New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray - Page 6

post #151 of 495
6/7/08 at 5:08am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
If not then perhaps you should because it's much better than any upconverted SD DVD I ever watched on my Oppo or XA-2 despite the missing film grain and some detail.

Thank you. I'd like to know when we wil be able to put the tired old argument that upconverted DVD can look just as good as a HD transfer to bed once and for all. I've watched quite a few HD DVDs and BDs, as well as a lot of upconverted DVDs. I have yet to see one upconverted DVD that looks as good as a high def transfer. My Black Hawk Down DVD came close but even there I could tell the difference immediately.

A high def transfer would have to be pretty poorly done before it would exactly match an upconverted DVD image.
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Patton [Blu-ray]
$13.79 at
See it »
post #152 of 495
6/7/08 at 5:36am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
If we didn't give up on original aspect ratios for SD DVD then we shouldn't give up on excessive DNR for Blu-ray.

I agree completely, I think Fox has shown that they are capable of very good Blu-Ray transfers and I expect great things from them in the future, especially for their other large format titles. Reading that the right people at Fox and other studios have already taken an interest in this thread and the issues with Patton is encouraging.

I just wish that people who work on these movies would have to sit at 1 to 1.5 screen widths to 1080p monitors or screens of 80" and above - with such a setup it is very hard to make a film look decent and excessive DNR, grain reduction and edge enhancement are exposed for what they are - artefacts that destroy the illusion of watching film, not video.

I also understand the frustration of RAH as I love large format movies and unfortunately have yet to see a transfer that really unleashes the detail that is possible with that kind of source material.
Reply
post #153 of 495
6/7/08 at 6:07am
Thread Starter 

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

Mr. Scott has read my post correctly.

I'm not suggesting that Blu is a poor system.

I'm a HUGE fan and supporter of Blu.

Attempt to take it away from me at your peril.

But it really doesn't matter what Blu's capabilities are if those capabilities are not in some way overseen by someone who can guide the copyright holders through the occasionally very confusing web of channels toward the creation of a stellar piece of software.

And that guidance cannot come by pandering to the lowest common denominator of viewer, that wants everything to look like a freshly waxed floor.

Instead, educate these viewers, and allow them to understand what good is.

While the BD of Patton has far superior colors, blacks, shadow details and low noise attainable by the system, the filtering of detail, which may be the single most important factor brought to us by Blu-Ray, does create a situation in which the affected sub-master could have been used to create a really beautiful standard def disc --

and left it at that.

I'm not quite certain where I'm going with this, but it may be toward some sort of THX or TAP intervention, via which a respected entity with no agendas beyond quality can be brought in to recognize the problems, and suggest solutions toward the creation of software that will show off the benefits of the Blu-Ray system, as opposed to cripple them as the system is attempting to make it to the big leagues.

Above all, we need to set standards. At this time, there are none.

This is a period in which a few missteps can turn off a potential audience very easily. I'm reminded of Technicolor, bringing back their proprietary dye transfer system in the late '90s, only to not have their marketing ducks in order, and allowing Gone with the Wind to go through their system, when it should have been rejected as produced, and thereby (as a veritable poster child for the system) cut off its revival at the knees, before it could get out of the gate.

The point that I'm attempting to make is that for Blu-Ray to succeed, everyone involved, at every level must put the absolute best product forward, and that may come down to the rejection of software that simply doesn't send out the proper marketing messages.

I would hate to see Blu-Ray fail because of some ill-produced software, especially for titles that should have shined and been the ones to force potential adopters over the edge because they finally realized that they now NEEDED Blu-Ray.

Patton should have been one of those titles that created Blu-Ray hardware sales, and pulled other Blu-Ray software titles up by their bootstraps.

It isn't.

When a potential customer goes to a store and picks up a Blu-Ray disc, or buys on-line, they should be able to know -- SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS BLU-RAY -- that they are purchasing a piece of software that represents the highest attainable representation of that film, play, opera, music video -- whatever -- WITHOUT THE NEED TO GO TO SITES LIKE HTF OR HIGH DEF DIGEST to read reviews telling them if the product is decent quality.

I'll now stand down from my soap box.

RAH
Reply
post #154 of 495
6/7/08 at 6:09am

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

My goodness, we've gone from Patton on Blu being recommended to a call for the end of the Blu-ray format as we now know it. Yikes!

P.S. - I do understand the points being made, but the dynamic range in here is pretty impressive!
Reply
post #155 of 495
6/7/08 at 6:46am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
I would hate to see Blu-Ray fail because of some ill-produced software, especially for titles that should have shined and been the ones to force potential adopters over the edge because they finally realized that they now NEEDED Blu-Ray.

