A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray - Page 7

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

I could be wrong, but I would think the blanket use of DNR is a way of saving more cost down the line since it will require fewer passes at the compression stage.
I'm thinking the reason many HD DVDs looked as fine as they did, despite having more severe bit rate and storage restrictions, was because those restrictions mandated closer scrutiny at the compression stage. Which is why I won't be suprised if many Bds are pushed thru "on auto-pilot" as much as possible as a way to leverage some of the inherently higher production cost.
The larger the trunk you have, the less likely you are to feel a need to carefully pack everything.

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

Here you can see for yourself how Patton stills look. Like some digital 1080p camera was used with a strong optical low pass filter to shoot this 'film':
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton1.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton2.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton3.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton4.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton5.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton6.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton7.png

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

I couldn’t disagree more. Zulu looked fantastic. Sky TV, who paid Paramount to master Zulu in HD, received a huge amount of praise for the picture quality. It is the sharpest, clearest broadcast HD picture I’ve ever seen – and to me it does look like film even without the grain. The fact is, most people, aside from purists, don’t want to see grain. It’s got nothing to do with “educating” people that grain is a part of film – most people see it as a distraction.

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

Sounds similar to saying "The fact is, most people, aside from purists, don’t want to see black bars".

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

Most people also eat McDonald's...

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

Seems we have to agree to disagree.

I was looking forward to Zulu very much and I guess that it has a good master and I hope the potential of that master will someday be unleashed in the form of a properly mastered Blu-Ray. BUT: Coming from Paramount should we really be surprised that grain removal and DNR have been a little overused with Zulu ? You might like the way it looks but it is not how film looks like. As we can see with Patton a huge amount of praise is not really indicative of a proper representation of a movie as per the capabilities of the BR format so I couldn't care less.

I saw the colors and the clean picture complete with the waxy faces and it immediately looked somehow dead to me. A much better presentation was The Bridge on River Kwai which actually still looks like film as does the very nice BR of Passage to India.

And I do not get your point about grain - do you suggest that film on HD should not look like film anymore ?

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

That looks very bad indeed.
In the third screen capture they managed to smear almost all detail in Patton's face and uniform even though he occupies half of the frame - that is not much better than what could be achieved with the DVD format.

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

I did not disagree with this--in fact, it is implied in my post.

My point was not whether one has "higher standards" (obviously not for me to decide or even debate) but simply pointing out that each has "different" expectations (as evidenced by multiple posts). That was the point behind relating my own experience with Casablanca on HD DVD (and that is a transfer that has been, as far as I can tell, universally praised). Our expectations are all influenced by a multitude of factors. Casablanca was the third HD DVD I ever watched. It was the best reviewed, from a video standpoint, of the three, by far. My expectations were seriously high. Too much so, at the time. Since then, however, I've seen enough other HD DVDs (and rewatched Casablanca) to come to understand that it is among the better releases in HD DVD, but the effect of my initial expectations were such that I still don't see it as EXTRAORDINARILY superior to my SD copy.

When I get around to watching this BD (won't be for a while I don't have a player at the moment), I will not be able to escape the influence of the discussion here--the risks of seeking out information, I suppose. Perhaps I'll think it's great (I do find many complaints about titles I HAVE seen in HD DVD, for example, to be rather "nitpicky") or perhaps I will find it disappointing. Only a viewing will tell.

Ultimately, with any release on BD (or HD DVD), expectations rule the day. Some expect "hyper sharp and clean" and will be disappointed with "grain". Others demand "the original" as much as possible and when the release doesn't match their expectations, they are (sometimes severely) disappointed.

As for the studios, they have to weigh what they believe the biggest potential buying audience will want (anecdotally, that seems to be the "hyper clean" crowd), the cost of making the release from start to finish and critical response to previous, similar releases. The problem is all the more complex because these are reproductions of works of art (in the broad sense--Porky's II is not especially artistic, even if it is an art form). When it comes to a lot of "classics", many have never seen "the original". Add to that the things we're told to expect from HDM ("clean", "sharp" and, if in colour, "pop") and it is no wonder that some releases turn out as they do.

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

That looks almost exactly like the SD from 2006 so my guess is that Fox used the exact same master for the BD. To get the fine grain back they will probably have to do a new master and I don't see that happening very soon with the way classics are selling on BD. Besides, this release is getting high praise from all reviewers (except RAH) so the urge for Fox to fix it is probably not there either. It is beyond me how all those reviewers can not see that something is terribly wrong though.

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

Hmmm.

Or it could be a combination of both!

RAH, can you dig around FOX for any details? This isn't the last time Patton will surface on Blu-ray Disc. Let's make sure that the next installment is done right... proper transfer and sans DNR.

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

Wow, I'm shocked at how those stills look from Mr. Hafner's post (#182). The sterile, scrubbed look does not look right with this film at all. It does look like it was shot with a modern digital camera. How awful. It seems as if some detail is there, as in the weave of the uniform fabric, yet the backgrounds don't appear to have much more detail than the DVD. However, I haven't seen the BD personally yet, so I'll reserve final judgement until then.

A little off topic, but did anyone notice the jet contrail in still #4 of Mr. Hafner's? Obviously that shouldn't be there in 1944-45, but I guess they are hard to avoid when filming a historical piece in the jet age. I never noticed it before and Patton is one of my favorite movies.

I haven't made the jump to Blu yet, but I will soon. This whole thread has me somewhat disappointed in the Patton BD, a release that had pushed me closer to buying into Blu. I will still buy it, but not without thinking how good it could (and should) have been.

I have to ask, does the 2001 BD suffer from this DNR overkill as well?

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

Those stills killed my interest in buying this BR title.

You mean DVD, don't you? It suffers from quite a bit of EE (another issue some people profess doesn't bother them).

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

Frankly speaking, I can't see what the complaint is about. I mean that literally - I can't see the "ugly smearing" or the other deficiencies RAH and others are stating. I see there is a lack of grain, but that has already been stated as not being the problem. I can't determine the lack of high frequency information, and I'd say that I have a pretty decent eye. I'm going to scrutinize this release more closely than 99.999999% of the people out there. You guys may be right, I can accept that and recognize that I'm simply blind to it, but you can't honestly think that Fox has any indication to re-issue a disc based on something only 0.0000001% of people will notice.

I'm all for preventing such things on further discs, but sometimes I wonder if we shoot ourselves in the foot as HTF enthusiasts more often than not.

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

It's very evident that high frequency, fine details are missing completely from those images. Shame on Fox for this. I'll definitely be sending them a snail mail letter.

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

No, I mean the 2001 Blu-ray release from last year. I have the remastered 2001 DVD and yes the EE is pretty bad in some shots (the Monolith against the prehistoric sky, for example). EE bothers me a lot, and I can't help but be distracted by it.

I am asking if the 2001 BD suffers from the same DNR scrubbing that this new Patton BD does. Are you saying the 2001 BD exhibits the same EE as the DVD?!?

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

The 2001:ASO BD is considered to be a reference transfer of that film.

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

Sorry, I confused the year with the film.

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

Look at Patton's nose and chin in the third still and tell me what fine detail you see there. They look more like something on a wax dummy than a person.

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

I certainly don't have higher standards and I'm sorry you inferred that. I might have higher expectations sometimes...?

I had fun comparing some scenes on LD and BD last night and this morn. I managed to find film grain that was apparent on the LD that was smoothed out on the BD. One of the better examples was when Patton goes to the mess hall to shut it down for the late brunchers. On the LD, the film's grain is readily apparent on the room's collums. I couldn't see it on the BD.

Actually, I was somewhat suprised there wasn't more grain apparent on the LD. Patton might be a less grainy than a great many films? I would have to trust Mr. Harris' judgement on that question. Then, maybe the LD isn't so good as a barometer? I thought it intresting though.

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

Yeah, they're the vocal bunch we've heard. I'd bet that there's a substantial group of folks who wouldn't notice if some grain is present or not. Being oblivious does have it's advantages.

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

Rachael, as has been pointed out many times in this thread by Mr. Harris himself, the lack of film grain on the BD release isn't the problem. Oh, sure it is to some, because they heard someone say the film grain was the intended look of the director, when in fact, the film grain was simply a necessary evil for most films of that and previous eras. It's interesting to me that you only pointed out where you saw film grain on the very old LD, and made no mention at all of the detail comparisons, which of course, the BD would simply blow the LD away.

I'm pretty well through with this thread and will continue to enjoy my "Patton" BD for many, many years to come.

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

Where did you get the idea that directors (or anyone else) consider grain "evil"?

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

Mike, I think the grain is a barometer. Isn't it high frequency detail too?

Same as you, I'll enjoy this BD for many years. I've rather enjoyed scrutinizing it as it's the only video disc that I got this week and I've proably learned a little somethin' despite my thick skull.

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

Thanks, that's a relief. I don't worry about too many Warners titles, their transfers are generally outstanding.

Re Patton, it appears the BD while disappointing is still superior to and worth upgrading from the old 2 disc DVD.

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

Robert, I'm going to guess people like Robert Rodriguez and George Lucas think grain is evil, along with everyone shooting Pixar films in the digital medium and then transferring them to DVD or BD digitally so they never touch film, and along with it, film grain. Then there are the studios spending a great deal of time and resources removing film grain from their films, such as Fox, Disney cartoons, again, Lucasfilm, etc.

Film grain simply comes with the territory. Today people ADD film grain to their films or certain scenes in their films to achieve a certain stylized look. Short of that, film grain just came with the territory, and I REALLY highly doubt was part of the planned canvas. Films have a cinematographer because we want the film to have a certain look. We have people who specialize in lighting and color because we want the film to have a certain look. We have set designers because we want the film to have a certain look. Why is there no grainographer obeying the directors wishes to get just the right grain look for their films?

JFK, Nixon, 300 and the opening scene of "Casino Royale" excepted, of course.

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

Don't take my word for it, though. If you would like to get a full range of views regarding the transfer then check out Mr. Harris's review of the film.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...sey-bd-hd.html

Edit: On a PATTON related note, the stills posted here do have a look that seems to be too clear and Discovery channel-like; however, the level of detail still outstrips my 2 disc SD DVD of the film by far. If it is a choice between the massive EE on the SD DVD and this BD version, then I'll take the BD version any day. I will wait a couple of weeks to see if FOX addresses the concerns that are being expressed here. If FOX doesn't release a public statement in the next few weeks then I can assume that they will have no intentions of re-visiting the title any time soon. At that time, I will order a replacement for my SD DVD since I will be able to safely assume that FOX will not be releasing a higher fidelity version to answer the concerns that have been brought forward.

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

So you don't know that anyone considers grain "evil" (can you point to a statement by Lucas or Rodriguez that digital is preferred because it's "grainless"? Can you point to a statement by Pixar people that says they make digital animated movies for the purpose of "escaping" grain (which is NOT the same as choosing not to add grain to what was made in the first place)?).

Again, where did you read that the grain that "came with the territory" was considered "evil" by filmmakers? Obviously the people you cited who add grain don't consider it "evil".

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

And that's because the level of detail on the Patton DVD is also very substandard (sucks actually) particularly when compared to reference transfers like Fox's "Moulin Rouge".

Also, this is not about grain per se, but grain is actually high freqency information and the lack thereof is often indicative of a corresponding lack of high frequency detail.

Vern

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

RobertR, what I can point to is the Lucas films that have had all grain removed from films where grain once existed: Indiana Jones Trilogy, original Star Wars trilogy, THX-1138.

I can point out Disney films that have had grain removed where grain once existed: Bambi, Snow White, Cinderella and many others.

I don't need them to make written or verbal statements. Their DVD releases are statements themselves.