Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs - Page 6

post #151 of 289
11/15/03 at 2:36pm
Quote:
Paramount has done a great job with their catalogue releases and I think the above comment is uncalled for and just plain silly.
Uncalled for and quite ignorant. Bad vocabulary also.


Gordy
Reply
post #152 of 289
11/15/03 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Paramount has done a great job with their catalogue releases


Some supplements would be nice on the catalog titles though, when available.
Reply
post #153 of 289
11/15/03 at 4:01pm
Some supplements would be nice on the catalog titles though, when available.

If a studio does a good job with the dvd presentation then I'm a happy camper, anything extra is gravy to me.






Crawdaddy
Reply
post #154 of 289
11/15/03 at 5:44pm
Quote:
anything extra is gravy to me.


But Man, I do love Gravy

Reply
post #155 of 289
11/15/03 at 6:17pm
Quote:
If a studio does a good job with the dvd presentation then I'm a happy camper, anything extra is gravy to me.
Especially since their pricing policy has improved dramatically in the last year or so. $14.98 SRP for many of their featureless catalogue releases, all with fine anamorphic transfers!

Chris
Reply
post #156 of 289
11/15/03 at 6:20pm
Why would Hud be an old laserdisc transfer?

BTW, if you'd like to see how Paramount handles their films, check out http://www.paramountpictures.com/fil.../projects.html
Reply
post #157 of 289
11/15/03 at 6:29pm
Why don't those who are intereseted start a thread about 1.78:1 vs. 1.85:1 and discuss that issue in that thread, and discuss the Godfather re-release in this thread?

On that note, I am probably going to buy a 60" rear projection in the next year or so and am wondering if I should buy the current DVD set, or wait to see the reviews on the new set. I am concerned about PQ forcing me into a double dip if I buy now and am later unhappy with the pq once I get a big screen.
Reply
post #158 of 289
11/15/03 at 7:15pm
Great link Patrick. Thanks!
Reply
post #159 of 289
11/15/03 at 10:21pm
Yes, great link Patrick!

The following mission statment taken from the Paramount site.
Paramount Preservation Website
The Mission

The motion picture as a narrative art has its roots firmly planted in the soil of the Greek drama and its descendents, the Miracle play of the middle ages and Shakespeare. By the time Shakespeare wrote Anthony and Cleopatra, the fluid dramatic structure, which we identify with the modern screenplay, was established.

The form of the drama changed very little over the centuries. It was a medium of words. The rhythmic movement of a story was propelled by words. Then came the motion picture and the rhythms of a story had to be told by purely visual means. Indeed, Ingmar Bergman has stated that the film has more in common with music than literature. At the heart of filmmaking is the visual grammar that we call film editing where each shot is like a bar of music.

Thus, unlike the drama, poetry and the novel, where the mere copying of words is preservation, the film image is so fragile that it is only with the greatest care and effort that the original integrity of the image can be maintained.

Of the visual arts, film is the most fragile.

It is the protection of the original integrity of that image and the supporting sound that is the goal of the Paramount Film Preservation Program.
Reply
post #160 of 289
11/16/03 at 11:49am
Looking at DDD, it seems as if the MSRP of The Godfather DVD Collection had dropped from $105 to $75, undoubtedly another confirmation of the rerelease. However, if the discs as being re-released individualy, what is going to happen with the disc with the bonus features? Is Paramount going to break down that 5th disc and release parts of it with each single release? Or are they going to do it like Fox is for the Alien Quadrilogy, where you can buy each title individually or get re-released box set with the new transfers and an additional special features disc?
Reply
post #161 of 289
11/16/03 at 11:55am
I wonder if each film will be on two discs this time. If that's the case, they can certainly throw some kind of bonus feature on there (although I don't really care if they do).
Reply
post #162 of 289
11/16/03 at 1:24pm
Have the reissues ever been offically announced by Paramount, or is this still just going off of the article?
Reply
post #163 of 289
11/16/03 at 2:04pm
Just going from the article - no official announcement has been made.
Reply
post #164 of 289
11/16/03 at 2:24pm
I'm reasonably happy with The Godfather DVDs as they are. The transfers aren't perfect but these aren't the sort of films you watch every day, at least I don't ! Seriously I think I've watched them probably twice in over two years since they were released. The first two films get better with repeated viewings particularly the second which blew me away on the second viewing but the third which I revisited on Friday gets worse. The extras are great and I say that having not heard Coppola's audio commentaries ! I must put aside a few evenings for them ! I would be such a pity if the extras disc was jettisoned like it was with the Lawrence of Arabia Superbit.
Reply
post #165 of 289
11/16/03 at 4:04pm
From that article, I would assume that Paramount also supports the use of all the original logos at the start of the film ( and restoring those that have been changed, i.e. the 1978 logo and fanfare for Grease.)
Reply
post #166 of 289
11/16/03 at 4:19pm
Quote:
From that article, I would assume that Paramount also supports the use of all the original logos at the start of the film ( and restoring those that have been changed, i.e. the 1978 logo and fanfare for Grease.)

