A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

I believe Penton-man also mentioned that possibly the original elements of Patton had dirt, hair, etc. which could not be taken out unless DNR was used. Maybe it was a lesser of two evils thing? I know Lowry has a system around this though.

Regardless, I'm curious how Fox will address this issue on this title as it's really gaining steam. Maybe it's something that will make a positive change going forward if it gets enough attention.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

The smearing of high-freq info can in fact give the illusion of detail disappearing in motion. We can agree to disagree. But this thread is about Patton, so my apologies.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

I was lucky enough to view a newly struck 65mm print of Patton earlier this decade. It was absolutely immaculate, perhaps the best I have seen. So, it is difficult to believe that theory about an inferior source element.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

It's not illusion then but real. Smearing = loss of detail.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

You are mixing up DNR with scratch removal, dirt removal, dust busting and the like. They are not the same. DNR is for filtering out general noise/grain affecting whole images. Scratch etc. removal is for local 'noise' and needs only local filtering, be it by an algorithm or retouching by hand. The rest of the image is not filtered in this case. Using DNR as a general purpose clean up tool for all kinds of random noise is completely inappropriate. The tool is optimised for the kind of noise it's supposed to remove. Just because there are hairs no faces need to become waxy when removing the hairs.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Yes, I didn't phrase it properly.

Here's his quote for the record/clarification:

The only reason I can fathom for any *excessive* DVNR being applied to this title is that during the restoration, the original element required a significant amount of DSR (dirt and scratch removal) which included as part of the post processing, a hefty load of non- real time digital noise reduction.

Blu-ray Forum - View Single Post - "Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

The following has been posted over at High Def Digest:

Several points, if I may...

Grain on release prints is reduced in the duping process from an IP to a printing negative. An Original Answer Print (OAP) or Select Print (SP) derived from the Original Camera Negative (OCN) reproduces the grain structure more accurately than a dupe.

Viewing an OAP or SP is not necessarily a good thing, as the duping process takes a bit of the edge off the grain (literally) as it allows the individual grains to blend into a slightly more cohesive form.

Patton on Blu-Ray appears to be exceedingly clean, vibrant and filled with detail, but this is illusory.

While colors and black levels are portrayed beautifully, there is very little left of the image that sets it apart as a large format film. Any well photographed film could look precisely as Patton does, without the fuss, muss and bother of dealing with huge, light-robbing 65mm equipment.

In using what seems to be an economy based DNR system to reduce or eliminate grain, the facility doing the work has not only removed grain, but along with it, EVERY BIT OF HIGH FREQUENCY INFORMATION.

Detail!

There is NONE left in Patton. Only the perception of detail.

Yes, one can easily see the netting that attaches the signature Patton eyebrows to Mr. Scott's forehead.

But this is not a function of sharpness. It is certainly not detail, as those eyebrows are HUGE, and would have had a theatrically projected width of probably fifty feet. The DNR actually makes them more obvious then they would have been on a 70mm print, along with projection weave, optics and moving grain.

The point that I want to make is that this discussion really should not be about GRAIN.

GRAIN isn't the problem.

One can properly remove grain -- part or all -- and NOT TOUCH ANY OF THE HIGH FREQUENCY INFORMATION.

By this I mean, that all detail would be left as it was.

The problem is that all digital facilities have not been created equal, and while one will use DNR to reduce or eliminate grain and take probably a full 25% of the image with it, another will leave all of that image intact, affecting only the amount of grain requested.

The only facility of which I'm currently aware that has this capability is Lowry.

Let me allow full disclosure.

I've done some work at Lowry. They're good people. Highly competent and professional. They have wonderful capabilities, but we do not always agree.

Use their capabilities toward good, and one can end of with an extraordinary product. Go in the other direction, and one can end up with a rainless window in Citizen Kane.

But they know this, and one must fully understand how to allow them to use their abilities toward good.

They would like that.

But sometimes the customer wants something else.

So this isn't about a cause to "Save the Grain" as much as replicating the full image quality allowed by the wonders that Blu-Ray can provide.

A technician with a good eye and a background in film, placed on a project like Patton could (possibly at a different facility) have delivered a totally different final result -- a result that could have made everyone smile.

The Blu-Ray of Patton fails at the final moment, not because it was based upon a flawed transfer or poor color or densities.

It fails because someone turned a knob that concurrently removed both grain and detail (High Frequency Information.)

I couldn't care less if grain is reduced slightly. It doesn't matter. As I noted above, grain is reproduced quite differently from OAP or SP to a dupe release print anyway.

But to remove what is in reality a HUGE percentage of actual picture information needlessly is just wrong.

Final point.

If one isn't aware that the information has been removed, one has no way of knowing the reality of the situation. And that is where glowing reviews come from. All well-intentioned, and based upon what people are seeing.

On a screen up to around 40" this disc can look beautiful.

Go above that, and anyone with a knowledge of the film, and of 70mm will immediately know that something has gone horribly wrong.

Master cinematographer Gordon Willis refers to this as the "freshly waxed linoleum floor" look.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

The use of the soapbox has been appreciated.

RAH

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Robert,

Thanks for your valuable insight - very intriguing and educational to read.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Though now Mr. Harris is sounding quite a bit more damning of the title than he was at the start...

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Mr. Harris,

I posted a reply to you at High Def Digest, so I we re post it here as well.

Thank you for your comments. I think your work with large format films has given you incite into this matter that most of us, myself included, simply don't have. While I have worked in 35mm, Super 16 and HD, to my dismay I've never had the chance to work in 65mm. The sad lack of theaters capable of showing 65mm means that my dream will probably remain a dream. Although with the popularity of blowing up films to Imax, I would think the light bulb would go on over some producer's head and realize that if they only shot in 65mm, the enlargement to horizontal Imax would be a huge improvement.

