New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it too much to ask... - Page 3

post #61 of 88
5/30/08 at 5:26pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goko
I simply feel that any effort by the Director/DP NOT to replicate normal everyday vision is a distraction. Certainly, Saving Private Ryan would not have suffered any loss of realism had they decided to photograph the film (and blood) in realistic life-like color a la Enemy at the Gates. Films like Ryan don't need
fancy camara tricks to create 'mood.'

Nothing wrong with the Discovery channel 'look.' I see it all the time when my eyes are open.
I have no love of black and white movies and ALL could benefit from a quality colorization in my opinion.

Hello - now we're talking turkey. I don't care for ANY camara tricks the Director/DP uses to try and enhance the story. The story should be able to stand on its own. 300 I think was just a fancy cartoon - my grand-kids loved it.

Sounds good, but my home theater is used 95% of the time for watching recorded HD movies and TV/sports shows off Dish Net. Not much room there for such high minded ideals.


Frankly every film is a trick. Thats what movies are, fooling the eye into thinking its seeing movement, using the frame to keep the eye from seeing particular things. Forcing the eye to focus on specific items. The whole thing is a trick.

If you watch the film Alien, lighting, camera angles and color timing in post all contribute to the mood of the film which is dark and moody. Everything is tented just slightly to the blue side to give it a cold effect. If it were shot bright and sunny like an episode of The Brady Bunch, it would significantly lose it's effect.

Movies are ALL about setting a particular mood be it dark and scary or bright and happy.

I like the look of the Discovery Channel also, but if all movies looked like that, what a boring world of cinema we would have.

As to colorizing B&W movies, I have no problem with it as long as the B&W version is available in the same set for no extra charge.

Doug
Reply
post #62 of 88
5/30/08 at 5:48pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Well said, Doug. Giving us the Discovery HD look on every title is akin to Henry Ford's marketing plan with the original Model T: "You can have any colour you like, as long as it's black." The only difference is, in Ford's time, you could always buy from another manufacturer.
Reply
post #63 of 88
5/30/08 at 6:43pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Joe, even bringing up colourization is heresy....not to mention that other stuff you were on about. As Grand Inquisitor I'm letting you off with a stern warning this time. I have two weapons at my dispose. If there's a next time I'll force you to sit in the comfy chair and take a beating with the soft pillow.
Reply
post #64 of 88
5/31/08 at 12:08am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachael B
Joe, even bringing up colourization is heresy....not to mention that other stuff you were on about. As Grand Inquisitor I'm letting you off with a stern warning this time. I have two weapons at my dispose. If there's a next time I'll force you to sit in the comfy chair and take a beating with the soft pillow.


"nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!"
Reply
post #65 of 88
5/31/08 at 3:09am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goko
I simply feel that any effort by the Director/DP NOT to replicate normal everyday vision is a distraction. .
Assuming you are not a troll per se, may I ask you if you also feel that any painting in a museum not looking like a photograph is a distraction as well? Is any book not written in English with a vocabulary of the 2000 most used words and most common phrases a distraction as well? Are all comics a distraction since they don't look like photographs? Is all music but the Beatles (add your favourite music here) a distraction? If not, why the double standards concerning film and the other media used by artists? Could it be that your idea of the medium film is just very limited to a highly standardised normal look you would not insist on from other forms of (artistic) expression, though?
Reply
post #66 of 88
5/31/08 at 7:51am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

I remember when Paramount released the DVD of Sunset Boulevard in 2003 and Ron Epstein gave it a glowing review on the HTF saying “The print looks totally pristine with blacks that look black (instead of gray), and not a hint of dirt anywhere. This is the kind of transfer that reminds you how beautiful B&W movies can be”. Many others on the HTF agreed with this assessment. I thought the picture looked superb and still hold that opinion. However, Robert Harris then pointed out on The Digital Bits website that although the digital restoration had removed the scratches and the dirt “the film grain has gone with it”. What is interesting about this is the fact that everyone thought Sunset Boulevard looked perfect until it was pointed out that it had no (or very little) grain and suggests to me that having been told about the absence of grain - something which many DVD viewers had previously noticed, people have become overly sensitive about the subject.

