A few words about...™ Nixon -- in Blu-ray

Robert Harris · 08-09-2008, 09:46 AM

Oliver Stone's Nixon (1995) is one of the more interesting presidential "bios" of recent years. Biographical filmmaking has come a long way since productions like The President's Lady (1953).

Based partially on fact, mixed with a doses of events as reported by others, it does a fine job of providing an illuminating take on an interesting, multi-dimensional and troubled man.

Arriving on Blu-ray as the Director's Cut, extended by 28 minutes, the film looks very good. Since digital noise and grain reduction is a current hot topic, I can report that while grain appears to have reduced selectively on a sequence by sequence basis. Viewing the film at 100" from a respectable distance provides a very pleasing experience.

There are no problems here. With the inclusion of lossless audio, the Hollywood Pictures (Disney) is a quality package.

This is an extremely high quality production and a high quality Blu-ray experience.

Recommended.

RAH

Dave H · 08-09-2008, 02:27 PM

Does high frequency detail appear to be reduced at all? Or, does it seem like it's just grain only?

DavidDTS · 08-09-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Oliver Stone's Nixon (1995) is one of the more interesting presidential "bios" of recent years. Biographical filmmaking has come a long way since productions like The President's Lady (1953).

Based partially on fact, mixed with a doses of events as reported by others, it does a fine job of providing an illuminating take on an interesting, multi-dimensional and troubled man.

Arriving on Blu-ray as the Director's Cut, extended by 28 minutes, the film looks very good. Since digital noise and grain reduction is a current hot topic, I can report that while grain appears to have reduced, viewing the film from a respectable distance provides a very pleasing experience.

There are no problems here. With the inclusion of lossless audio, the Hollywood Pictures (Disney) is a quality package.

Recommended.

RAH

Question I'm dying to find out--- did they fix the EXTENDED SCENES so they blend seamlessly in with the rest of the film?? On standard dvd, they just reinserted them even though the extended scenes were of extremely poor quality (not to mention wider aspect ratio) and thus took you right out of the film. I couldn't believe Disney could release such a crummy product.

So Mr Harris, can you confirm basically if everything now looks uniform?

Paul Arnette · 08-09-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave H

Does high frequency detail appear to be reduced at all? Or, does it seem like it's just grain only?

I'm curious to know this as well as the screen shots I saw on DVD Beaver seemed to indicated DNR has been applied. I'm still learning how to spot DNR, but from reading RAH's view it would seem that I've attained a modicum of success at it.

RAH would you say this title falls into your previous Tier 2, or would you rather not 'go there'. I completely understand if you are relucant to.

Dave H · 08-09-2008, 05:44 PM

Hey Paul,

I just checked out those shots. It seems at least that film grain is still visible. Some shots look film like such as this one.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...0809102027.jpg

**HTF Ads**

Paul Arnette · 08-09-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave H

Hey Paul,

I just checked out those shots. It seems at least that film grain is still visible. Some shots look film like such as this one

I agree. It certainly isn't a complete loss, which is probably why RAH has at least 'Recommended' it.

The shot that worried me in particular was this one:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...0809094747.jpg

That said, I haven't seen this yet, I want to very much, and it is at least 'Recommended', so I'll probably 'bite'.

Dave H · 08-09-2008, 06:23 PM

My guess is that is a softer filmed shot with some very light DNR applied. I say that because grain is still visible. If no grain were visible, I would be concerned.

I can see where some DNR might have been used in the film to keep a little balance between the different shots and mixed/different sorts of footage used, but that's just my guess.

Paul Arnette · 08-09-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave H

My guess is that is a softer filmed shot with some very light DNR applied. I say that because grain is still visible. If no grain were visible, I would be concerned.

I can see where some DNR might have been used in the film to keep a little balance between the different shots and mixed/different sorts of footage used, but that's just my guess.

Yeah, it is tough to say. As I have mentioned before, I am still learning what to look for where DNR is concerned, so I'd hate to create unnecessary hysteria during the learning process. However, just from this one picture I have learned that one has to take into account the the director's intent, which is difficult to 'know', the film stock, the age of the transfer (as older ones resolve less detail), and to look to see if grain is still present before thinking 'ZOMG! I can barely see Anthony Hopkins pores! This is another DNR victim'.

Dave H · 08-09-2008, 07:20 PM

I have also learned that watching people or faces in motion (movement) you can often detect DNR (Patriot Games is a good example). You can sometimes see an unnatural, almost as if there are two layers of skin moving on the face. I think Mhafner has some examples of this on his Web site too.

frankie108 · 08-09-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Arnette

...I'm still learning how to spot DNR, but from reading RAH's view it would seem that I've attained a modicum of success at it.

A dubious accomplishment at best.

Kris Z. · 08-09-2008, 09:11 PM

I'm not familiar with this film and the DVDBeaver review mentions there are many different types of film techniques and stocks used etc. so I don't know what's supposed to look like what. But setting that aside, for all you DNR apologists, would you really prefer the soft look of these two caps:
Soft 1
Soft 2

When you could have clarity and sharpness like this:
Sharp 1
Sharp 2