Warner presents: a GIANT disappointment (1 Viewer)

[Matthew_Millheiser]

did you know cattle wear yarmulkes?

I once saw a llama sporting some killer tefillin...

Anyway, I add my voice to those who find fault with the transfer. Some really awful QA on the part of Warners. For shame.

 

[Joel Vardy]

Well from my POV it had better be the far future. WB has far too many catalog titles sitting around unreleased to revisit this film any time soon.

Agreed. I do, however, feel that Giant represents part of the American Experience and is a piece of 'art' that can/won't be replicated in the future. It does, therefore, warrant the development of an archival digital version that will be there for generations to come. Eastmancolor (Warner implementation version) may be part of the problem and part of the reason the film is deteriorating faster than say North by Northwest.

BTW, Jeff, what more worthy Warner catalog titles would you like to see released faster?

Joel

 

[Aaron Cohen]

How about Batman?

Hehe, in all seriousness I'm very dissapointed in what I'm hearing about this disc. I was going to buy this for my mother as this is one of her favorite movies. I will still buy it for her as there is no way in hell she will notice these problems but I know I will.

Oh well.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I was going to buy this for my mother as this is one of her favorite movies. I will still buy it for her as there is no way in hell she will notice these problems but I know I will.

The sad thing is, that with the exception of the video processing (mainly EE) I bet this is a pretty good representation of the film as it survives in printable form today. If your mom has enjoyed any previous video or broadcast version of Giant, this one will look better. Like everyone else here, I'm bummed that the previous sentence amounts to damning it with faint praise, though. :frowning:

Regards,

 

[Campbell Smith]

Does anyone have any information about the state of the original elements for Giant? I saw the restored theatrical print a few years ago and some scenes looked like they had been retrieved from a 16mm print.

 

[Patrick McCart]

...part of the reason the film is deteriorating faster than say North by Northwest.

North By Northwest has been said to lack most of its yellow layer on the negative. 1959 and 1960 were problem years for Eastmancolor.

Giant's negative is probably in great condition. The real problems with the film go back to 1956... the opticals were poorly done in 1956, thus remain awful.

A similar problem is in the movie, Help! While it was made 9 years after Giant, it shares the common problem: poorly done opticals. You'll notice that even in the restored version, any optical is extremely dirty, grainy, and contrasty. Audiences in 1965 saw the same thing we did, sadly.

The simple solution is to just find the original negatives of the sections which were duped for opticals...but studios didn't save those parts all the time.

 

[TonyD]

so after 5 years why are studios still adding this "enhancement"?

isnt there any sort of toubleshooting group that knows how to look for this before a dvd is released?
or do they actually think this is something good.

or is this really being added by the creaters of the dvd? could there be a fault in the process of transferring a movie onto dvd that is causing this halo effect?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Tony,

for more info about EE and why it exists/how it gets into the picture of our DVD...check out this discussion:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=144807

 

[TonyD]

thanks david. i actually have been following that thread and have read bjeorn's web site.
which he hasnt updated in months.

and i still get the impression that some of this EE may be due to the process of creating the dvd. that it may not be something that is always added to a dvd.

It's the purpose of fourms like this to help "wake up" the studios to new ways of thinking.

well thats what i was thinking in my other post in this thread. and its about time after 5 years the engineers who master the dvds think this way too.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Good point (and one the Bjoern makes on his website as well)

In both cases the artifact would be "added" to the original digital image (very seldom do we see EE in the source Digital HD or SD transfers)...but in one case it would be added by intent by a mastering engineer/technician and in another it might be added as a consequence of some equipment or process unintentionally.

I think we're all ok accepting that both things can be true...some EE on some discs might be intended and other times not. However, when it becomes as visible an artifact that even non-big-screen viewers are attesting...there's a problem!

In any case...intended or not...the QC folks at the studios need to "wise up" to the uglies of ringing from EE and figure out how to stop it.

Of course...WB also has to figure out that they should 16x9-encode their 1.66:1 titles too

 

[TonyD]

Of course...WB also has to figure out that they should 16x9-encode their 1.66:1 titles too

maybe they could get someone from disney to show them why it can be done, and then how.

