MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray - Page 3

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Great news here. I do like the recent box sets however. They look great imho when upsampled.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Actually this isn't true at all. Video has what is referred to as noise. That noise becomes more apparent as the gain of the camera is increased, but like film it is always there.

Grain IS very much a part of the movie because the detail of the film is contained in that grain. Also different films from different eras have very unique looks as a direct result of the films stocks available at the time. 3 strip technicolor films look the way they do because of the the processes used at the time. A 3 strip technicolor film from 1938 looks very different from a 3 strip film from 1951. I would be very dissapointed if they tried to make The Adventures of Robin Hood look like The Matrix.

Removing the grain is in effect changing the look of the film. It's kind of like taking Shakespeare and rewriting it in modern English. Its interesting but it loses much of its character, and I really wouldn't want to read it that way. Just as I don't really want to watch films that have had the grain removed.

Again are we going to remove the brush strokes from the Mona Lisa because it was a limitation of the technology available to da Vinci?

Doug

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Thank You Douglas. I feel you've hit it square on the head. Grain is good. We've all seen films that have been processed to hell to remove all the so called imperfections. They have a way of looking sterile and unremarkable. Damn it! I'm starting to cave on my holding out for that Bond Blu boxset and it's only been a day. I guess I may go ahead and get Thunderball. I love Thunderball!

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

I'd love to read that interview where I supposedly said this. It ain't true, in any case.

As much as I adore the Bond films and would loved to have been involved in the whole series of special editions, John Cork did a wonderful job on all the pre-"GoldenEye" discs he worked on with David Naylor and Bruce Scivally. No need for me to re-do that which is already stellar work.

If I have one regret, it's that my Lazenby-esque one-time stint as a Bond DVD producer came one film too early.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

So much for that phantom interview.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Err.... No.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

My favorite films are older movies, say from the 1930s through the 1970s. Depending on the DVD title and how it's authored, I guess, some strike me as "grainy" while others don't.

Maybe after all this time it's something else I'm objecting to (though I don't think it's "dirt", as some suggest). Take something like the MR. MOTO series on DVD. Some of them stand out (like MR. MOTO IN DANGER ISLAND, for one). This one's just much smoother, sharper, all around detailed... while others may look more "grainy" or "slightly snowy" (emphasis on SLIGHTLY).

I have been revisting the Universal '40s Sherlock Holmes movies on MPI lately, and the quality may also vary from film to film. Now, all of these movies are films - and they consist of inherent film grain - yet not all of them look as sharp, smooth, clear. In particular, the titles of the Holmes films tend to appear slightly more "grainy", but when the actual story begins, the clarity improves greatly. In the case of the Universal Holmes movies, am I correct that the original titles were obtained from another source, which perhaps accounts for this inconsistency?

I think there's a difference between proper inherent film grain and a movie presentation which presents a "grainy-looking image".


Good example. I have the SD of ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD and it looks excellent to my eyes, one of the most appealing images ever. Smooth, clear, sharp... Not the "grainy" look I'm referring to at all. So then - is it actually the inherent film grain I'm objecting to...?

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

The titles are grainier because they are one generation away from the rest of the movie. (Because the film had titles put over it). Grain varies WILDLY in all films from all eras. So what's wrong with simply allowing the movie to look like it looked, whatever that might be?

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

So much for you saying goodbye to this thread.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

It will be interesting to see if the BD Bonds contain the original burnt-in subtitles and location cards, like the R1 UEs do. So many BDs seem to be encoded for all markets, I'm concerned that we'll get the awful R2-style player-generated ones instead...

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Correct. So much for that, Robert. Verrrrrrryyy Good!

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

I wasn't talking about "all" titles for "every" film; I specifically pointed out the Sherlock Holmes movies. With the Holmes' titles I'd thought that they had to get them from another source in some cases (16mm perhaps?).

If we allowed movies to simply look as they looked, we probably wouldn't have anything near as spruced up as SD and BD in the first place.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

The first 20 films (Dr. No to Die Another Day) are owned outright by MGM. Fox now distributes for MGM. The new films (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace), are joint MGM/Sony projects, with Sony holding distribution rights.