This brings up and interesting point that I have been meaning to ask you about.

Let's say we do a test shoot. Three cameras side by side. One 65mm, one 35mm anamorphic, and one Super 35. Shooting the same subject, under the same lighting conditions, with the same film stock.

Now here is the question. Do you think that blu-ray, with its 1920 x 1080 resolution, and its somewhat limited color space, would have the ability to display the difference between the 3 respective formats? Particularly between 65mm and the other two? Or would they look more or less identical allowing for the oval bokeh of the anamorphic lens and the shallower depth of field of the 65mm?

Doug

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

I'll be curious if Fox makes a statement about this DNR issue. Of course, if they do, I have to wonder if they would just deny it to avoid more heat and the presumption to correct the problem. It sort of reminds me of the Star Wars Phantom Menace DVD issue where it was denied any edge enahncement was used when it was very obvious otherwise.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Not necessarily more "damning," but attempting to explain a bit better what I perceive of the problems.

I'll repeat myself.

Patton is a Blu-Ray disc that could well be an end of year winner as most beautifully rendered classic or catalog title.

All of this is very much in the eyes of the beholder.

RAH

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Yes, but there's a mile of difference between:

"This is a disc that will be wonderfully reviewed, as it deserves to be, and the public will revel in the image's clarity and brilliance"

and

"anyone with a knowledge of the film, and of 70mm will immediately know that something has gone horribly wrong"

You're a brilliant guy, and I feel honored to converse with you, but for me, you sure do have an unorthodox style of communication, he he...

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Both statements seem right on the mark to me.

Just think of Joe-Six-Pack as the "public" and how they like the "video" look.

Paul

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

I watched this BRD yesterday and though I can understand why some would think this is a great looking disc, I did notice the picture devoid of any film grain and a very glossy look to it. I'm sure others with a more critical eye than mine can tell that the picture has lost some detail, but how much detail is a question that many of us can't answered. IMO, the picture quality of this disc will impress most people and for me personally I'm glad to have this disc in my collection because it does offer a significant improvement over the SD DVD video presentation, but I am still going to write a letter to Fox to complain about this issue. I have doubts that my letter would do much good because I think the studios are listening to a segment of their consumers that want film grain eliminated, but they probably don't realize the process being utilized is also reducing picture detail, at least the people in charge that can make a decision to stop this process.








Crawdaddy

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

It seems clear to me. Those that are ignorant to how the picture should look will most likely love this video presentation and those that have the knowledge to distinguish what it should look like versus what this disc is actually showing will have a problem with it.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

I still think Mr. Harris and others are quibbling. The image looks fine to me. There is room for differing opinions here, isn't there? I'm not so sure.

He should be focusing his acumen towards other titles coming along. I have found his posts quite interesting in the past and most often I'm in agreement but I think we should all move on now.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

In short, some eyes are better trained and less forgiving of flaws.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Nobody is being held hostage to this thread. If people want to move on then they can do so while some of us have a need to continue this discussion.






Crawdaddy

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

and I suppose you have to factor in the vewiing environment and equipment in use as well.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Those are factors too.




Crawdaddy

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

So, not to be cynical, but is it possible that some blu-ray transfers are being prepared with a Full Metal Jacket-style double-dip already in mind?

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

I think that's definitely the case with some Blu-ray titles (ex., Terminator 2), however, other than the DNR issue it seems Patton is the full package here.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Nothing to be cynical about, I'm sure that's the reality for many catalogue titles. But I have a hard time believing Patton would be one of them. It seems it could have been more or less perfect if it wasn't for the DNR, while the ones that will most likely get better versions down the road have been abysmal dumps from whatever old masters the studios have had lying around (Scary Movie, Face/Off etc.)

We've seen multiple reports from studios saying that even if they have HD masters of the movies, technology back then simply wasn't what it is today, and many of them will need to be re-transfered to take full advantage of Blu-ray.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

I have not seen the disc yet. Mine's stille in the mail. After all this yada, yada, yada.....How much total detail has been eradicated, 1%, 2%, more....? Mr. Harris, you might well be the only one qualified to answer this...???

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Robert Harris,

I don't mean to sidetrack, but I know you've been involved in the Godfather restoration. This goes without saying, but please do everything in your power to prevent this issue happening to the eventual Godfather BD. Paramount is probably the worst studio to date when it comes to abusing its BD titles with DNR.

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

I would bet, and there is probably no means of actually measuring this, but the loss of high frequency information could be anywhere from 10 - 25%.

To my eye, a huge amount.

As I mentioned on another board, compare this to The Sand Pebbles, which begins with 40% of the resolution of Patton. With everything handled beautifully on that one, it appears to have higher resolution, grain and all.

RAH

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Sure, but if that's what Mr. Harris meant to indicate, why use the phrase "as it deserves to be" in regards to the Blu-ray being "wonderfully reviewed"? It's no biggie--if you get what Mr. Harris is saying, fine. I just find that, personally, there's often a very schizophrenic nature to his opinions, where he often lambasts and exalts titles in the same review. I often find it hard to get to the core truth of what he wants the consumer/reader to walk away with...

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

IMO, "as it deserves to be" means it's the best reproduction ever realeased to the public.

Later Edit: That doesn't mean it shouldn't have been better.

I agree with Doug:

Quoting Doug @ High-Def Digest post #43


Paul

Re: A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray

Thank you Mr. Harris for your expertise, giving your time - educating and opening eyes for the improvement of authoring film to Blu-ray disc.

People are discussing now what can be done.

Blu-ray.com post#3683:

Blu-ray.com post# 3687:

Thank you,
Paul