Patton should have been one of those titles that created Blu-Ray hardware sales, and pulled other Blu-Ray software titles up by their bootstraps.

It isn't.


RAH
I understand your points and I agree with them for the most part, but despite the flaws that are apparent on the "Patton" Blu-ray disc, I'm not so sure that this release won't convince others to buy into this format. The disc flaws are not apparent to most people and that is very obvious judging by comments made throughout the internet by reviewers and other folks not aware of the missing detail and film grain.



Crawdaddy
Reply
post #156 of 495
6/7/08 at 7:19am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
.
does create a situation in which the affected sub-master could have been used to create a really beautiful standard def disc --

I'll bet that the master used for the BD is the same as the one used for the SD from 2006. That SD didn't look very good though ...

Even with the DNR I'm sure that the BD of Patton looks much better than the SD and at this stage of the game that is good enough for me. Despite all the uproar there is no guarantee that Fox will ever revisit this title on BD so my alternative would be to live with the upconverted SD and to that I say, no thank you. If and when they revisit Patton, I'll rebuy it.

Quote:
WITHOUT THE NEED TO GO TO SITES LIKE HTF OR HIGH DEF DIGEST to read reviews telling them if the product is decent quality.

But that's part of the problem because high def digest is in fact telling me that Patton looks exceptional without mentioning any DNR issue (and a perfectly fine transfer like Butch Cassidy gets low marks).
Educate the reviewers.
Reply
post #157 of 495
6/7/08 at 7:21am
Thread Starter 

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

Crawdaddy

My point is less about Patton, and more toward the generality of trust on the part of the consumer that they need not even to think about proper quality.

That it will simply be there, and be correct the first time.

Blu-Ray has now been around long enough that the majority of the bugs should be out of the system, and that the discs offered for sale for the system should meet certain standards.

Blu-Ray discs should shine through not only on the smallest monitors and most basic systems, but when enlarged to true home theater abilities via high end systems, and leave no question about quality.

My point is that it doesn't matter if half or more of the population of buyers finds something "good enough" or "beautiful to my eyes."

A single disc should be able to fill the needs and wishes of those using Blu-Ray at both ends of the hardware spectrum, and not based upon whether they know what something should, could or might look like...

Simply knowing that I've placed a Blu-Ray disc in my Blu-Ray player, and I don't need to be attuned to the history, grain structure, details of the taking stock, optics, etc....

And it is correct...

Because it is Blu-Ray.

RAH
Reply
post #158 of 495
6/7/08 at 7:31am

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

I'm afraid the flaws of Patton are regarded by most as virtues (look, honey, how clean it is! Gorgeous!). Especially considering the average display size is too small to make it obvious what's missing. If most review sites were fooled, so will be most consumers. Picky videophiles with a solid film background are a tiny minority.
Reply
post #159 of 495
6/7/08 at 7:40am

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

RAH,

I understand what you're saying, but I think most people don't even think about the possibility of the disc not meeting certain standards.

I have to be honest here, I'm usually so wrapped up in the movie itself I don't generally see disc flaws unless they're so obviously apparent to me that they disrupt my viewing pleasure. In Patton's case, I would've notice the lack of film grain and detail, but only because I've seen this film so many times over the years in theaters and other video formats that I knew how it should look. The same thing with Butch Cassidy, I thought the BRD looks very good and couldn't understand the criticism of some reviewers before realizing these people really don't know how this film really looked in a movie theater.

Anyhow, my point is that I think most people don't look at these discs as to how they replicate the movie theater experience, but by how pleasing a particular disc is to their eyes and ears. Furthermore, for the most part people are so focus on the movie itself that they wouldn't recognize a disc flaw unless it was something so obvious like a speck of dirt or an audio dropout that it would disrupt their viewing pleasure.
Reply
post #160 of 495
6/7/08 at 7:41am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
I'm afraid the flaws of Patton are regarded by most as virtues (look, honey, how clean it is! Gorgeous!). Especially considering the average display size is too small to make it obvious what's missing. If most review sites were fooled, so will be most consumers. Picky videophiles with a solid film background are a tiny minority.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. However, with that being said, we still should let the studios know that they have to stay within certain PQ standards with their BR releases.
Reply
post #161 of 495
6/7/08 at 7:56am

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

Paul,

Post #143 is very much appreciated. Mr. Harris, I thank you very much for your passion on this subject. Let us all hope that the correct voices have and will be heard on this, and will result in the format being everything it can be. I for one do not think that "if it's better than DVD, it's good enough" is a reason to be satisfied.
Reply
post #162 of 495
6/7/08 at 8:00am
Thread Starter 

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

To take this discussion a bit further, and toward helping Blu succeed, I believe that something else must occur, that also involves education, which could well come from the top websites.

If the question of what can be done to make all BD discs top quality can be answered, then the discs must sell.

All that's necessary for that to occur is for prices on players and discs to come down a bit. PS3 is probably the best entry level player, has been beautifully positioned by Sony, but is still a bit out of the budget for some.

The important point to be made to potential adopters is that you don't need to own a huge screen, or even an HD monitor in order to make the move to BD.

One's current monitor will do nicely -- even that old black and white 13" Dumont.

If people (and these people read neither HTF nor HD Digest, and certainly not AVS) can understand that the potentially huge investment toward an HD monitor is NOT essential or even necessary and that, along with pricing via which people can buy a BD disc for not a great deal more -- especially on sale -- than the SD counterpart, they may just make the move to purchase a Blu-Ray disc that cannot yet be played back to full potential on their current system...

but is ready to be played back at which time they have the funds to make the investment in that state of the art monitor.

If there were to occur, there could be a drastic and overwhelmingly quick advance from SD to BD, getting people into the habit of buying, using and collecting high definition DISCS before BD is written off and supplanted by on-line downloads.
Reply
post #163 of 495
6/7/08 at 8:28am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
I for one do not think that "if it's better than DVD, it's good enough" is a reason to be satisfied.

Not a reason to be satisfied, but a reason to buy? For me, yes. I can easily afford it so I'm not going to punish myself by not buying a classic on BD that is not perfect.
Reply
post #164 of 495
6/7/08 at 9:57am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
To take this discussion a bit further, and toward helping Blu succeed, I believe that something else must occur, that also involves education, which could well come from the top websites.

If the question of what can be done to make all BD discs top quality can be answered, then the discs must sell.

All that's necessary for that to occur is for prices on players and discs to come down a bit. PS3 is probably the best entry level player, has been beautifully positioned by Sony, but is still a bit out of the budget for some.

The important point to be made to potential adopters is that you don't need to own a huge screen, or even an HD monitor in order to make the move to BD.

One's current monitor will do nicely -- even that old black and white 13" Dumont.

If people can understand that the potentially huge investment toward an HD monitor is NOT essential or even necessary and that, along with pricing via which people can buy a BD disc for not a great deal more -- especially on sale -- than the SD counterpart, they may just make the move to purchase a Blu-Ray disc that cannot yet be played back to full potential on their current system...

but is ready to be played back at which time they have the funds to make the investment in that state of the art monitor.
This is a very good point. While it is HD DVD, not Blu-ray, my A3 (purchased as a "back up" player as I don't intend to get rid of 100 discs only to rebuy them) is currently hooked up to an SDTV (32" Sony WEGA CRT) and even there the quality of HD vs SD is visible (not earth-shattering, but there). The colours look better, for one thing. Someday that display will be HD, but in the meantime, I can enjoy better than SD DVD even on an SD display.
Reply
post #165 of 495
6/7/08 at 11:14am

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

Quote:
I can easily afford it so I'm not going to punish myself by not buying a classic on BD that is not perfect.
People use the word "perfect" as if there are unreasonable and extraordinary demands being placed on the studios. No. The studios are not being asked to put forth some sort of Herculean, Superhuman effort to achieve the summit of Mt. Olympus. All that's being asked is that the original look of the film be preserved, simply using the capabilities of the format. It's been done for OTHER titles, so it could have been EASILY done with this one.
Reply
post #166 of 495
6/7/08 at 11:18am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
People use the word "perfect" as if there are unreasonable and extraordinary demands being placed on the studios. No. The studios are not being asked to put forth some sort of Herculean, Superhuman effort to achieve the summit of Mt. Olympus. All that's being asked is that the original look of the film be preserved, simply using the capabilities of the format. It's been done for OTHER titles, so it could have been EASILY done with this one.

And in fact what we are asking the studios to do is simply not to put the extra effort in to remove the grain, and the detail with it. One less step, one less technician to pay.

Doug
Reply
post #167 of 495
6/7/08 at 12:13pm

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

Thank you Mr. Harris for your quesstimate on how much high frequency detail was pitched out with the bathwater. I finally got to view the disc last night and I was somewhat underwhelmed. I believe I would of been underwhelmed even if I had not participated in this disc-cusion.

I was struck by the sameness of the PQ from beginning to end. The places where I'd expect to see grain, distant skies or indoor shots, had what came off more like the shadow of grain. Despite, what we'd discussed I had expected the close-ups to have more detail than they did. All the close-ups seemed about the same, not that detailed. I'd expect close-ups to vary more. I can't even recall a wider, more distant scene that looked very detailed. I got that feeling from the BD of Short Circuit I viewed recently. Previously, I'd never of dreamed of putting Patton and Short Circuit in the same sentence or thought....!!! I've shot enough video to know that everything shouldn't have so much sameness in the end, when you assemble all the varied footage.

It's been so very long since I saw Patton on film that I can't say I have a good handle on how it should look. I feel like it had more warmth and variance in look. To borrow a term from dead coral reefs, the disc struck me as like a "bleaching event". Bleachng events leave the coral deceased and devoid of colour, bleached white. The disc left me with a somewhat sterile feelin'. I think I would'a got that feelin' even without this disc-cusion.....I just wouldn't have understood so much as to why.

Fox, new and deproved with bleaching crystals. I'm curious enough as to how this movie used to look that I think I'll get out my LD and give it a spin....besides, it's got a special feature I wanna revisit.... Patton speaking....I'm sure glad George didn't imitate his voice!

Fox is on "double-secret probation" with me, yet again. There's some other studios doing better work. My dollars are better spent with them till Fox wakes up. Some of the other studios seem to be on an upward incline concerning this BD game. I don't get that feeling from Fox. They seem stuck on the same plateau as back during the D-Theater dayz. Call it the Mediocre Plateau.....
Reply
post #168 of 495
6/7/08 at 2:21pm

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

Mr. Harris, you talk about education. I don't think it is the public that needs to be educated so much as the people working on and releasing these films to a public that doesn't know what the hell they're seeing anyway.

Again, Mr. Harris, you are one of a very small handful of people here (and the one probably most qualified) to do the very educating you're advocating.

So how about it? Can you get the needed information to the right people and at least bend their ears a little?

Can you at least talk to the proper authorities at Paramount before they do damage to your fine work on "The Godfather"?
Reply
post #169 of 495
6/7/08 at 2:47pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
And in fact what we are asking the studios to do is simply not to put the extra effort in to remove the grain, and the detail with it. One less step, one less technician to pay.

Doug

While I am not that sure that the costs would be less or identical I am pretty sure it would not be significantly more given the total costs from creating the 4k master to the production of the Blu-Rays. And the results would be sooooo worth it !


Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
I'm afraid the flaws of Patton are regarded by most as virtues (look, honey, how clean it is! Gorgeous!). Especially considering the average display size is too small to make it obvious what's missing. If most review sites were fooled, so will be most consumers. Picky videophiles with a solid film background are a tiny minority.

Most consumers are ignorant to the discussion we have here but they would be as satisfied with a disc that meets our expectations as they are with noise reduced discs as those look only a little bit less clean under typical viewing conditions, certainly not enough to be distracting for most.
Regarding the reviewers: They should know their stuff and not downgrade a movie for being shot on film and showing artistic choices of its director that do not lead to the "honey, that looks gorgeous" look. To get certain reviewers to change their ways would be the harder thing to do as a lot of them have tastes that are opposed to the way we would like movies to be represented on Blu-Ray.
Reply
post #170 of 495
6/7/08 at 2:53pm

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

Rachael, I'm not sure what you watched last night, but it must not have been the same BD of Patton that I saw. Close-ups not very detailed, indeed.
Reply
post #171 of 495
6/7/08 at 3:28pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
All that's being asked is that the original look of the film be preserved, simply using the capabilities of the format.

Oh, I agree with that wholeheartedly but it still won't stop me from buying a title I want if it doesn't.
Reply
post #172 of 495
6/7/08 at 3:52pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Williams
Rachael, I'm not sure what you watched last night, but it must not have been the same BD of Patton that I saw. Close-ups not very detailed, indeed.
Besides opinions and discerning eyes varying, her HT setup and yours might be quite different which can explain the differences in opinion.
Reply
post #173 of 495
6/7/08 at 4:04pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Williams
Rachael, I'm not sure what you watched last night, but it must not have been the same BD of Patton that I saw. Close-ups not very detailed, indeed.

If this print has more potential than the average movie, then few of the close-ups looked really sharp to me. I've seen lesser movies that came off better by the leading studios, IMO. I thought the actors faces looked a bit pale in a great many scenes. I remember Patton's cheeks to be a bit rosey. I didn't see so much of that. I've just watched it once, so far. I'm really gonna get the LD out and see how the movie once looked.

I'm not as easy to impress as I was some years back. I'm in the camp that's not impressed by a little better than DVD quality results. That how I see this one.
Reply
post #174 of 495
6/7/08 at 4:50pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Williams
Rachael, I'm not sure what you watched last night, but it must not have been the same BD of Patton that I saw. Close-ups not very detailed, indeed.
It's all about managing expectations. I haven't seen this on BD, but I recall my first viewing of Casablanca on HD DVD--after reading reviews and comments (here and elsewhere) that it BLEW AWAY any and all previous releases/formats (with exception of original film release--and even then...according to some). My expectations were so pumped that I came away initially underwhelmed (more so than if I'd watched it "cold"). Subsequent viewings have revealed to me some of the reasons for the gushing praise, but I remain unconvinced that it is THAT much better than my SD DVD (which I've now given to a friend)--at least on my equipment. Better? Yes. Mind-blowingly better? Not as much as some other titles (Blade Runner comes to mind). So her experience and yours may seem miles apart owing to different expectations. I seriously doubt there was anything different about her disc than yours, however.
Reply
post #175 of 495
6/7/08 at 5:25pm

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

Education is great, but the fact is many folks will never want to see film grain in High-Def, no matter how educated they are (just like the dreaded "black bars" on DVD).

To that end, I think the best solution would be to write into the mandatory Blu-ray specs some sort of optional "grain reduction" feature that's built into the players. Give it several user-defined steps so that the viewer can choose how much he or she wants his or her Blu-ray discs to be filtered to their tastes, but leave the actual images as encoded on the Blu-ray discs themselves alone as far as this filtering/grain removal (and resultant fine detail removal) is concerned. That way, those of us who want to view a Blu-ray disc that accurately reflects the actual look of the film can have it, while the grain haters can have their players filter out all the grain they want, as well. As it stands, there's no way for the folks who want the original film look to retrieve it from a poorly filtered BD, but if we had a mandatory built-in optional "grain reduction" feature on BD players, and the folks who hate the grain can have what they want, while the rest of us can have what we want, as well.

Vincent
Reply
post #176 of 495
6/7/08 at 5:43pm

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

Quote:
But it didn't look like film. It looked like scrubbed data, shorn of its high frequency information. I'm certain that the film has more information than I'm seeing.

RAH,

I've heard from a couple of sources that Patton got "DNRed" during mastering, resulting in the unnatural, non-film-like character you noticed.

Can you exercise your influence with some of the techies at FOX and find out why they applied so much DNR and perhaps help to convince them to stop before it affects more films adversely?

All of this DNR process takes place at the hands of someone in the digital mastering room long after the film elements have been properly restored and transfered to the digital realm... so it could affect even the world's most perfect print given the most perfect transfer. The technicians, and those in charge of them, should be made aware that such agressive DNR has not place on high-definition media. Hopefully New Line will learn this lesson too! (Their US-BD of Pan's Labyrinth is heavily DNRed but the European HD DVD was not and has noticably more detail and texture).
Reply
post #177 of 495
6/7/08 at 7:09pm

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

I went back and watched this film again this afternoon. I'm really starting to agree that so much detail has been lost in this film that, while it is probably an upgrade from the SD version, I can't imagine it is by much.

There were times while watching it that the film just didn't seem alive. But for panning shots there are times when it looks for all the world like looking at a still photograph.

I was stunned at the scene where Patton is talking to Bradly in the trailer (or is it a train car) trying to get out of trouble. It seemed so soft I could hardly believe it. I compared it to a scene in Grand Prix, photographed from about the same angles, where Garner is trying to get his job back at Farrari. The difference is striking. Grand Prix is sharp as a tack, and it comes from a 35mm reduction print.

I'm starting to wonder if Patton suffers from the same problem that Ben-Hur did. Namely being transfered on antiquated 65mm telecine equipment.

Doug
Reply
post #178 of 495
6/7/08 at 7:51pm
Thread Starter 

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

Which is precisely why I feel that the master used for this BD, would make a splendid SD disc.
Reply
post #179 of 495
6/7/08 at 8:27pm

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

PaulDA, I'm well aware that my Blu-ray disc, in picture quality and audio quality, is exactly the same as Rachael's, but with setups, calibration, screen sizes, viewing distance, and brand of equipment involved, that doesn't make our viewing experiences equal. To say that close-ups of the Patton BD are not very detailed could be the fault of many other factors OTHER than the Blu-ray which is very sharp and detailed, indeed.

And it also has nothing to do with Rachael having higher standards than I do, as she implied.
Reply
post #180 of 495
6/7/08 at 8:28pm

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

Mr. Harris, I'm guessing the master DID make a very nice SD DVD, and it was much more colorful than the previous incarnation, minus the edge enhancement . . . and was softer than my feather pillow.

I'll take the Blu-ray.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Patton [Blu-ray]
$13.79 at
See it »