Frankly I don’t like seeing grain. After all, whether you can see any grain is surely dependent on the size of the screen and the viewing distance from the screen. Sit at the back of the cinema and you can’t see any grain – sit in the front seats and the grain can be overly distracting. The same applies to home viewing and obviously the larger the screen, the more grain will be noticeable; especially if you sit close top the screen or monitor. There does seem to have developed a sort of perverse viewpoint by some people who are not satisfied unless they can see plenty of grain on every DVD.
Reply
post #67 of 88
5/31/08 at 8:23am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
There does seem to have developed a sort of perverse viewpoint by some people who are not satisfied unless they can see plenty of grain on every DVD.
That's a mischaracterization of what people want to see. We want to see what was on the original film. That includes whatever grain is or isn't there. Studios have no business altering the original look of the film. I suggest you simply sit further away from your home screen and leave the rest of us to enjoy what was originally there.
Reply
post #68 of 88
5/31/08 at 8:34am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R
There does seem to have developed a sort of perverse viewpoint by some people who are not satisfied unless they can see plenty of grain on every DVD.
I can explain it easier than that. The psychological phenomenon that occurs is that until a person's attention is drawn to a defect, that defect is not noticed; once your attention is drawn to it, you notice it forever more.

Let me be clear: no one is looking for "plenty of grain on every DVD." The goal here is to provide as accurate a representation of the original film as possible. RAH draws our attention to transfers like The Longest Day and Patton because he is intimately familiar with film as a medium and knows what it is supposed to look like. What he says is perfectly clear to me, which is that these transfers look pretty and are acceptable for most, as the elimination of grain (and some high frequency detail, which is unavoidable when grain is eliminated rather than reduced) that has occurred will only be obvious on the largest of displays. It is what we do with that information personally.

Me, I'm a grain lover, and have been for a while. I used to work in a 14 screen multiplex as a projectionist, and part of the thrill of that job was seeing film with all of its beautiful grain. You may not be a grain lover and are entitled to your opinion, as are all others on this forum.
Reply
post #69 of 88
5/31/08 at 8:40am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas R
I remember when Paramount released the DVD of Sunset Boulevard in 2003 and Ron Epstein gave it a glowing review on the HTF saying “The print looks totally pristine with blacks that look black (instead of gray), and not a hint of dirt anywhere. This is the kind of transfer that reminds you how beautiful B&W movies can be”. Many others on the HTF agreed with this assessment. I thought the picture looked superb and still hold that opinion. However, Robert Harris then pointed out on The Digital Bits website that although the digital restoration had removed the scratches and the dirt “the film grain has gone with it”. What is interesting about this is the fact that everyone thought Sunset Boulevard looked perfect until it was pointed out that it had no (or very little) grain and suggests to me that having been told about the absence of grain - something which many DVD viewers had previously noticed, people have become overly sensitive about the subject.

Frankly I don’t like seeing grain. After all, whether you can see any grain is surely dependent on the size of the screen and the viewing distance from the screen. Sit at the back of the cinema and you can’t see any grain – sit in the front seats and the grain can be overly distracting. The same applies to home viewing and obviously the larger the screen, the more grain will be noticeable; especially if you sit close top the screen or monitor. There does seem to have developed a sort of perverse viewpoint by some people who are not satisfied unless they can see plenty of grain on every DVD.

The point is not to see grain, or not to see grain. The point is to see the film as it was originally intended. Blu-ray has the ability for the first time at home to get VERY close to the theatrical presentation. Why now when we have this in our grasp, should we change the look of these films because they don't look like high def video? They aren't supposed to.

A film like Enchanted has very fine grain that is almost invisible in spite of being shot on film. I don't mind it a bit, it is a beautiful film. But that is the way it is SUPPOSED to look. Just as a film like Saving Private Ryan, or The Terminator is SUPPOSED to be grainy.

Doug
Reply
post #70 of 88
5/31/08 at 8:42am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
I simply feel that any effort by the Director/DP NOT to replicate normal everyday vision is a distraction. Certainly, Saving Private Ryan would not have suffered any loss of realism had they decided to photograph the film (and blood) in realistic life-like color a la Enemy at the Gates. Films like Ryan don't need
fancy camara tricks to create 'mood.'
If you don't like the visual choices made by a director, you're free not to buy the disc. That's the extent of your vote. You don't get to dictate what cinematographer he hires or what film stock is used, etc. There is no "absolute" standard for what the camera sees. It's all about choices (or do you really want everyone to adhere to YOUR choice?).

I also don't understand where you get the idea that films are supposed to be "realistic". They are FULL of effects meant to convey an artistic choice. Would you "ban" ALL coloring and lighting choices that alter what was "really there" (since you seem to be so concerned about that, notwithstanding the fact that what you see on screen is often hardly real at all)? Would you decree that foley effects be henceforth disallowed (You DO know that many of the sounds you hear in movies are faked/exaggerated/simulated, yes?)? When was the last time you saw someone in "real life" do something with swelling symphonic music in the background? Action heroes routinely violate the laws of physics in films. Is that a no-no for you as well?

It sounds like you don't really understand what movies are all about.
Reply
post #71 of 88
5/31/08 at 8:44am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

Me, I'm a grain lover, and have been for a while. I used to work in a 14 screen multiplex as a projectionist, and part of the thrill of that job was seeing film with all of its beautiful grain. You may not be a grain lover and are entitled to your opinion, as are all others on this forum.

I used to be a projectionist also. I too loved to see grain, because I knew when I was seeing grain, the film was in focus. If I can see the grain from the projection booth, I'm fairly sure the audience can see it in the theater if they are in the back or not.

Doug
Reply
post #72 of 88
5/31/08 at 8:46am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
I too loved to see grain, because I knew when I was seeing grain, the film was in focus. If I can see the grain from the projection booth, I'm fairly sure the audience can see it in the theater if they are in the back or not.
Excellent point, Doug. If you're not seeing grain, odds are you're losing detail.
Reply
post #73 of 88
5/31/08 at 8:54am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
If you don't like the visual choices made by a director, you're free not to buy the disc. That's the extent of your vote. You don't get to dictate what cinematographer he hires or what film stock is used, etc. There is no "absolute" standard for what the camera sees. It's all about choices (or do you really want everyone to adhere to YOUR choice?).

I also don't understand where you get the idea that films are supposed to be "realistic". They are FULL of effects meant to convey an artistic choice. Would you "ban" ALL coloring and lighting choices that alter what was "really there" (since you seem to be so concerned about that, notwithstanding the fact that what you see on screen is often hardly real at all)? Would you decree that foley effects be henceforth disallowed (You DO know that many of the sounds you hear in movies are faked/exaggerated/simulated, yes?)? When was the last time you saw someone in "real life" do something with swelling symphonic music in the background? Action heroes routinely violate the laws of physics in films. Is that a no-no for you as well?

It sounds like you don't really understand what movies are all about.


Exactly! about 99% of what you hear in movies was NOT recorded on the set, including the dialog. Guns firing in real life sound almost nothing like they do in the movies, nor do they rattle when they are pulled from a holster. Tires don't squeal on dirt. Computers don't beep every time you hit a key. Lasers don't make noise.

Interiors are almost always shot on a sound stage at a movie studio.

There is a famous story about a man who I believe was a film critic. He was complaining to the director of a film to justify where the light was coming from in a particular scene. He said "Where the hell is that light coming from, its so unrealistic." The director answered..."It's coming from the same place the music is."

Doug
Reply
post #74 of 88
5/31/08 at 11:53am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Was DNR applied to BATTLE OF THE BULGE? The picture looks good but I noticed that detail seemed to be missing in small things like the epaulets on German officer's uniforms. The detail was missing in shots where you would expect to see at least some definition in epaulets and so forth, e.x middle foreground shots.
Reply
post #75 of 88
5/31/08 at 12:22pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Now we can't spot DNR ourselves? It looks good but we have to ask if something has DNR?! Whats wrong with this picture?

I thought everything had DNR anyway. I'm so confused.
Reply
post #76 of 88
5/31/08 at 1:10pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_K
Now we can't spot DNR ourselves? It looks good but we have to ask if something has DNR?! Whats wrong with this picture?

I thought everything had DNR anyway. I'm so confused.

