What's new

USHE Press Release: Back To The Future 25th Anniversary Trilogy (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

Nelson Au

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
19,040
Thanks Zack and Stephen, I understand. Particularly the process shots, I can see why the shot of Doc on the train would be misunderstood as having too much DNR added when it was itself a highly composited shot, so I can see that generational loss would affect that sequence.

Great Scott! I just had a look at those screengrabs. Looks pretty good! Though that composite shot of the Doc and Marty in the flames still looks fake!
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Originally Posted by Nelson Au

Thanks Zack and Stephen, I understand. Particularly the process shots, I can see why the shot of Doc on the train would be misunderstood as having too much DNR added when it was itself a highly composited shot, so I can see that generational loss would affect that sequence.
I find it essentially impossible to believe that the shot of Doc on the train looks the way it does because of "film compositing". It looks quite far removed from a film look, and does indeed have that video DNR look.
 

Todd Erwin

Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
10,382
Location
Hawthorne, NV
Real Name
Todd Erwin
Display as in montor as in HDTV. I made no mention of screenshots, as they are not an accurate way of determining PQ.

Originally Posted by RobertR




I'm not clear on what you mean by "the display being used". Do you mean the display reviewers are using? Screenshots don't use a display; they're taken directly from the disc.
 

Zack Gibbs

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
1,687
Originally Posted by RobertR



I find it essentially impossible to believe that the shot of Doc on the train looks the way it does because of "film compositing". It looks quite far removed from a film look, and does indeed have that video DNR look.


Back To The Future 2 & 3 both would have been digitally composited, so indeed indeed.
 

Lord Dalek

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
7,093
Real Name
Joel Henderson
For what its worth II and III were noticably a bit softer than I back on the old set. As much as I hate to rag on Bill Hunt, this one of his more questionable calls.
 

AaronMK

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 30, 1999
Messages
772
Location
Orlando, FL
Real Name
Aaron Karp
I don't have any illusions that they run their elements through a film scanner and out pops a series of digital images that, in motion, represent what that scanned film would look like when projected. I also don't have any illusions of restoration efforts not having to resort to digital tools to counteract the effects of age, wear and tear, varying element conditions, etc. to create a coherent presentation that, even if not authentic, comes as close as possible to what we would see if pristine elements were still available.

There is a big difference between using tools to achieve an accurate presentation, and using those tools to bring the presentation in line with people's preferences on the appropriate level of grain (whether that preference be leaving "a hint of visible grain to retain it's film-like appearance" or "scrubbing it clean"). If you are aiming for the latter, than why is a preference for something like the latest Predator release any less valid than a preference to only remove "excessive" grain?
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong







Are they better than the old DVD version? Probably so (as I opined above), but that may not be saying a whole lot...


_Man_

I'm sure many people are going to be perfectly content with the "better than DVD" standard. They'll choose not to think about the "looks like film" standard, which BR is supposed to be held to.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H



It boils down to film and video (and HD or no, Blu-Ray is still video) being two completely different processes. If an image harvesting is done correctly, including colour timing, grading, contrast balancing (not boosting), the grain should be no more apparent than it was on release prints. Given that sources used for harvesting are ideally that much closer generationally to the ONeg, grain should be finer and less apparent.


I personally don't think the grain issue on Ghostbusters can be entirely attributed to contrast boosting: much like the BTTF series, Ghostbusters was a film that relied heavily on optical processes, resulting in a buildup of grain combined with contrast and lighting issues. Since Ghostbusters obviously didn't have any grain reduction applied, the grain will be espelly thick in process shots. On the other hand, the only grain reduction that may have been done on BTTF appears to be in process shots (take a look at blu-ray.com's screenshots of Doc and Marty standing over the flaming tire tracks in the mall parking lot and the DeLorean's wheels folding up underneath it as it hovers don the street). I can hear people screaming already about "edge enhancement" and "wax figures" with respect to these shots, but if you look closely, the edge haloes are caused by process shooting in both those scenes. The grain appears to have been reduced in those shots to the same level as in non-process shots, and any detail lost would have been lost as a result of generational loss anyway.

Actually many but not all of the optical process shots show LESS grain but then i think they may have used VistaVision 70mm for those scenes as was standard practice for many eighties films, it's the 35mm shots that i was talking about which don't contain effects work that have the grain structure boosted above what would be considered normal and some highlights are also blown out as a result.


Check out some screencaps from my site below and look at the effects shots and the non effects shots.


http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/2010/08/06/blu-ray-screencaps-ghostbusters/


To the reviewer who said screencaps do not reflect accurately what is on the disc, wrong, they do, although it should be noted that film grain in static form is nothing like the beautiful look that it can provide to a film when in motion as in very highly detailed images, this notion that people like myself are grain lovers must end, i don't love film grain, i just want the image preserved and the high frequency information retained, grain scrubbing even if it is moderate removes some of that higher frequency information that the best blu rays have retained for their transfers and this results in a compromise on image quality, the best blu ray discs don't have the same compromise, now that doesn't mean dnr wasn't applied, it just was applied in such small doses that it doesn't stick out the way it does on some films on this format.