Excellent point...

Reply
post #167 of 289
11/16/03 at 7:28pm
I haven't read much of this thread but I will say that I hated the picture quality of these movies the day they were released. I don't know about Godfather 3, as I never played that one, but 1 & 2 were so dark I had to increase the brightness on my TV. I never have to do this with other DVD's. Then when the brightness was turned up, it was full of grain and artifacts. It's almost like it was darkened to hide that. A week later I sold my set.

I'm so glad this is being redone!


Jeff
Reply
post #168 of 289
11/16/03 at 7:40pm
These films are intended to be dark and not bright and cheerful. It doesn't matter that you don't have to do anything with other dvd's. The intent was to have a certain look to the films. Again, here is a direct quote from our resident film guru Robert Harris regarding the orignial release of the dvd set:

"The look, the texture, the color palette of the original dye transfer prints are, IMHO, beautifully reproduced by Paramount for this video release.

Even problems which I have seen on film elements have been made transparent via this transfer.

Other than an occasional speckling of minus density (negative dirt which prints as clear - white - on prints), a norm on negatives which have been mistreated and overly printed, I see no problems.

A beautiful transfer which properly represents the film."
Reply
post #169 of 289
11/16/03 at 9:29pm
Thanks for finding that quote from Mr. Harris, Greg!

Not surprisingly, I agree with him!

I stated earlier in this thread:
Quote:
I had the opportunity to see both Godfather 1 and 2 a few months ago at The Academy Theater in Beverly Hills. They were using their own archived prints. This is an absolute state of the art facility.

I can tell you that the DVD's, while not "reference" quality, do a pretty good job of accurately representing the look of these films. I think most of what people see in these DVD's that bothers them is inherent in the source.


Glad to know that I am in such good company!

Reply
post #170 of 289
11/18/03 at 9:12am
saw this at thedigitalbits.com; We have word from studio sources on that Godfather DVD re-issue rumor that's been going around. There will be another Godfather DVD out next year, but it will ONLY be the first film, as a single-disc release. This will be basically the same disc that's currently in The Godfather DVD Collection, with the Coppola audio commentary. The only difference will be that the film's digital video file is being given an additional clean-up pass by Lowrey Digital. Watch for it in May 2004.
Ok...what?? We get the first godfather but not the scond? I guess I might get this, but still why not the scond as well?
Reply
post #171 of 289
11/18/03 at 9:54am
Quote:
The only difference will be that the film's digital video file is being given an additional clean-up pass by Lowrey Digital.


I'm not sure what this exactly means. Does it mean they are not going to restore that actual film negative? Does it mean they are just going to filter the current digital format/file used on the current DVD?
Reply
post #172 of 289
11/18/03 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Does it mean they are not going to restore that actual film negative?


That's correct. John Lowry doesn't do film restoration, he just makes digital pictures.

DJ
Reply
post #173 of 289
11/18/03 at 3:00pm
Maybe I'm paranoid, but it really does seem I'm the only one around here concerned with giving LDI a fair shake.

They don't work in photochemical restoration -- thus their name, Lowry Digital Images. But they do work in digital film restoration, as evidenced by their 2K work for Paramount on past titles. Sunset Boulevard and Roman Holiday, whatever one might say about the quality of the work (I'm thrilled with the first, less so the last) were digitally restored at 2K and then scanned to negative, creating elements that can be used for printing/preservation. This doesn't negate the value of surviving original photochemical elements, which future restoration efforts may be able to still further improve, but should anything happen to them (including further deterioration), Paramount has new physical negatives for these films with digitally restored images on them, thanks to the work of Lowry Digital Images.