Many of us can spot the DNR and realize that we are missing something that should be there or we are at least suspicious that something is missing (which may be what is happening with Edwin's question). Other times education is important and we can always learn how to better evaluate the images that we are seeing (critical seeing). I know that I still have a lot to learn and I'm always appreciative of the civil and informative discussions here on the HTF. Then again maybe ignorance is bliss (there are times when I wish I was better at "turning off" the critical evaluation of images and sounds).
Reply
post #77 of 88
5/31/08 at 1:17pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_K
Now we can't spot DNR ourselves? It looks good but we have to ask if something has DNR?! Whats wrong with this picture?

I thought everything had DNR anyway. I'm so confused.

Why the snark? I have to admit I'm not an expert at spotting whether the process was used or not. Like I said, the picture looks sharp and relatively clear but I have no reference to compare this film to, other than occassional TV and DVD viewings. I was four years old when this film was released theatrically, so I have never seen it in a theatrical setting.

To be honest, I think some filtering has been applied because, in some of the shots I was looking at, I would have expected to see at least some detail in epaulets and such. I just wanted to confirm whether it was used or not. IMO, if the film was projected large, the lack of fine detail in uniforms would show up even more than it did on my 57" set. I bought the film and it still looks pretty good. I just wanted to know if it could have looked even better.

The film isn't a very good one, but it has its moments and is still entertaining. The Bulge battle was a winter offensive, so I still get a chuckle every time I see the tank battle that takes place in a semi-arid locale, with no snow to be seen.
Reply
post #78 of 88
5/31/08 at 1:44pm
Thread Starter 

Re: Is it too much to ask...

I watched several things last night.
An ep from the new Invaders Season 1 set, The Night They Raided Minsky's, and The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen SE. The first two were sd DVDs and Baron Munchausen was on Blu-ray. While TAOBM clearly had the most finely resolved detail out of all of them, it also sadly, had the most 'digital' looking image of the three. Minsky's on the other hand blew me away. I could spot some high frequency ringing- but only in a couple of shots and even then only after I was purposefully looking for flaws. Otherwise it had a nice, warm analog look to it that Munchausen definitely lacked. What's more, I was never left wanting for detail in the sd image. It just looked great.
The first HD DVDs I bought I was struck how much closer they appeared to mimic film. THAT excited me about this tech. It's very disappointing to see that quality now start to vanish or be devalued.
Reply
post #79 of 88
5/31/08 at 3:48pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

NVM. I probably should know better...

_Man_
Reply
post #80 of 88
5/31/08 at 4:51pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

I guess concerns over some possibly missing detail in BoTB should be moot, considering all of the other errors in the movie.
Reply
post #81 of 88
5/31/08 at 5:18pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

There is a really simple test for DNR: When viewing an HD source, look at someones face in a close up....Do you see a normal looking skin with pores, visible eybrow hairs, and in the case of long hair, individual strands of hair?

If the face is missing the skin details and looks inhuman or plastic, then DNR was used to excess.

Simple to check assuming that your equipment is up to snuff and capable of passing HF info.

Vern
Reply
post #82 of 88
5/31/08 at 7:12pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Why the snark?

Probably because I'm a dick? or just had too much caffeine? dunno......pick one.

It's apparent that I have a fundamental approach to watching HD media that greatly differs from some others. But it's really not worth getting into so I'll leave it at that.

And just so I don't get burned at stake by the angry villagers - FWIW, no I'm not a grain hater and I don't like excessive DNR when I notice it but I'm afraid that crusade should have started long ago and that it's just too late.
Reply
post #83 of 88
5/31/08 at 9:06pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

As long as good film elements exist, it's never too late. Sunset Boulevard was brought up earlier in this thread as an example of where all film grain had been removed. One must also consider the circumstances under which all the grain was removed. Go back and read RAH's article, as it is still online. The high frequency information to which he refers in the case of Sunset Boulevard is lost to the ravages of time, as no fine grain materials exist, so the technicians were dealing with two sets of limitations: the limitations of the source material and the limitations of technology. Hopefully that's not the case with Patton and The Longest Day, as both of those films are newer than Sunset and one would hope that Fox has good archival materials.