 

[Larry Geller]

I don't have the short lived Canadian DVD release, but I bet it's not all that different.

I DO, & you're right. Even though the old one is 16x9 enhanced, and the new one isn't, except for the fact of the new one having more picture on the top & bottom of the frame, the're both equally fuzzy. HOWEVER, this is still by far the best version of Giant that I have ever seen.
My question is-Is there anything on the old disc that is missing on the new one? Is it safe to get rid of the old one?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

It's sort of an interesting quandry. Would you trade your 16:9 enhancement for a substantially higher bitrate? Perhaps you would like to trade it for what's behind door number 3?

(Apologies to those unfamilar with the game show "Let's Make a Deal". Apologies also to those who are familar with it but don't like my dumb jokes. No apologies to the three people not in either category. )

Regards,

 

[DaViD Boulet]

If they can encode noisy 1.85:1 images in 16x9 (or noisy 1.33:1 4x3 images) and get decent detail out of them (Thoroughly Modern Millie) there should be no problem getting a detailed 16x9 1.66:1 transfer of a film like this given the source material...more than enough bits to do it if compressed with care.

That's an out-dated excuse for persisting with 4x3 transfers. Even Criterion finally left this logic behind

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

David,
You weren't responding to my post were you? I was just commenting how the two R1 choices seem to be a bit-starved 16:9 Canadian release (the film is on a single dual layered side) and a bit-rich 4:3 letterboxed US release (the film is split onto two sides of a DVD-18). It's a depressing "choose your poison" scenario not necessitated by anything.

Regards,

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ken,

Appologies,

I thought you were suggesting that going with a 4x3 lbx transfer (which uses less pixels for picture...therefore relatively speaking the bit-rate is higher for what pixels are left) would increase the bit-rate available. This was a common argument some vidoephiles used to defend 4x3 lbx transfers (and one Fox/THX used regarding Titanic)...that since fewer pixels store picture it's easier on compression and therefore can result in a better picture.

anyone see how this is robbing peter to pay paul? :frowning:

I totally missed your intended point about the 2 current options from aliance vs US. Sorry!

dave

 

[Paul_Scott]

i was going to spin my friends copy of Spaceballs on my fp, when i noticed that it was 1.85 non-anamorphic.
i'd been going thru some demo discs before that, and i told him "now you're gonna see why videophiles demand that their favorite movies be anamorphic".
to my surprise the picture was quite watchable (going double for my friend who only has a small antiquated analog set at home).
almost the same reaction with Planet of the Vampires, although in that case it seemed a little more disappointing that it wasn't enhanced as that would have surely nudged a pretty terrific looking disc into the 'reference' category as far as 60's B-catalog titles go.
and then there is Anchor bays, The Vengeance of She.
not a great film, but the 1.66 non anamorphic transfer is one of the most luscious i've ever seen.
almost no room to complain whatsoever.

Giant was significantly poorer looking than any of these.
while some of this is due to the condition of the elements,
the EE was wholly discretionary.

and after reading the chat, this transfer seems wildly at odds with some of their statements about other titles that aren't on disc because 'based on the condition of the elements, we can't put out a disc that would meet out standards' or something to that effect.

i really hope Giant is just an aberration and not indicative of WBs current standards.

 

[Aaron Cohen]

Hahaha wow! You guys aren't kidding! I picked up the disc today and you know there's some bad EE when you can completely make out the halos on a 13 inch television! What the....someone fell asleep with the EE button held down! That being said, my mother and I still enjoyed it on the 27 inch television in her room, I didn't play it on my HDTV because my setting are all out of whack right now with zoom modes and didn't feel like messing with it. She never complained and loved it while I noticed all the EE. A great movie, this was my first time watching it, but good grief. I'm glad I'm not viewing this on a 10 feet screen. WB had an absolutely incredible track record. Hopefully this isn't the sign of things to come....

 

[Joel Vardy]

Does anybody know why Elizabeth Taylor is conspicuously absent from any of the extras (no interviews nor focus on her contribution)? Is she unhappy with her performance here or unhappy that she didn't win more honors?

Joel

 

[ScottR]

Ms. Taylor was in Cannes recently promoting the DVD release of Giant.