix, the fire streaks in Saving Private Ryan, black and white Woody Allen movies. IMO, the title should be "Did anyone else dislike AI's filming style?" and the topic transferred to the movies forum.
    Those darn Picasso paintings may not look like other's reality either; unless you artificially alter your reality [​IMG]
     
  13. Randy_M

    Randy_M Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Peoria, AZ
    Real Name:
    Randy Margolis
    I'm really glad I read this thread...didn't see this in the theater - rented the DVD this past weekend (loved the film, by the way)

    I truly thought there was something wrong with my equipment as I watched this. Nice to know it was meant to be that way.

    Cheers
     
  14. Rob Gillespie

    Rob Gillespie Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 1998
    Messages:
    3,632
    Likes Received:
    5
    What always puzzles me about so-called 'grainy' movies is that in a cinema (on a good print) the grain is noticeable but not instrusive. When the DVD arrives, the 'grain' is now more noticeable relative to the size of the screen. If a film looks 'grainy' on a 70ft screen, but 'very grainy' on a 32" TV, there's something wrong somewhere.

    I remember A.I. having a somewhat grainy look when I saw it last year, but to my eyes the DVD looks 'more grainy'. My eyes aren't trained enough to determine whether the DVD 'grain' is real 'grain' or just compression artifacts, but the fact remains that the 'grain' is more noticeable to me on the disc, on a 32" TV than it was coming from film on a large screen, filling field of my vision.
     
  15. James Miller

    James Miller Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    I imagine the better the resolution of the monitor / better cable input the less obvious ( grain will be. Moving up to component inputs, progressive scan DVD, Digital TV will likely reduce resolution related grain.
     
  16. Eujin

    Eujin Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  17. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,186
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth McAlinden
     
  18. Michael Reuben

    Michael Reuben Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 1998
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    2
     
  19. TonyD

    TonyD Who do we think I am?
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 1999
    Messages:
    17,128
    Likes Received:
    388
    Location:
    Disney World and Universal Florida
    Real Name:
    Tony D.
     
  20. Brian-W

    Brian-W Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    1,149
    Likes Received:
    2
    What gets me anytime I see a "Poor Transfer" thread is how anyone could derive that what they viewed was a poor transfer? Let's be real, even the print you see in the theater is a copy of a copy, and not representative of where the HD/DVD master was generated from.

    Considering practically no one here has access to the master prints (or even generational subsequent prints) how can anyone here say the transfer for any given film is poor when you have zero access to the print it was made from?

    The film may not have that look you expect, but that doesn't mean the transfer was poor.

    -Brian
     

Share This Page