A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray - Page 5

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

Ah, but that's a different point. Before you were saying there was no way to know whether what we were seeing in the BD image was or wasn't in the source. Now it appears you admit that some things are self-evidently not in the film source, but not everyone is bothered by them.

I'd call that progress, except that I'm sure you'll find some way to take back the concession now that I've pointed it out.

If this were truly an open and frank debate, I'd agree. But you've been sniping at RAH's standards for BD quality (and they're admittedly high standards) since you arrived. To paraphrase Monty Python, this isn't a debate, it's just contradiction.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

Ouch indeed. The artifacts we criticise are not there because we watch video. They are there because the video was processed to have them, changing the look of the video from film-like to something else. For no good reason whatsoever when the target medium is a Blu Ray disc.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I couldn't have said it any better.
Yes....to what extent we utilize reviews can be as varied as the reviews themselves. But, there's no right way or wrong way with these things....ultimately, it's just your way that's important. It's your dime.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

There's a right way and wrong way to master a film title to Blu-ray Disc. The ability of a given reviewer to discern how well a studio accomplishes the goal does not negate the goal itself.

The discussion on the board has been about the right/wrong way to master a disc, and some HTF members have expressed their personal opinion about purchasing or not purchasing discs that fall short of the goal.

No one has declared anything right or wrong about an individual's decision to make a purchase. If misunderstanding that was the compulsion for your previous debate, you were arguing a point that no one was contradicting. We all agree that people can buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

At the same time, at HTF we have agreed-upon goals for a studio to acheive when they deliver the art of film on a 1080p medium. To criticize a disc that falls short is to criticize the decisions made by studio that produced the disc, NOT a criticism of anyone who purchased the disc, enjoys the disc, or is unable to see the flaws in the mastering on their display system.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I understand your point, I'm just not sure whether I agree with it.
Let me illustrate my point.
Years ago on network television a western series was "filmed" using video cameras and I thought the "effect" was astonishing; much more of a 'you are there' imersive impression (OK..early Discovery channel effect) and the series lasted only one season and was forgotten about. Turn ahead the clock to Star Wars III, released in 2005. I saw this movie in Las Vegas at a theater showing it in DLP and my mouth dropped open!!! I could only compare it to early 70mm projection....it was so crystal clear with such beautiful color renderings my heart soared thinking this was going to be the norm in a few years. Anyway....this is what I mean when I say I want something "better" than film and if this can be achieved via technical manipulation, I say go for it!!!

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

Frankie,

forget the word "film" for a minute and instead replace it with "master recording".

Just like an audio carrier medium like LP, CD, SACD etc. has the job of replicating the sound of the original *master recording* whether the master was analog or digital, the same is true of a video medium.

Whatever the "master recording" is, that's what matters. If the director of a production shot on 1080p video, then the 1080p video master that they approved is the "Master Recording" that the Blu-ray should replicate.

If the master was a 70mm film negative, then that's the "Master Recording" that the Blu-ray should try to be faithful to.

If the master was a 480i VHS or Beta tape, then *that* is the "Master Recording" if it represents what the director wanted you to see.

When we talk about "film" and the importance for a Blu-ray to "look like film" we're talking about instances where the "Master Recording" *is* a film element, as is the case with the majority of motion pictures.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

As I said, I knew you'd find some way to take back the concession, and here it is.

This is a familiar theme from you: Improve the film! The same argument was used to support colorization, pan 'n' scan and other alterations of films to suit various tastes.

One person's "better" may be another's abomination. The only reliable course is to reproduce the film as close as possible to the source and let the buyer choose. "Improving" a film with modern technology would be like rewriting Shakespeare to make him easier to understand -- and about as legitimate.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

It's already been done to Bill.

As for DNR/"improvements via manipulation"--the solution is simple. Use the features on your display. HD displays are loaded with "picture enhancement" features. Use them to your heart's content. For the rest of us, leave the picture "as it was" as much as possible. That should be the de facto position. When releases fall short, then it is us to us individually to decide whether we can live with the flaws.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I'm seeing contradictory things in your post. You say you think SWIII looked great at the same time you say it looked "comparable" to 70 mm film (clearly implying you think 70 mm film looks great as well), then you say you want something "better" than film. But that last sentence of yours does indeed reveal your attitude about film--you don't like it, don't like the looks of it, and want something that looks different from it. That almost all movies originated on film means nothing to you. You don't want to watch them as they were. You want them to look just like Discovery HD video.

