New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray - Page 4

post #91 of 207
2/22/09 at 8:23am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDA
There are conflicting impulses at work. First, there is the clamour for more catalogue titles. Second, there is the cost of making them BD ready. Third, there is a balance between releasing a lot of titles to meet pent-up demands (at the cost of letting some sub-par transfers slip by) vs. a more patient approach that, by its nature, makes some people grumble impatiently at the lack of catalogue titles. Add to the mix an economic downturn where EVERY company is re-thinking where and how to spend its dollars and you get an increase of "well, it's good enough for most people, and few who will really care are too small a margin to be profitable". (This is not aimed at any one studio in particular.)

Until the economy turns around, I believe we'll see more "it's good enough" releases than we otherwise might and, consequently, it could be many years before better versions are released (I mean this broadly--I'm sure a select few titles will be refurbished and re-released sooner AND I'm sure a select few titles will be given the "royal treatment" [Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur and North by Northwest are among those I hope will receive such treatment]). So then it become a matter of individual priorities. For many, "better than SD DVD" will be a sufficient reason to pick up a title that does not meet the loftier standards held by people like RAH (who are quite qualified to make such judgements). For others, compromise will not be in the equation. And, I believe, a third group will emerge (I include myself in this one) who, on a case by case basis, will decide that a particular title is flawed yet still "better than SD DVD" and, for the right price, will live with the flaws and upgrade later (the basic "better than SD DVD" crowd likely would not upgrade later, as I see it). The third group will be less tolerant than the first yet more tolerant than the second of flaws (whatever they may be).

Just my 2 cents.

Echoes my thoughts and feelings exactly! And far be it from me to begrudge anyone from falling into and/or out of any of these catagories as I easily fall somewhere between the second and final group. Some titles are on a case-by-case basis while others I consider beyond compromise.
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Amadeus (Book) [Blu-ray]
$7.99 at
See it »
post #92 of 207
2/22/09 at 1:28pm

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

Quote:
So then it become a matter of individual priorities. For many, "better than SD DVD" will be a sufficient reason to pick up a title that does not meet the loftier standards held by people like RAH (who are quite qualified to make such judgements)

I agree that no one should feel guilty or be judged for buying any title on any format, DVD, BD or otherwise, that doesn't meet the very highest standards possible.

However, I also don't want it to be considered "lofty" to actually want a 1080p HD transfer to look and sound like the actual movie. That shouldn't be some esoteric goal embraced by a minority, it should be the desire for all HT enthusiasts, even those of who may buy a particular title that falls short of that goal.
Reply
post #93 of 207
2/22/09 at 4:29pm

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

Just went to the bits and pulled some contact information for WB studios. It never hurts to send a hard-copy letter, even though I have no doubt that WB eyes are privy to this thread.

Warner Home Video
4000 Warner Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91522
818-954-6000

their on-line comment form is here:

Warner Bros : Help
Reply
post #94 of 207
2/22/09 at 5:55pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
I agree that no one should feel guilty or be judged for buying any title on any format, DVD, BD or otherwise, that doesn't meet the very highest standards possible.

However, I also don't want it to be considered "lofty" to actually want a 1080p HD transfer to look and sound like the actual movie. That shouldn't be some esoteric goal embraced by a minority, it should be the desire for all HT enthusiasts, even those of who may buy a particular title that falls short of that goal.
I don't want it to be considered "lofty" either. However, the reality is that it IS a minority that has such standards. It is the same in music releases--I certainly don't want the overcompressed nonsense that has become the norm in pop/rock releases. I have become a greater fan of classical (in the broad sense of that term) music, in part, because its recordings DON'T suffer from overcompression and limited dynamic range (the more significant reason is because I've come to appreciate the music, but the quality of the recordings is not an insignificant consideration). Despite the less than ideal recording quality of pop/rock, however, I still buy some because the music appeals to me, even if the presentation is lacking and I know it can be better (I have many examples of "better" on my shelves already).

In the end, I think, sadly, that movies on BD will be somewhat analogous. Some excellent releases, as they should all be, some decent releases that could be better, some mediocre to poor releases whose content will, on a case by case basis, cause some people to live with the flaws and some truly wretched releases that are no improvement over a lesser format (as, apparently, Gangs of New York--I've yet to see that film in any format, but I will likely settle for a used copy of the SD DVD in terms of spending money for poor quality, judging from everything I've read. The only reason I would buy it at all is my professional interest in historical feature films from an academic standpoint. But I digress.).

It is my hope that, on balance, the majority of releases will be decent to exemplary. It is my expectation, however, that I will be disappointed more often than is necessary and that the current economic crisis will serve as an excuse (sometimes legitimate, sometimes not) to release sub-par transfers because of an unwillingness to spend the extra money to "do it right".
Reply
post #95 of 207
2/22/09 at 6:11pm

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

Paul,

I don't disagree that your comments may reflect the landscape of how things may really be versus how we would like them to be, but my hope is that since the primary motivation for consumers embracing the more expensive Blu-ray Disc format over DVD is the improvement in image (and sound) quality, that the case for leveraging image and sound quality are stronger for Blu-ray Disc than they are for DVD given the motivation for consumers migrating to the format in the first place.

Quote:
t is my hope that, on balance, the majority of releases will be decent to exemplary. It is my expectation, however, that I will be disappointed more often than is necessary and that the current economic crisis will serve as an excuse (sometimes legitimate, sometimes not) to release sub-par transfers because of an unwillingness to spend the extra money to "do it right".

Agreed.

And when the inevitable sub-par disappointment crosses my path, I'll also exercise my ability to let the studio know of my displeasure, and encourage other like-minded HT enthusiasts to do the same. We may not be in direct control of the decisions that guide the HD releases made available to us to buy, but we don't have to passively accept what we're given when it's not up to par. Our voices will make a difference, just like they did with DVD.
Reply
post #96 of 207
2/24/09 at 7:32am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Sutliff
I watched this the other night, and was impressed with it. I'm surprised by Robert's comments, I didn't see the dnr at all. A couple of scenes were soft, but I assumed that was a byproduct of the original elements. I'll have to watch it again with a more discerning eye.

Well, now we get into murky territory. I completely admire Mr. Harris's restoration work and his opinions regarding DVD/Blu-ray releases on this forum. I do not purport to be an expert in technical issues. I am like the guy standing in the art gallery saying, "I just know what I like."

Mr. Harris is so (deservedly) revered in this forum that anytime someone feels the need to question or contradict him, he needs to precede his remarks with the very kinds of platitudes I have just proferred.

But with regards to PATTON and AMADEUS, I have this to say: I think they look great. This is a personal reaction, but so is anyone's to any film. Mr. Harris' reactions are also personal. That does not mean a multitude of us cannot enjoy the Blu-ray transfers he finds wanting, even though he has technical knowledge that leaves most of us in the dust. PATTON and AMADEUS may seem too "processed" or lacking in film grain or seeming in one way or another unlike "film," but to me both look stellar on Blu-ray (as does THE LONGEST DAY) and I am, if not an expert, a huge movie aficionado who now watches movies on a 46" Sony and am quite critical of picture quality.

This is not to criticize Mr. Harris' reviews or to suggest he is wrong in his evaluations, but to suggest that those who decide not to purchase a certain title based solely upon his reviews might wish to rent a copy to see wheather or not it appears the same way to his/her eyes. It might not.

We all view life (and movies) through different eyes.
Reply
post #97 of 207
2/24/09 at 8:15am

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

Hey Dick,

Quote:
I am, if not an expert, a huge movie aficionado who now watches movies on a 46" Sony and am quite critical of picture quality.

With all due respect to your love for movies and your fantastic TV (I also have a 46" Sony and love it), that scree size and the distance that you sit from it are not "wide angle" and don't reveal the kinds of problems RAH and others are talking about. You need to be viewing an image from closer than 2-screen widths, (1.5 is ideal) to create a "theater" experience and chances are that you're sitting well beyond 2 screen widths away from that 46" screen.

What looks great on my Sony 46" can look really, really inferior when I watch it on my 106" 1080p projection system, which I view from about 12 feet away to preserve a theater-wide viewing angle. That's where Blu-ray Discs that all look "great!" on the TV suddenly differentiate themselves into some that look like film, and some that look like overprocessed, over-scrubbed/filtered video.