And that is precisely why when RAH was working on the recent restoration of the Godfather films, he was working in 4K and the restoration was outputted to film to create archival elements. You need good elements to do a good transfer.
Reply
post #84 of 88
5/31/08 at 10:10pm

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
he high frequency information to which he refers in the case of Sunset Boulevard is lost to the ravages of time, as no fine grain materials exist, so the technicians were dealing with two sets of limitations: the limitations of the source material and the limitations of technology. Hopefully that's not the case with Patton and The Longest Day, as both of those films are newer than Sunset and one would hope that Fox has good archival materials.
I saw Patton about five years ago at the Samuel Goldwyn theater, and I can attest that the print was superb, with gorgeous fine-grain detail.
Reply
post #85 of 88
6/1/08 at 4:07am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias
There is a really simple test for DNR: When viewing an HD source, look at someones face in a close up....Do you see a normal looking skin with pores, visible eybrow hairs, and in the case of long hair, individual strands of hair?
If the face is missing the skin details and looks inhuman or plastic, then DNR was used to excess.
It's more complicated than that. DNR = soft/lacking detail is not a correct equivalance. Neither does soft/lack of detail imply DNR nor does DNR imply soft/lack of detail. They often go together, but they must not.
Other causes of softness and lack of detail are:
- use of diffusion filters on the camera
- focusing issues on the original negative
- amount of motion blur
- digital low pass filtering during post processing or other digital manipulations which are not DNR
- compression artifacts
On the other hand it's possible to apply DNR and keep the image sharp and with fine detail, just less grainy/noisy. It's not easy, but it can be done.
Reply
post #86 of 88
6/1/08 at 5:11am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Michael, yes it's possibly not DNR, but:

- use of diffusion filters on the camera - Not on every shot for every actor/actress. Possible for older female leads or to set a mood in a specific sequence. Very rare for the whole movie.

- focusing issues on the original negative - Again not on every shot. The negative is not a single element, but composed of many different lengths of film shot at different times with different cameras and stored as individual 10 or 20 minute reels. No way there would be a consistent focusing issue for an entire film. Any interpositives or subseqent generations would contribute there own film grain which should still be visible.

- amount of motion blur - Again not on every shot. Closeups of faces rarely contain much motion.

- digital low pass filtering during post processing or other digital manipulations which are not DNR - True, but it wouldn't likely be done to any great degree when the result is intended for projection on a 40' theater screen. Certainly the intended result would not be to make faces look like they are composed of plastic.

- compression artifacts - Possible, not likely on HD media such as BD and HD DVD. It takes extremely aggressive over compression to completely destroy fine detail, which will also produce other more obvious artifacts such as macroblocking. Granted, it's possible on DVD, though.

Vern
Reply
post #87 of 88
6/1/08 at 6:45am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias
- focusing issues on the original negative - Again not on every shot. The negative is not a single element, but composed of many different lengths of film shot at different times with different cameras and stored as individual 10 or 20 minute reels. No way there would be a consistent focusing issue for an entire film. Any interpositives or subseqent generations would contribute there own film grain which should still be visible.


This is true unless they chose to intentionally shoot with older lenses such as was the case on Die Hard. They used older Panavision lenses that didn't have the modern optical coatings so that the lenses would flair when lights were in the frame. As a result Die Hard is also somewhat softer than other films of the same vintage IE the late 80s.

Doug
Reply
post #88 of 88
7/16/08 at 8:54am

Re: Is it too much to ask...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias
Michael, yes it's possibly not DNR, but:
- use of diffusion filters on the camera - Not on every shot for every actor/actress. Possible for older female leads or to set a mood in a specific sequence. Very rare for the whole movie.
Hamilton... :-) Yes, it's usually on a per shot basis. But DNR can be too. Not all DNR is applied from start to finish and with the same strength.
Quote:
- digital low pass filtering during post processing or other digital manipulations which are not DNR - True, but it wouldn't likely be done to any great degree when the result is intended for projection on a 40' theater screen. Certainly the intended result would not be to make faces look like they are composed of plastic.
Who knows why they do stuff. Milla in "Ultra Violet" looks weird. Anyway, my point is that lacking detail AND plastic look may well be caused by DNR while lacking detail alone might or might not. As additional criterion it's necessary to also look for specific artifacts when textures are in motion. Once these are visible then use of DNR is almost certain. Things can look fine till movement happens. It depends on the kind of DNR employed.
For example "Batman Begins" as I remember it has some softness but no DNR artifacts so I don't think it was (strongly) DNRed. Maybe low pass filtered a bit.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray