MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[AlexCosmo]

Was it Spy Who Loved Me that didn't get a new transfer last time? I can't remember...

 

[Carter of Mars]

What if that's the desired look the film makers were after?

 

[TonyD]

didnt you see his previous post aout the grain.

why do we still have to have people bringing up these things and saying they want films on home video mar'd to their personal preferences.
It's not up to you, you didn't create the film.

this is the same as pan and scan.
the grain is supposed to be there, if you don't like it then deal with it.

grain is now the new mar'd aspect ratio.

 

[troy evans]

Well, I for one like my films to have grain. Not only is it good for films but it's also good for your overall health.

 

[Douglas R]

Sorry, Ron - but I hate visibly grainy-looking films! I like my movies to appear smooth, clean.
But it is only a very small minority of films where the director may have wanted a grainy/gritty look. In most cases grain is not present as a desired choice - it is simply the nature of the film material. In most cases films look better without it.

 

[TonyD]

uh huh right.
so who chooses the "film material"

 

[Gary Murrell]

lovers of film are tired of hearing this anti grain crap :frowning:

it's not that DNR efforts are just removing the natural film grain, they are removing the high frequency detail that HD resolution images provide

it is a total pooch screw of the resolution we get, in essence a waste of HD

the reason this wasn't a "problem" (I mean issue for six packs) on DVD is that the format doesn't have enough resolution or high frequency detail range to show the fine film grain

people are going to have to be educated on this like OAR, but for some reason grain = bad nearly everywhere to everyone, this is going to be a hard fight

-Gary

 

[Richard--W]

I suspect that John Karlosi was being facetious in his post.
Oops, let me clear that up. I saw the original Connery films projected theatrically in 35mm IB prints. I watched each film many, many, many times. I would go in at noon and come out at midnight. The films had grain. Grain was a vital component to Ted Moore's photography. Grain helps to establish atmosphere and ambiance and contributes to the texture of a film. Grain helps capture the cold white light of London and separate it from the warm sunny yellow light of Jamaica. Grain is supposed to be there. Grain is used by directors and photographers for aesthetic as much as technical purposes. Understand that the degree of grain is one of the factors in manufacturing raw stock and in choosing which emulsion offers x amount of grain for which purpose.

Grain is not like video noise. Grain is not dirt. I've only watched Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service in the Ultimate Collector editions. They are over-digitized. Grain has been removed. It is possible with digital technology to clean these films and make them look pristine without too much DNR. Too much DNR makes a film look like linoleum. Now, Dr. No has never looked as good as it does in the UC edition. It looks immaculate, as opposed to the beaten, choppy, dirt-ridden 35mm prints I saw projected between 1970 and the early 1990s. But at least the theatrical prints had the photochemical grain that the filmmakers were working in.

So I would like to see less DNR in the Blu-ray editions, but I know it's asking for too much at this point. New tools are available, and nobody can keep their hands off them.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I would also suspect that Mr. Karlosi was just being facetious
in his remarks as well. I have known Mr. Karlosi for a long time
and he is not one to go against "the grain" when it comes to proper
film presentation.

This year we are talking to all the studios, campaigning against the
removal of film grain in high definition releases. The studios are
applying DNR to their transfers to the point where detail is being
removed in addition to the grain. This is a MAJOR problem.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

OK, here we go.
I can see my opinion is not a popular one and I'm in the minority. So before things get too hostile, I'll take my leave.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Good choice!





Crawdaddy

 

[Richard--W]

Your posts are always informative, worthwhile and welcome by this member.

 

[Member 323668]

James Bond, totally degrained and digitally processed?

James Bond as a wax figure like Patton?

No way!

Keep your shit!


(Pardon my language - SCNR)

 

[Dave Scarpa]

And leads to Blu Rays that are only marginal improvements over their upconverted DVD Counterparts.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I too enjoy a steady diet of grain. It keeps me regular!

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Should we also remove the brush strokes from the Mona Lisa?

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I can tell you as a professional projectionist, I used to use the grain of the film as a key. If I could see the grain I knew the film was in focus. Frankly if I could see the grain from the projection booth, I KNOW the audience could see it from a comfortable distance in the theater.

Doug

 

[Yumbo]

Don't have time to threadcrap.

Like OAR etc, when consumers are forced to choose by restrictive region coding, they accordingly are limited to what they can buy.

Thus where players are either Region A or B, we can't afford to buy region locked discs, so they get boycotted.

If Warner, Universal, Sony, Lionsgate, Paramount, Disney can release region free, WHY can't Fox/MGM?

These are catalog titles!

 

[Michael Elliott]

And it's also a reason I'm not buying any BR discs.

For your second post, why this format is still young, someone needs to write up a good explanation on grain and have it a sticky in this thread. Someone with the proper knowledge should write out an article and (as you said) educate those who don't like grain.

 

[Robert Crawford]

There are some good reasons not to buy any BR discs such as affordability issue, but this film grain issue isn't a reason to not buy any BR discs.






Crawdaddy