Oh and Russell i'm confused what do you mean by the statement "environment factors that can come into play compromising the picture on front projectors." ?


I have a dedicated room for my projector, completely black room, no light whatsoever, like a batcave so i'm not sure about environment factors.
 

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,906
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
FWIW, I just happened to check out some screencaps for the Field of Dreams BD at blu-ray.com (to reconsider purchasing for the bargain price of ~$10), and you know what? The BTTF screencaps look quite similar in quality to the Field of Dreams BD w/ some looking less detailed and some slightly more so.


Considering the nature of the (frequently used) optical effects, film stocks, etc. for BTTF, makes me wonder if it will ever look all that much better than this (even if less DNR is used), which would indeed be too bad. Thing is even the screencaps w/out obvious optical effects (as far as I could tell) look rather devoid of detail, eg. the shot of Marty sitting next to his teenage father George in the diner, Doc's nighttime headshot in front of the clock tower (though I suppose an optical effect was used for the lightning and maybe even the clock tower itself).


I guess if this is indeed the best we'll likely ever get, then I'll just have to wait for a very good sale before picking the set up, especially since we cannot buy just the original fim as standalone. It'll probably look alright enough (though probably very far from ideal) on my 61" DLP, but it certainly doesn't seem like a good presentation for anything much bigger.


And for all those who don't care just because they don't (currently) own a large display, many people (including myself) felt the same about DNR/EE and compression artifacts on DVDs in the past too when we had smaller SDTVs and sat a mile away from the set. But things change, and then, some (like me) find our enjoyment of quality films substantially reduced when we move up to bigger screens (for that more cinematic experience) that reveal all the various flaws/artifacts because serious, poorly conceived compromises were made for the video transfers/encodes.


Anyhoo...


_Man_
 

Adam Gregorich

What to watch tonight?
Moderator
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 20, 1999
Messages
16,530
Location
The Other Washington
Real Name
Adam
Originally Posted by Kevin EK

I'm going to second what Ron said above. I have the review copy and started going through it last night. I also have had BTTF 1 looked at on a much larger screen than I personally have at home. (My current screen is 40" - in another month or so, I should be able to upgrade to 65" and at that point I'll be able to catch a lot more of the clear-cut large-screen issues). As I understand it, BTTF 1 looks good - it's a little soft in some areas, but not necessarily due to the transfer - it's more of an issue that the style of filming requires a constantly moving camera with changing points of focus. It's really a matter of Robert Zemeckis' way of multitasking his shots. I'll know a bit more about the transfers on 2 & 3 by the weekend.


The additional extras mostly consist of the new interview documentary, which is primarily an updated set of interviews with the principals they could get. I've gone through the first two parts of it. The other new extras are a Michio Kaku piece and some U-Control functionality that allows you to see storyboards next to some scenes, and transfers over the Trivia track from the prior release. I will compare the trivia tracks to confirm this, but it seems logical to me that this was transplanted to the U-Control area. The other bit is a Setup/Payoff routine that I haven't played with yet.


I can confirm that the only glimpses you'll get of Eric Stoltz are what you've already seen in the excerpt available online now.

I can also attest that the packaging, which pairs each disc with a digital copy disc beneath it, is the same style that I complained about on TV season sets earlier. To get the discs out, you have to press on the side of the plastic, and it doesn't give that easily, leading to anxiety about broken discs. I am not a fan of this packaging style by any means.


I am prioritizing right now, so you'll see reviews of Psycho and Bionic Woman right away, followed by BTTF likely on Sunday. A big part of this for me is always the cataloguing of all the goodies, and identifying from whence they came...

I happened to have the opportunity to look at parts of the first film, and there is no mistaking it for anything but film. While there may have been some DNR applied (I don't know the specifics) in NO way was the DNR switch turned up to 11 for this release. Did the BTTF BD have the same level of detail that I have seen in other film releases? No, but I think it had very little to do with DNR and more to do with the soft filtering, depth of field on shots changing all the time, the extensive panning, optical effects and in multiple scenes the make up effects used. When I ignored the story and tried to focus only on the "picture quality" I found the make-up type and application and camera choices to be distracting in a few scenes. Do I consider it reference material? No, but based on what I saw of the first movie I think this a good transfer and representative of the source material and a title I will have no problem adding to my collection.


Edit: Watched using a Samsung SPA-800 DLP calibrated with the assistance of Joe Kane, in a light controlled (pitch dark) room on a 120"+ screen.
 

Jason Charlton

Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2002
Messages
3,557
Location
Baltimore, MD
Real Name
Jason Charlton
OK, so let me see if I have this right.


The people that have actually seen the DVDs BRs (Adam, Bill Hunt, etc.) seem to think they're just fine.


Folks that haven't actually seen the DVDs are firmly entrenched in the "it sucks" camp.


Does that pretty much sum it up? I don't think I'll be losing much sleep over this.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Originally Posted by Jason Charlton

OK, so let me see if I have this right.


The people that have actually seen the DVDs (Adam, Bill Hunt, etc.) seem to think they're just fine.


Folks that haven't actually seen the DVDs are firmly entrenched in the "it sucks" camp.


Does that pretty much sum it up?


Not for me, it doesn't. I'm in the "concerned, and waiting to see and hear more feedback" camp. BTW, these are Blu Rays we're talking about, not DVDs.
 

Stephen_J_H

All Things Film Junkie
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
7,871
Location
North of the 49th
Real Name
Stephen J. Hill
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs





Back To The Future 2 & 3 both would have been digitally composited, so indeed indeed.
No, they wouldn't. Digital compositing didn't start being used until 1993, when Kodak's Cineon software became available. While CG effects predate 1993, those effects still had to be recorded to film and then optically composited.
 

Kevin EK

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2003
Messages
3,103
My review will be up later, but I've gone through all three movies and the extra features.


I agree that there is inconsistent grain, but it is present. As Adam noted, when we are in a scene with a lot of VFX, things tend to get softer for obvious reasons.


I noticed the same pattern problem on Marvin Berry's jacket as I did on the businessman's suit coat in Psycho.

Part 3 also varies in the amount of grain, but it's there. The screencap of Doc on the train is softer due to the number of elements working in the shot - unless someone wants to explain how they put Christopher Lloyd on the front of a real speeding train... In other shots, there's a lot more detail - for example the sarape worn by Michael J. Fox shows a lot of texture and detail.


BTW the Michio Kaku interview is a lot of fun. He's essentially discussing parallel universe theory, so that if Marty McFly screws up the meeting of his parents, he doesn't cease to exist - instead, an alternate universe is created where his parents DIDN'T meet. Therefore, the mother he is dealing with actually ISN'T his mother. (His favorite moment in the movies comes in the infamous chalkboard scene in BTTF 2) Kaku also mentions that it would take a LOT more than the amount of plutonium they're using to power the time machine.


The U Control features are as sticky as the ones I dealt with on Repo Men. When I activated the Setup/Payoff PIP material, and then switched to the Trivia Track, I suddenly had no real control over the feature, and wound up having to eject the disc and try again.
 

FoxyMulder

映画ファン
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
5,385
Location
Scotland
Real Name
Malcolm
Originally Posted by Kevin EK
unless someone wants to explain how they put Christopher Lloyd on the front of a real speeding train...


Oh damn that ruins it for me, you mean he wasn't really on the train!
 

Jason Charlton

Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2002
Messages
3,557
Location
Baltimore, MD
Real Name
Jason Charlton
Originally Posted by RobertR
Not for me, it doesn't. I'm in the "concerned, and waiting to see and hear more feedback" camp. BTW, these are Blu Rays we're talking about, not DVDs.

Whoops - don't know where my mind was when posting...


At least the early indications are that the "doom and gloom" knee-jerk reactions to a few screencaps that were scattered across the interwebs was a bit premature and overblown.


It is a shame that the films aren't available individually, though. I'm not planning on getting the set anytime soon, but would be more likely to pick up the first one if it were available in a single release.
 

Zack Gibbs

Screenwriter
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
1,687
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H



No, they wouldn't. Digital compositing didn't start being used until 1993, when Kodak's Cineon software became available. While CG effects predate 1993, those effects still had to be recorded to film and then optically composited.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (May, '89) was the first feature released that utilized Digital Compositing. Several other features that year used it, including BTTF 2 and Ghostbusters 2. Note that optical compositing was used as well, I can't attest to the ratios. Certainly it would have been based on the type/need of the effect. Terminator 2 ('91) was notable for digitally compositing all of it's digital effects shots.


I would imagine Kodak's system is what allowed for the first fully digitally composited films.
 

Kevin EK

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2003
Messages
3,103
I need to update my earlier statement about the pattern issue on Marvin Berry's jacket in BTTF 1. I meant to say Marty's jacket, while he's playing guitar at the dance. And it's really a very slight thing - one that may actually be caused by my HDTV using 3:2 pulldown.


Just to keep the record straight...
 

cafink

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
3,044
Real Name
Carl Fink
Originally Posted by Jason Charlton says that the films "have been scrubbed clean of any evidence of...film grain" and that "some scenes...are so squeaky clean the actors look like mannequins and their environment like a digital creation.

So, while some of the people who have seen the Blu-rays think they're fine, others think they've been too heavily digitally manipulated. This says to me that the transfers do suffer from digital manipulation; it's simply below the "bothersome" threshold for some viewers. That's good for those viewers, but unfortunate nevertheless, as there's no reason the discs should suffer from any appreciable manipulation. Why should we be satisfied with discs exhibiting DNR that's unobtrusive enough not to bother some viewers, when so many other Blu-rays exhibit no such DNR at all?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,711
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top