Unless distribution rights change, or deals are struck between Fox and Sony (like they were when they sandwiched the Casino Royale release with the more recent box sets), the first 20 will always be sold separately than the two new films.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

We may be on to a breakthrough here. I think we really need a common frame of reference to get to the bottom of this. I also have the SD of Adventures of Robin Hood, and the Sherlock Holmes restorations and I'd say all those films demonstrate movies where film grain hasn't been eradicated. Film grain shouldn't be in-your-face, it should be a subtle effect that tells you you're not watching a frozen frame (or partially frozen frame). It sounds to me more like a generational issue that troubles you. The Holmes titles are all multi-generational elements, with Dressed To Kill in particular being a blow-up from a 16mm syndication print (the only surviving element of that movie's original title). Now discs mastered from multi-generation materials can have all kinds of problems inherent in the increased grain caused. Now on that score we're in agreement - there's nothing more painful than watching a film that's been mastered from second or third-rate materials, purely from a viewpoint of "is that the best they can do?" On the other hand, I'd hate to see what detail is in the image hoovered up by DNVR. I mean, have a search of Jerry Beck's site for DNVR on Warner cartoons - it'd break your heart!

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Your entire objection to film grain is based on a personal aesthetic preference. You have used the word "appealing" to describe the look you're seeking.

My point is that your personal preference, or anybody's for that matter, is irrelevant to the issue of how films should be presented on Blu-Ray or any other home video format, IMO.

Your preference just happens to be for grain-free images. It may as well be for low-contrast images, or highly saturated images, or images with no green, to quote my earlier analogy. Films should not be manipulated to match any one of those preferences if it means altering the image in a way that dishonors the original work.

If you have a specific aesthetic preference for how a film should look, the answer is to shoot your own film on whatever format satisfies that preference. Films made by others should remain as they are.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

I think you may want to read later posts on THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. It may not be the inherent grain issue at all I'm objecting to. A person may still be pro-film grain and not enjoy a "grainy looking picture". I think there's a difference.

I would also challenge that, for home video releases and DVD in particular, quite often the images have been manipulated against the original work. Not saying that I approve of it necessarily; but the way a finished DVD appears is quite often better looking than it once was, and in some ways altered, enhanced, boosted, etc.


Then they should be seen only on 35mm reels and not touched up in any manner for home video releases. The colors, for one thing, are almost always enhanced on DVD.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Has making it look better ever removed detail from the picture? That's what is happening when they remove all the grain and why everyone has (or should have) a problem with it.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Let me put it this way... if I ever see less detail in a film image I know well, I will be infuriated. But all I have ever witnessed is more detail on DVD, if anything. I see more pores in people's skin; not less. I see more intricate textures on clothing...

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

I think you maybe thinking of a film that is sometimes referred to as looking "doopy" because it is many generations away from the camera original. It ends up looking muddy and undefined. If that is what you are talking about I too dislike that. The SE releases of both Dr. No and Thunderball had a slightly doopy look to me. The new editions are MUCH improved in that regard.

But a film like Bullitt or The Sting for instance are fairly grainy, but not doopy looking at all. These two films have a beautiful rendition of natural looking film grain.

Doug

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

No one is suggesting they should look like a 16mm version of the film. Although in some cases 16mm elements maybe all that is left.

We are hoping that the films will look like they did on opening day, clean, clear and with NATURAL film grain.

Doug

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Actually there has been some speculation that the Broccoli family bought back all the rights to the Bond films from UA in the mid 1980s when they weren't sure if UA would survive the Heaven's Gate train wreck.

My understanding is that the Broccoli's own the films outright and that MGM had a distribution deal. The right to produce a James Bond film, with the exception of the Thunderball story, has never left the hands of the Broccoli family and no studio can make one with out them.

Doug

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Your later posts do make the issue more complicated. Perhaps you're objecting to the excessive film grain on prints that are many generations from the original camera negative, but I'm a little unclear as to what you mean by the look of natural film grain being distinct from a "grainy looking picture."


Again, we're back to a subjective aesthetic assessment as to what is "better." I don't think we should be trying to have films look "better" than they were originaly, unless that means more accurately represented. In the same way, the aim of high fidelity audio software and equipment should be to reproduce sound that is as close as possible to the original recording, not "enhanced" or "boosted" in any way.

I object to 5.1 remixes of mono soundtracks for the same reasons, even if I may find surround sound more "appealing" than mono.



I don't know what you mean by saying the colors are "almost always enhanced" on DVD. There's no question that a DVD, or a Blu-Ray disc for that matter, can never look identical to a 35mm print, but that's no reason not to strive for the most accurate represenation possible within the limitations of the format.


I believe you're experiencing an illusion. Where is this extra detail coming from? If you were to project a good 35mm film print in your living room on to a screen the size of your TV, I guarantee you will perceive more detail than you would from a DVD of the same image. Even Blu-Ray will have a hard time matching a projected 35mm image for perceived detail on the same screen size (depending on the generation of the print and other factors.)

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

In some cases, perhaps. But I doubt it's all of the time, as some of the DVDs I'm objecting to are not necessarily generations removed.


It's hard to describe on a message board. But what it basically comes down to is that I don't think you should be able to decipher a networking of grain when watching an image. It's like the example I gave where I may see dots and grain when I walk right up to a theater screen, yet sitting way back in the theater I shouldn't be able to "see" this pattern.


I'm just saying that this is what is being done on DVD, and has been for some time.


We're in agreement.


"Accurate", sure. But just using newer movies I'm seeing in theaters as examples, I still think when the DVD arrives, it presents an image superior to what was seen in the theater. Now, this could be because these days some of the projectionists aren't doing their jobs properly or that the bulb is not as bright as it should be. But there are also instances of noticeable dirt, scratches, or cue marks on films as seen in theaters... yet the DVD variant removes any of these pesky distractions. If you get right down to it, if we want our DVDs to appear faithful to how 35mm prints looked in theaters, they should probably leave all scratches, dust, and cue marks intact!


If it's an illusion, then it's a happy one which I'm glad to have. Maybe compared to TV broadcasts or inferior VHS tapes I can see more detail on DVD.


I think you make a good point, and I think you're right, in theory. But almost none of us will be watching 35mm in our living rooms.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Correct. I should have said that MGM has an exclusive distribution deal with MGM, while ultimately EON has complete control.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

On opening night you should see little to no dirt and dust. And frankly I haven't see cue marks on a print in years. They are almost unnecessary today with the use of platter systems. I'm not even sure they are still marking the prints with them.

In a quality theater with a good projectionist your viewing experience should exceed a blu-ray viewing by leaps and bounds. Of course if you goto the Dollar Theater where the print has 3 months of showings warn into it, you aren't going to have a "first run" experience.

As to standard def DVD, it is NEVER going to even come close to the quality of even a Dollar Theater unless the projection is THAT bad. In that case you should ask for your money back!

Doug

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

I believe in the Patton thread, there's a still comparison showing Karl Malden's face has less detail on the blu-ray than the dvd. It's like he's been covered in makeup. And how does Saving Private Ryan or Minority Report factor into this sweeping no-grain preference?

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

one of the things i noticed in the movie patton was maldon's nose, specifically the lack of being able to see the crease in the middle of the front of his nose.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

The issue of grain seems to be something of an obsession on these High Def forums, and on most of them there seems to be a lot of confusion about what is and isn't a manifestation of film grain or the lack of it. Terms like "low grain" get bandied about instead of "fine grain", and noise reduction technologies (designed specifically for deblobbing, not grain elimination) is treated with the same disdain as colorization or the proverbial digestive episode in a spacesuit.

I think we need the input of industry figures who know what they're talking about - either in the handling of film materials or the authoring of home video - as at the moment, all of this talk is both confusing and confused.

Oh, and Joe, if you're reading this - do you have a copy of the Close Encounters Blu-ray? In my personal experience, CE3K has always been one of the key movies of the 1970s which suffered from abnormally noticeable grain (due to so much being shot on Eastman low-light stock - which is inherently more grainy). However the CE3K BR looks absolutely magnificently sharp and I don't feel it has been sandblasted with DVNR.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

If a cinema has a well maintained platter and is using the Filmguard system, a print could still look new after months of playing. Filmguard keeps the print clean and fills in in any minor scratches so they do not appear on the screen.

I had a 35mm projector, xenon lamphouse, and 20-foot screen for about ten years. Blu-ray images are nice and come from virtually perfect prints, but do not compare with some of the film prints I had. Eastman color and B&W film prints made in the 1960s were made from the original negative, before the advent of dupe negatives and such.

I had a B&W print of "In Cold Blood", which had way better contrast and gray scale than any video projection I have seen. I had many IB tech films which were a world away from Blu-ray. I remember the last thing we ran was John Wayne's "The War Wagon", an IB Tech/Panavision film. It was an old print and had some lines and scratches but, my god, the color and contrast was unbelievable. I have fun with my Blu-ray and front projector, but the image is nowhere near what it was with a good print on my 35mm projector.

Re: MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray

Wow! I didn't think this discussion of grain would go so far into derailing this thread. You guys do remember this is the Bond on Blu-ray thread right. We all should get back on topic before the thread gets closed. Please.