I don't know if Lowry's efforts for the Indiana Jones trilogy were done at 2K and rescanned to film, but I'd expect so (that's just a guess; unlike the Billy Wilder titles above, I've found no references on-line indicating as much). There's a possibility* here that The Digital Bits is either misinformed or misstating their info -- I doubt very much that LDI is taking a standard def video master and filtering it for Paramount. That sort of low def work can be done by compression houses, I think (high frequency filters, etc.), and I'm sure much more economically than the premium services offered by LDI. If Paramount has 2K digital files on hand already (as Disney did for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs), then this seems to me much more plausable, and LDI may be doing for Paramount what it did for Disney on that title -- I wouldn't use the word "only" to describe that sort of work, but that's me.

I'd wait for more detailed news before speculating any further -- but I'll be very surprised if, in 2004 and given their years of software development/experience as a company, LDI turns out a product "filtered" for grain reduction/damage reduction, but otherwise just the same as the current edition. That just doesn't make good economic sense -- I can't see Paramount paying LDI to mess around with a low def digital master when basic grain reduction/damage touch-ups can be done very cheaply by just about any digitally equipped outfit these days.

I'm only guessing, of course, making an informed assumption -- but, really, it would greatly surprise me if Paramount isn't working at 2K for this very important film, and if they are, there's no reason LDI or Paramount (whoever does such scanning, client or digital house) couldn't rescan that 2K work to negative now or in the future, creating a digital film element.

* There's also a possibility that LDI's past work for Paramount has nothing whatever to say about what they'll be doing for The Godfather. But I wouldn't put good money on it -- I'll be on the lookout to be impressed, and I also wouldn't be at all surprised, if the DVD sells well, to see Paramount release the other two films similarly (they may also announce intentions to do so in the months ahead -- it's anyone's guess right now).

Incidentally, I saw The Godfather during its last nationwide theatrical re-release. The print I saw was in very mediocre shape, and I can see great room for improvement in just about every image parameter, from grain normalization to contrast improvements to digital cleaning to color saturation/density. Fine detail may also find improvement as those qualities obscuring it are fixed. I haven't seen the current DVD, though, so can't speak to how it compares with that theatrical experience.
Reply
post #174 of 289
11/18/03 at 3:11pm
Quote:
But they do work in digital film restoration, as evidenced by their 2K work for Paramount on past titles.


Film is one possible output method of their finished product, but they do not restore film. The original film elements remain in the same condition afterwards as they did before: unrestored. Just because it is possible to make film prints out of their digital work, it doesn't mean they have done film restoration (it's possible to make postcards out of their digital images, too, and this doesn't make them postcard restorers).

DJ
Reply
post #175 of 289
11/18/03 at 3:14pm
You should be aware that in dismissing digital restoration, you are dismissing some of the fine work of our own Robert Harris. The first kiss in Rear Window between Kelly and Stewart was digitally restored and rescanned to film. By your definition, Damin, Mr. Harris didn't restore that scene. And yet he says, in the documentary, that it was the most important of the entire picture.

Digital restoration is not an oxymoron. It's as valid as photochemical, and the two often work beautifully in tandem, each bringing their own strengths to a project.

Also, the "original film elements" will often remain in the exact same condition they began in after photochemical restoration (physical cleaning and such notwithstanding). Such restoration often/usually creates new elements, as does digital. Were you to look at surviving elements for Vertigo, you'd be none too pleased with some/much of it, but the restored, new 70mm elements look fantastic (Mr. Harris could comment much more definitively, of course, regarding that work).
Reply
post #176 of 289
11/18/03 at 3:30pm
Thread Starter 
Bill,

As you know, LDI has done some very nice looking low res work in the past--NxNW is testament to this.

I wouldn't be surprised if Paramount sends LDI its existing 1080 24p master of The Godfather.

I'd like to hear more about these other "digitally equipped outfits" that are able to do work that reaches the quality of LDI (for home video release).

-Andy
Reply
post #177 of 289
11/18/03 at 3:32pm
Quote:
You should be aware that in dismissing digital restoration


Excuse me? I am not "dismissing" anything. I am simply pointing out that what Lowry does is not film restoration. I have not dismissed him by any means.

Quote:
The first kiss in Rear Window between Kelly and Stewart was digitally restored and rescanned to film. By your definition, Damin, Mr. Harris didn't restore that scene.


Well, I don't know the exact processess involved in that scene, but if no film restoration was involved, then no film restoration was done to that scene. I'm not sure what's so controversial about that statement.

Quote:
And yet he says, in the documentary, that it was the most important of the entire picture.


