Robert Harris on The Bits - 2/26/03 column - OFFICIAL THREAD (1 Viewer)

[Rain]

Some people don't think of the these issues as trivial.

Some people embraced DVD because it was a format which could reasonably accurately represent a film.

Some of us feel the whole point would be lost if studios strive to make films look like video.

Some of us think that film is beautiful, grain, "warts" and all.

 

[CraigF]

In your response you did not really contradict anything I said. My point is just because something has grain does not make it "art" or superior. There are many who view lousy production or technology, such as "films" made on $200 video cameras, as automatic art. I do not. I do not view any artifact of the medium, whether it be grainy film or compression, or whether it be artifacts of post-production, such as EE, as being beneficial to my viewing experience. But neither am I intolerant of it, if it's the best I can get NOW. Just because something isn't IMO perfect doesn't mean I don't enjoy it a lot. I certainly didn't mean to trivialize your opinion, as I've noticed you're serious about this stuff, but I'm just a happy customer who is thrilled to get many of these films in a quite tolerable version. Really, really. I can't properly convey how pleased I am to have some of these movies in a quite watchable format, so you'll have to excuse me if I get a little picky about people being picky. And I'm picky myself, just old enough to appreciate the current state of home film representation, compared to what I had previously.

 

[Robert Harris]

Just to keep things in perspective...

"Silent" films were not necessarily "grainy," although their grain structure was certainly more obvious than with current black and white stocks.

The grain structure most often encountered with films of the silent era is not the grain structure of the original at all, but rather that of generation upon generation of duped in artifacts.

Most grain is hidden within the movement of the frames, becoming more obvious when a film is projected or transferred at slower speeds as one will find with films of the silent era.

A DP working on a new production can choose his grain structure or work with a grain structure as a byproduct of the stock necessitated by the production. The higher speed the emulsion, the heavier the grain structure, although with modern Eastman stocks, even the fastest speed emulsions have what we would term as a fine grain structure.

A properly rendered 3 strip Technicolor film will or should have no grain whatsoever, the byproduct of a combination of the optics of the period used in the production of printing matrices and the specific mordant used to make the dyes adhere to the clear film. These films were always slightly "soft" in focus, not out of focus, which gave them a grainless look, while the Onegs had the normal grain of black and white stock of the period and were sharper than the resultant color print.

As to Citizen Kane and LoA, my problems with the former are minimal and I would not at all avoid adding this to one's library. Beyond the "homogenization" of grain, my only real gripe with this title is an early shot played much, much too light, when it was designed to be played virtually in silhouette. That said, it does not deserve an * in its present form. Hopefully it will be corrected in a future pressing and that can be reported.

Re: LoA, the problems are myriad and are greater with audio than with video. These will be fixed at some time in the future. In the meantime, for anyone who has not seen LoA, the perfect way not to see it for the first time is on DVD, but rather on a huge screen in 70mm. New prints are stilling making their way around the country and certain foreign territories.

 

[Rain]

These will be fixed at some time in the future.

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Can you specify which scene it is that you are referring to?

If I had to guess, I'd assume he means the scene in the projection room after the newsreel ends. To my eye as well, it's much too light; you can actually make out some of the faces, such as Joseph Cotten's, that you can't on a proper 35mm print.

 

[Robert Harris]

Mr. Apruzzese is quite correct.

 

[Rain]

Thanks.

I suspect it won't be until the next format rolls out that this has any chance of being corrected. :frowning:

 

[Patrick McCart]

Well, Citizen Kane CAN be helped a little...if you want to fiddle around with your monitor settings. I found that a combination of lowering brightness and increasing contrast made the picture look better. Since the source used was a European nitrate IP, it's possible that it being so close to the negative...it wasn't meant for viewing since prints would be darker.

Lawrence of Arabia CAN have a chance... Columbia had the title listed on their Superbit poll, so they could finally fix all this stuff for a Superbit edition. If they do a Superbit without fixes, that would be a huge waste... after all, the DTS track would probably have to originate from the new 70mm print version. How do we get them to do this for a Superbit?

CORRECTION:

Kane was from fine-grain master, not interpositive.