The kind of technical manipulation we're discussing involves high frequency filtering (which kills fine detail) and smearing away the grain with DNR (even though the detail is in the grain), followed by cranking up the sharpness in an attempt to regain the lost detail, resulting in hard edges and halos (which further obscure detail) that were never there to begin with. Instead of being able to see the pores in Karl Malden's face, he looks more like a wax dummy. Such a look is what you consider to be "better" than what was there in the first place. I see.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

So have colorization, pan 'n' scan and heavy DNR. What's your point?

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I'm not supportive of any of those. I was just observing that, sadly, Shakespeare has not been spared such an indignity. Guess I should have included a with my post.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I don't know why we are even debating this. Blu-ray was promoted as a home video medium with the capacity to reproduce, as closely as possible, the quality of a given film's master. That should be the goal of all of these studios. DVD transfers required compromises due to the inherent limitations of the format. Blu-ray, largely, eliminates the restrictions of DVD so the amount of image manipulation a film undergoes should be reduced to the absolute minimum required for reproducing an accurate filmic image that is free of dirt and scratchs.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

Gotcha. Sorry!

Usually, though, when Shakespeare's language gets modernized, it's advertised as such. I'm thinking of things like Cliff Notes. Indeed, the rewrite is touted as a feature.

Now if some studio wanted to release, e.g., The Discovery Channel HD Version of PATTON, based on the classic Fox film!, at least that would be truth in advertising. People with frankie's taste would know that they're getting exactly the sort of grainless, plasticized, waxworks look they seem to prize, and the rest of us would know to save our money.

(Not that I'm advocating this approach, you understand. )

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I would love to see someone take this approach in a satirical way on an actual release; something along the lines of the Drive-In Classics line of DVDs from a few years back that came with a 5.1 "Distorto" soundtrack, which attempted to replicate the experience of the drive-in by putting the soundtrack of the film (heavily distorted, like it was coming out of the drive-in speaker you would hang on your window) in the front left channel, and filling the remainder with "the ambient sounds of the drive-in."

Of course, any studio that would be willing to do something like this would run the risk of being taken seriously.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I'm sure part of the problem is the decision making is not left entirely (or, in some cases, even primarily) in the hands of people who value "as close to the original source as possible". CD releases are a prime example of how horribly wrong things can go--but so many people have become accustomed to poor mastering these days, they don't care (and don't know any better--likely prefer things the way they are). Same applies to "make it pop" and "get rid of the grain". I can't even count the number of times I've been scolded in stores for setting TVs to "cinema" or an equivalent as a bare-bones way of evaluating how a proper image should look (and I've surreptitiously--gave up actually explaining a long time ago--done the same to friends' and relatives' TVs, only to return and find they've gone back to "vivid").

I know "pan and scan" vs "OAR" is often invoked as "victory" in getting releases "done right" but anyone can see the black bars (or their absence). This fight will be harder, for a variety of reasons (not that it should not be made, just that one should not become apoplectic over the fact it will only be a partial victory). Hell, studios STILL release, in 2009, FULL SCREEN pan and scan versions (4:3 ratio) of current films because there are still enough people who complain about "the bars".

In the end, and this is how I decide for myself--no one else need do this, I hope for the best and use rentals to gauge "the worst". In the case of Amadeus, I'd likely have relied on a rental if I'd read RAH before making the order, but the low price was too tempting. I privilege the content first, quality of presentation second and format third--content is by far the most important to me. So I'm willing to live with some disappointment presentation-wise if it means I can see the content. I lived with my SD release of the Director's Cut of Blade Runner for a long time, knowing it could look better (even on SD) but not wanting to go without one of my favourite films. I suspect I will have to do the same with BD, even if I'd rather not.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

Yes...the above is what I wrote but than I realized that there's really only one reviewer that comes to mind that would compare BD quality against the actual film stock itself. Other reviewers analize a new BD release on it's own merit as an optical disc. anyway, I just didn't think it was worth further mention. What you choose to call "sniping" I call an honest difference of opinion...a perfectly normal reaction that reviewers should come to anticipate and expect. It would certainly be an odd reaction if no one disagreed with a Mr Harris' reviews....I loved "Patton". However, I do think that advising consumers to boycott certain titles because they don't meet his standards for quality goes beyond reviewing and more into the realm of crusading, IMO. Just my 2 cents.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

So you want Mr. Harris to say something like "It's my honest evaluation that this release does not properly represent the look of the film and is not a quality release, but I recommend you buy it anyway"? That makes no more sense than telling your friends to go to a restaurant even though the service was lousy and you didn't like the food. And by the way, Mr. Harris is hardly the only person (one does not need to be an "officially" designated reviewer to evaluate discs) who evaluates BRs on the basis of how well they replicate the look of the film. There are MANY such people, even if you're not aware of it.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

