A few words about...™ Patton -- in Blu-Ray - Page 13

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

btw, this was the follow up response from that guy.

It was from the 65mm film and it was a 4K scan and no it didn't have all of the film grain. I can't say everything we did to it, but we scan each frame one at a time and those frames are recorded on a SAN and then we have someone QC the reel of film off of the SAN to note all of the dirt and problem items. We repair all of the items that were listed, after that someone does another QC pass to make sure all of the items listed were fixed. Then it was recorded on an HDCAM SR (4:4:4) from the SAN, that tape is also QC'ed and then it is sent to Panasonic to make the Blu-ray disks. I don't work on the computer side or the film side I'm only a tape guy.

"Some people like this transfer and some don’t. Grain isn't something magic it's a limitation of the film. I have never liked film and never will, I can’t wait until it is never used again, but that’s just me. When I look at the world I don’t see grain, I see a nice clear view."

that was an answer to this...

"Can you please elaborate on the process of what you call "the scan" ?
Is it a scan from 65mm film elements ? Was it a 4k scan for Patton and did it still have all the grain of the film elements intact ?

It seems that you did a lot of work on Patton to arrive at a product that a lot of people do not like. Would you say it is possible with the equipment and tools at your disposal to emulate the look of the film elements as closely as possible with the film grain still intact ?"

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

Oh. My. God. People like this shouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR a FILM transfer facility. "I'm helping transfer from a medium I don't like and never want to see used". Then stay the HELL away from it, moron!

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

Some times what is unsaid becomes more important than what is. The tone of the post seemed to be overly confrontational. The fellow posts once and is immediately faced with a chiding. I'm surprised that he didn't respond negatively. He must have decided that any response only would have escalated into more confrontation.

Also, assuming the fellow is legit, I would say the company he works for has some big problems. There is a problem when your boss asks you how long you have been at work and your response is 24 hours, and he responds with the remark, "short day".

If this fellow put in a 39 hour day, it wouldn't surpise me if the finished product has problems. If he is working 39 hour days, then it stands to reason that other people are also putting in those kinds of hours. Pulling long shifts like that is not conducive to good quality work.

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

You forgot to include the statement where he actually says he does not work on the film side. He states clearly that he works only with tape. It sounds like he has absolutely nothing to do with the actual clean up or mastering of the film. It sounds like all he does is transfer the final product to tape.

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

read it again, i quoted his entire post

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

Fine, if you want to be picky about it, I'll modify the hypothetical.

There's a conversation in progress among several people from the neighborhood about how the town looks. One of them is John Smith. You walk up, join the conversation, get right in John Smith's face and say: "Aren't you the John Smith who owns that house at the end of Jones Street? Man, that thing is has the ugliest paint job in the neighborhood -- it's hideous! Don't you have any regard for yourself or your neighbors? What kind of person are you that you would live in a place that looks like that? Do you even care about your home? How dare you sully the image of our town with those ridiculous colors!"

No cursing, no name calling. You've just "called out" the guy on the topic under discussion. But how do you think you've came off? Have you persuaded anyone to take you seriously?

We can keep going round and round on this forever, but there's one thing I can tell you for certain: Anyone who pulls this kind of stunt with an industry person on HTF won't remain on HTF. I know there are people who accuse us of being industry "kiss-asses" because of this approach, but personally I don't care about the opinion of someone who can't distinguish between kissing ass and basic courtesy.

M.

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

well, you hold the keys.

i disagree is all.

unsubscribed to topic.

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

Let's not read too much into throwaway comments. Both parties were more than likely simply being facetious. Both remarks are the sort of thing I'd say, without being in any way serious!

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

Tony,
I'm sorry you feel that way, but what we're saying is if what Michel posted was said in a face-to-face situation, the reaction received would be very negative and maybe moreso than Michel wanted in the first place.





Crawdaddy

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

That guy's comments in this thread- Hollywood Studios Are Removing Grain For Blu-Ray Movie Reissues - High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource - are also very interesting. In particular, read this post: High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource - View Single Post - Hollywood Studios Are Removing Grain For Blu-Ray Movie Reissues

He claims his company has a system to remove "all" the film grain, then add a little bit back. I'm curious as to what company this man works for.

Vincent

P.S.- Is it just me, or is that highdefforum website awfully slow?

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

1080PsF seems to have been rather innocent with regard to the process of grain and noise reduction in Patton.
Still I will be very happy if he never has any say in what amount of grain reduction is need for a movie given his dislike of grain and therefore the look of movies produced on film stock.

This makes it clear once more that ALL production stages from the original film elements to the Blu-Ray have to be monitored very closely to get a superior product.

And I agree with the stance of the moderators here: It is probably of little help to be rude or confrontational with people in the industry, at least we can try to be reasonable and not overly argumentative. After all of that fails we can still scream and curse

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

Despite my above post, Michael is right that more temperate language should be used when discussing the issue with the people involved. This reminds me of a certain definition of a diplomat: Someone who tells you to go to hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip.

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

I've been trying to be rational and thorough in my communications with the guy over there.

Vincent

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

That's all we're saying.

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

Did "Patton" have directional dialog?
(does the Blu have "DD"?)
Thanks.

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

In HiDef Digest's defence; I would like to point out from the "Patton" review:
Video
"Now if only Fox would abandon DNR and deliver faithful catalog remasters..."
Audio
"The audio on this conversational biopic may not stand up to Fox's DTS-HD MA tracks, but it still manages to offer fans and history buffs an above average catalog experience."
Blu-ray Review: Patton | High-Def Digest
Remember RAH himself 1st recommended this title; so I don't think we should totally throw "HD D" under the bus.

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

Interesting!
What title was that?
Was that used for "The Godfather"?

EDitEDbyED:
I'm aghast/against fake-grain.
If you take it out, that's one step removed from the original source, however to reintroduce fake-grain in order to attempt the look of the source; leaves one two steps removed from the real thing.
Not a good thing in my book.

I'll have too read up on what Lowry is doing to make it "right".

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

that is exactly an issue i have for years from many dvd reviewers. most of them gave mono films the lowest rating because of the nature of mono. i for one prefer a good mono mix, if it was indeed the original mix for the films theatrical run, then a 5.1 blow-up mix we see or better say hear so many these days. besides there is still a big difference between a bad and a really good mono presentation. hence a reviewer should look at the actual quality and not that is mono and not 5.1.

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

What is the point of removing real grain, only to then add fake grain? Sorry, but that is the most retarded thing I have heard of. It defies logic. My head hurts just thinking about it.

Has Mr. Harris spoken to anyone in the industry about that who is powerful? Some top filmmakers? Just curious.

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

Patton, being a 70mm release, most likely had a 6 channel audio track. However I agree with you. If the film had a mono track to start with, it should have that mono track included if at all possible. I don't however have a problem with a 5.1 remix if the original elements are used, but the mono mix should be included.

Doug

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

I find it very interesting that everybody here just takes it for granted that it was me over there at the other site. How can you be so sure? :-)
As for rude or not rude, that's debatable. I find what was done to "Longest Day" very rude to the film makers indeed, not much different from pissing on a painting. But that's just me. Others might call it 'improvement', or 'beautification'.

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

I didn't. But why not just clear up the question one way or another?

No, it's not "debatable", because the two things aren't equivalent. Rules of basic courtesy and decency don't go out the window just because you disagree with someone's position on an issue. The inability to grasp that difference is, IMO, one of the biggest evils wrought by the internet (and a few other culprits I could name but won't).

Fortunately we're in a place where the ownership settled that issue when they founded HTF. See my earlier comments.

And lest anyone forget: I've been railing against grain removal since before the release of Patton and TLD. As far as the substantive issue goes, I'm on your side. I just think RAH's way of handling it works better. A LOT better.

M.

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

My issue with clueless audio reviews goes beyond just mono. Any film that is old enough to not have the current state-of-the-art audio formats is treated like a bastard stepchild or a leper just escaped from the colony. It's always, "the surrounds were weak (like dude it's a mono movie)", "it didn't have deep bass (not enough to crack the wall or windows)", "I could hear the dialog fine but it didn't sound dynamic enough (dude this film is from 1936 and you sound like you need to get back on your surfboard, like dude)".....

These guilty reviewers are not sounding smart when you read between the lines that they know nothing about, let's call it, historical audio. Instead of learning something, they hand out the same, tired cliches...."the surrond field wasn't enveloping enough", or whatever babble to fill a paragraph about audio. The babble is the easy way out.

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

After a reprieve, I decided to check back in. I just read some of the stuff at the other forum that was also reproduced here, and I believe I've just burped part of my turkey burger back into my mouth.

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

I'm not stealing, errr, buying Robin Hood till they remix it for DTS Master 7.1 !

I have just clue enough to know that I'm the nearly deaf, or is it blind, being led by the "deaf, dumb, and bind but he sure plays a mean pinball", reviewer/s....of audio. I know empty words when I hear 'em.

Thanks for the compliment! In fact I have had stand-up routines and have written for a famous comedian. Now, I'm semi-retired livin' in knoxville watchin' out for my elderly mother, skiing up and down the lake, and watchin' all the movies I can get. El futura.....??? "I'll be back".

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

This was developed as a process to aid compression for low-bit-rate video encodes since the random grain is difficult to compress. Long story short: it was one of the innane things that Amir from MS was suggesting whenever folks would question a lower-bandwidth format's ability to compress long movies that were particularly grainy.

Yes, it's a scary thought, and one that indicates how glad we should all be that the industry didn't decide that was a good answer to make grainy video fit onto a platter.

Blu-ray has enough bandwidth that even long films that are excessively grainy should have no problem compressing. Again, this "take the grain away and add it back in later" was suggested only as a way of replicating grainy films with low-bit-rate compression... that's the only reason such a concept even exists.

Watch out... Microsoft will be touting that as the next great feature of their compression codec for internet downloading of HD content!

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

But with the death of HD-DVD we now have a format that is the clear winner and the only game in town and it can have insanely high bit rates?! So why why WHY would anyone even consider using that process?

Why?!

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

I could've sworn the remove-grain-then-replicate-it-later tool was a part of the AVC codec, and not VC1. I don't think it was ever used, but I could've sworn it was developed by Thompson for use with AVC.

Vincent