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
![Patton [Blu-ray]](http://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/thumbs/3/3a/B00158K0S8-51r5J6sbyIL.jpg/60x60px-LS-B00158K0S8-51r5J6sbyIL.jpg)