There are reasons for everything and we are left to guess as to why a particular studio releases a title a certain way. Was it because of economical reasons. Perhaps they process the video to appeal to mainstream viewers that like a snappy Discovery channel look. I really liked the "look" of PATTON when viewed on a 108" screen. At no time did I feel I was being robbed of any picture detail. I've shown this title to a lot of family members and friends and without exception, ALL were totally amazed at the PQ. And yet, this title is considered unwatchable by many members of this forum. Something's terribly wrong here.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

You misunderstand me. My point is that usually BD disc reviewers can not even agree among themselves as to what constitutes a satisfactory release, IE. one reviewer says a particular release is garbage while another reviewer praises the PQ for the same release. So, all I'm saying is check it out for yourself.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

This raises several questions.

Why do viewers like "a snappy Discovery channel look"? (Most likely because HD VIDEO, like that broadcast on Discovery HD and a lot of other HD programming broadcast elsewhere, is the BULK of their HD viewing experience).

Why should a FILM source (and not a VIDEO source) be EXPECTED to look like VIDEO by viewers? (Because, having been fed a steady diet of one kind of HD material, they are startled by the unfamiliar)

SHOULD a presentation of a FILM source be transformed to look like VIDEO? (NOT on the disc--use the features on your player and display if you want that--it's a win/win)

In the end, nothing is perfect. But when attaining a compelling close approximation of film is finally available, it is beyond senseless to DELIBERATELY deviate from that goal to satisfy the uninformed. Of course, we, as individuals, are free to decide what level of deviation from the goal (deliberate or otherwise) we are willing to tolerate relative to other factors (how much do we like the content, how long will we have to wait for a more appropriate version to be released and a host of other considerations) but to actively endorse (rather than, at best, grudgingly accept) a deliberate deviation from the STATED GOAL of getting closer to the source seems a bit much to expect from anyone who cares about this hobby, much less someone who makes a living in the field and knows whereof he speaks.

You are free to enjoy Patton as it is on the BD. That is a matter of personal choice. You should not expect a respected professional in the field to endorse what is clearly a purposeful deviation away from the goal of getting as close to the source as possible.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

And I, for one, thank you for your efforts (Ebert as well is my most trusted film reviewer). I may not always agree with you (or him) but I always appreciate your work.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

That's just one side of the coin. Improving the film has also resulted in Technicolor, VistaVision, Cinemascope, 70 mm, IMAX.
It seems that the studios only permit one choice....buy it or don't. Otherwise, they pretty much do whatever they want. Studios and directors moderinize their films by adding special effects and special features to films all the time.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

Popular does not make best (or even good in very many instances).

And while I do believe in cause and effect, that does not mean everything has a good, intentional reason from those who were directly involved. For instance, a lot of baseball statisticians believe in something called "luck" in their analyses. And one Mr. Bill Dickey (from another generation past) was famously quoted, "luck is a residue of design." And I would submit that's basically what DNR/EE artifacts are in a sense.

The folks who apply heavy doses of such processing desire some kind of (apparently popular) effect and are either intentionally or simply ignorantly accepting the bad "residue" of their design -- and that's not even to argue whether film grain should belong in the best video presentation of the films for artistically important reasons.

Next thing you'll tell us is that it's good that TV manufacturers regularly put out TVs w/ (often hard to reverse) settings that are designed to be horribly incorrect (wrt to actual standards) just for the purpose of appealing to the masses in unrealistically brightly lit showroom floors. I'm glad though that at least some of them have recently made it easier to turn off such "torch modes" and change (most, if not all) settings to be much closer to what they should be. But that's basically what we're also arguing wrt BD: namely, they should release titles so that we can at least opt for a reasonably faithful presentation of the original film (as originally intended by the filmmakers) while letting everyone else the option to use their TVs' various picture processing features to do whatever they want for their own private viewings. If there was a reasonable way to actually reverse all the effects of undesired processing on the BD (like when one buys a TV and have it recalibrated), then that would be acceptable too. But there is not. That kind of processing generally only work in one direction.

_Man_

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I'm astounded you tried to make this argument as a counter to what Michael said. This discussion isn't about the merits of advances such as Technicolor, VistaVision, Cinemascope, 70 mm, etc. It's about changing what the film was in the first place. Trying to, say, change a 4:3 black and white film into a Technicolor Cinemascope film would be ludicrous (as is chopping a Cinemascope film down to 4:3), and for you to suggest that opposition to such a change is the same thing as saying those things weren't worthwhile advances is a non sequitur.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

You are either deliberately twisting the point or just completely missing it.

The point is not whether filmmakers should or should not try using other "improved" media, techniques, etc. for future films. The point is whether already made/existing movies -- perhaps, the use of the term "film" is the confusion for you -- should later be presented *ONLY* in such a way that no longer faithfully resembles the original. Just as nobody here (except you) wants Patton and Amadeus to look like Discovery HD programming, so nobody here is asking for Discovery HD content to then be put on BD w/ all sorts of "grain" and other film-like characteristics added in (assuming the content was shot on video).

Consider the issue another way. Do you cook and have some particular tasty, favored recipe/dish that you're proud of? Do you like it when you make such a favored dish for a friend to enjoy only to find that your friend insists that it's missing something and proceeds to add a ton of different seasonings to completely change the flavor, etc. and maybe even decide it needs another 5min in the microwave (of all things)? And would you actually agree that's really *your* dish anymore rather than something very different?

I would think in that scenario, at "best", you'd just shrug your shoulders and accept that your friend has very different tastes and let him have his way for his own private enjoyment. But I doubt you'd wanna throw out your favored recipe and adopt his version as your own and proudly present it as such to others.

Likewise, if your friend is a good cook and has such a favored dish to share, wouldn't you at least want to experience it the way he/she intended it and not also demand he/she present it in some totally different way not just for yourself but for others also, if you do decide you don't like it the original way for yourself???

_Man_

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

I grew up reading Mr Ebert's Chicago Sun Times review column while a Chicago resident and I absolutely love his writing style...very entertaining; but, much to often over the years, I've hated films that he's liked or loved films that he's hated. So, I purposly avoid reading his reviews until after I've seen the film.... than it's kinda fun to compare.
Understood. If your on the fence about buying a particular title a reviewer you trust could certainly come in handy. Myself...I already know beforehand what discs I'm going to buy based on how much I enjoy the title and how it stands up to repeat viewing, IE. I could watch a title like "Forrest Gump" every week and not tire of it....sheer filmatic poetry.
It follows that I would buy "Forrest" in a second based on nothing more than a belief that a BD version would have better quality than my DVD version.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

As already noted by others, these purported analogies have nothing to do with the subject under discussion. They are, however, quite revealing of your approach to the subject.

There's certainly a difference of opinion here. Whether it's "honest" is open to question. I'm not sure if you're playing games or really believe what you're posting, but either way whatever credibility you may have had when this thread started is pretty well shot.

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

Sure reviewers disagree. Given that anyone can watch a movie, post a review, and call themselves a "reviewer" it's not surprising.

But the track record of most reviewers is pretty consistent for that individual. Once you find a reviewer who you know you can trust because his or her impressions mirror your own critical eye, then you can ignore the rest and pay attention to the small group of reviewers who actually know how to properly evaluate image and sound quality.


And just because you're happy to buy any movie you like regardless of the quality of the disc, does that mean that we still shouldn't pressure the studios to do the best that they can? If you're happy to buy any movie you like regardless of the image quality, then WHY NOT enjoy the fact that others are advocating for improved picture and sound to help improve the quality of the discs that you'll buy anyway? You'll essentially be getting improved image quality for free based on their efforts. What's your problem?

If you don't want BD image quality to be substandard for those enjoying on large-screen systems, then what are you protesting for?

HTF is not a place for attitudes like yours. Plenty of places are, including Walmart. But why thread-crap here about your lack of appreciation for properly mastered film transfers?

Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray

Apart from the fact that many people know what film looks like and make decisions on that basis I really wonder what the merit of a Blu Ray in its own concerning image quality would be if not its accuracy and fidelity to the original source it came from? Someone's random taste and preferences? Who's? Yours? What do you suggest as an alternative basis that is not purely subjective? There is none, plain and simple. The basis for judging image and sound can only be if the Blu Ray looks and sounds as the creators of the source (in this case a film shot on 35mm and made for theatrical distribution) intended it to on that medium Blu Ray. And the default assumption clearly is that the Blu Ray should come as close to an ideal screening of this source in its original form. When this goal is not met at all and the look of the source has been considerably changed without any technical necessity to do so for a release on Blu Ray then criticism is well deserved for as long as the film makers have not declared that the modifications are intended and fully supported by them. I sincerely doubt that either the director or the director of photography are happy with this transfer for use on Blu Ray in 2009, given the current state of the art of transfering films to HD which allows for a far more accurate version with none of the current digital artifacts to be made.