I fail to see the connection between the importance of a scene and the correctness of the name applied to a process used on it. It could be the most important scene in the most important film ever made, but if it wasn't given a film restoration, it wasn't given a film restoration. I'm not going to call it a film restoration out of some polite regard for how important the scene is.

Quote:
Digital restoration is not an oxymoron. It's as valid as photochemcial, and the two often work beautifully in tandem.


OK - I don't recall saying otherwise. You seem to be attributing a whole host of opinions to me that I haven't actually expressed.

In the case of The Godfather, however, a film restoration is possible. Mr. Harris has stated in an HTF chat that he could do the job and "could make it look precisely as it did in 1972." Paramount doing anything less, therefore, is simply avoiding the real film restoration that needs to be done. Any digital products will be small and ineffective band-aids on the wounded negative that needs help badly.

Quote:
Also, the "original film elements" will often remain in the exact same condition they began in after photochemical restoration (physical cleaning and such notwithstanding). Such restoration often/usually creates new elements, as does digital.

Restored film elements, however, function as true replacements for their original counterparts. Digital elements printed out onto film don't quite fit that bill.

DJ
Reply
post #178 of 289
11/18/03 at 3:34pm
Have you read the Digital Bits quote above, Andy? "An additional clean-up pass" is well within the reach of just about any digitally equipped outfit, including, I assume, most compression houses.

LDI could certainly do the same, but why? You don't buy a Porsche if you only need to go to the corner grocery once a week. At least, that's how the issue strikes me -- I'd expect much more than a low def digital clean-up pass from LDI, particularly given the record of their past work, but who knows -- I may be wrong. Their work on NxNW, while low def, was much more extensive than a "clean-up pass," and given Lowry's enthusiasm over 2K and 4K, I'd be surprised to see his company tackle low def for an entire feature film yet again, particularly given Paramount's past 2K work with them. We'll see.
Reply
post #179 of 289
11/18/03 at 3:39pm
Damin -- you're saying it isn't film restoration. It is. It isn't photochemical restoration. That's where we differ. If a film is restored digitally and then rescanned to film elements, those new film elements are restored. Thus, a film element, and thus, a film restoration. The simple act of scanning digital files to film isn't enough, of course -- they must return the picture to something better aproximating its original state. If they do, and they're on film ... film restoration. Digitally accomplished.

It isn't just you -- many here are eager to call LDI a "digital pictures" house, a "clean-up facility" ... I think even Robert Harris once referred to them in terms of a car wash/detailer, "removing bits of dirt and leaves from tail lights," etc.. LDI is a digital restoration house. I don't see any reason to call them anything else, or to catagorize their work as anything other than digital film restoration when new film elements are created from it (their early 1K work is best classified as video restoration).

Maybe I'm not paranoid.

P.S. I'm not aiming for any kind of irony or facetiousness when I say I may be wrong about their upcoming work on The Godfather -- it may very well be 1K clean-up work, video restoration at best. I don't know any more about than the other posters here. But looking at their past work for Paramount and the ways in which the company has progressed since the time of their impressive, but strictly video, restoration work on films such as NxNW, I really do expect more. We'll see.
Reply
post #180 of 289
11/18/03 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Damin -- you're saying it isn't film restoration. It is. It isn't photochemical restoration.

This is like saying, "it's not beef, it's bovine meat." Film is a photochemical format. If you're not working with photochemistry, you're not working with film. Saying it's not photochemical is just a longwinded way of saying it isn't film.

Quote:
If a film is restored digitally and then rescanned to film elements, those new film elements are restored. Thus, a film element, and thus, a film restoration.


So if a still frame from a digital restoration is output to a postcard, a postcard restoration has been done? Does that actually make sense to you?

One of the media (among many - digital home video, analog home video, digital television broadcast, analog television broadcast) chosen for output does not dictate the category of work actually done. In a digital restoration, film output is simply after the fact. It is not the thing. The thing itself is a collection of 1s and 0s. Outputting those digits onto film does not retroactively make the restoration a film restoration. The only sensible manner of categorization is based upon the media actually used in the restoration itself, not one of the output formats after the fact. If the restoration process itself necessarily involved the creation of a film element, it is a film restoration. If the only necessary creation of a restoration is a digital file, it isn't film restoration. Seems simple enough to me - I'm not sure why you find it so controversial.

DJ
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DVD
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › DVD › Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs