![Amadeus (Book) [Blu-ray]](http://cdn.hometheaterforum.com/9/91/50x50px-ZC-B001JNNE64-51q-TkcsQGL.jpg)
Re: A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michel_Hafner
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.
|
Thank you!
In regard to whatever film is and how it is represented on home video, there is an entire cross-section of the public out there -- possibly the Walmart set -- that have no problem viewing a down-rezzed sub-master of Gump on SD DVD in 4:3 and monaural.
And loving the film, most likely having either no knowledge or no care that they are only able to see 40% of the image in sub-par resolution.
It's Gump.
Well not really, but they perceive it to be. And they're happy.
And good for them. There are multitudes walking the surface of the earth daily, who simply smile and move on, never harming anyone or anything, and leaving nothing in their wake when they leave.
And the studio creates a special master just for them.
All's well.
Then there are the others, unhappy if a quality film has been visually or sonically impaired, who know what they are viewing, desire a home theater experience as promised by a technical format, and are verbal about it. For the record there are also studio people, responsible for the quality of those releases, who are equally upset when something they stand behind misses the mark because something, somewhere along the long and sometimes tenuous production line has fallen through the cracks.
If those in the first group remain unaware of the beauty, the exultation, the serenity, the sheer joy (or terror) that one can get from a quality film print, or in this case, a properly prepared Blu-ray disc, they are best not to waste a single cent on Blu-ray.
Standard definition DVD will do nicely, in whatever aspect ratio and audio format they prefer.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with these people.
RAH
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.