Amadeus falls into the later category when viewed at a theater-wide viewing angle.

Before everyone assumes I'm criticizing folks who like to view on their 46" set, I AM NOT. Watch your Blu-ray Discs on whatever set you like and enjoy it!!! Only be aware that movies were indeed composed to be viewed "wide angle" and 1080p Blu-ray Disc is able to do films justice at theater-viewing-angles when properly mastered for those who wish to replicate theater-wide viewing in their home. It's a shame that such a stunning film as Amadeus isn't mastered properly and so falls short of the goal when viewed at a theater-wide angle of approximately 1.5 screen widths, though certainly it looks good when viewed from greater than 2 screen widths away.
Reply
post #98 of 207
2/24/09 at 8:19am
Thread Starter 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick
Well, now we get into murky territory. I completely admire Mr. Harris's restoration work and his opinions regarding DVD/Blu-ray releases on this forum. I do not purport to be an expert in technical issues. I am like the guy standing in the art gallery saying, "I just know what I like."

But with regards to PATTON and AMADEUS, I have this to say: I think they look great. This is a personal reaction, but so is anyone's to any film. Mr. Harris' reactions are also personal. That does not mean a multitude of us cannot enjoy the Blu-ray transfers he finds wanting, even though he has technical knowledge that leaves most of us in the dust. PATTON and AMADEUS may seem too "processed" or lacking in film grain or seeming in one way or another unlike "film," but to me both look stellar on Blu-ray (as does THE LONGEST DAY) and I am, if not an expert, a huge movie aficionado who now watches movies on a 46" Sony and am quite critical of picture quality.

This is not to criticize Mr. Harris' reviews or to suggest he is wrong in his evaluations, but to suggest that those who decide not to purchase a certain title based solely upon his reviews might wish to rent a copy to see wheather or not it appears the same way to his/her eyes. It might not.

We all view life (and movies) through different eyes.

Points taken, and you are not incorrect.

However the major point of difference here is not your eyes, but your viewing environment.

When I originally viewed Patton on a 30" Sony HD CRT in my office, I had a feeling that we had a winner. So much so that I couldn't wait to view examine it in my home theater.

But there's the rub.

Although I haven't viewed Amadeus on a 50, I would surmise that it could look quite pleasing on that size screen.

My point in regard to "DNR," which is a term of art that we'll use to denote all the various incarnations and permutations of both proprietary as well as plug-in noise or grain reduction, is that its use should have limitations, and those limited uses should only be by those with a knowledge of the damage that it may (or may not) do to the overall image quality.

In my original discussions re: Patton, I made it clear that my concern was overall, and not limited to those with large viewing environments, but rather the entire marketplace, as I don't believe that one should purchase a Blu-ray disc based upon the size of their monitor.

But that is precisely what is occurring.

During the Patton debates, there were many individuals who liked and defended the look of Patton, and usually based upon the size of their monitor. Had they the ability to view the film on a larger screen, they may not have been quite as accepting of the disc's "merits."

My point is that the consumer, when purchasing a Blu-ray disc, should have no concern about quality. For those with smaller screening environments, there should be no reticence to make the purchase, with the knowledge that should they desire to move to a larger format, their needs will already have been met.

No need to purchase the 50"+ or 90"+ versions.

The one purchased for that 32" Costco LCD monitor will still work, only better on larger screens.

A final point in regard to Patton vs. Amadeus.

If one were to put them on a 20 point level with zero as a mid-point, a recent release such as Gandhi or The Sand Pebbles would rate well into the +9 category.

Patton would have the honor of a negative 8 or 9, while I'd probably place Amadeus at around a positive 3. While the image quality as viewed WITHIN A LARGER VIEWING SPACE of Patton would be in the Impermissible category, Amadeus would just be annoying, as while it has not been destroyed, something just isn't right.

I'm wondering if you've viewed Gangs of New York, the only negative 10 on my list, and if so, what your perceptions are as to how it looked on your monitor?

I hope this makes sense to you.

RAH
Reply
post #99 of 207
2/24/09 at 9:10am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris

A final point in regard to Patton vs. Amadeus.

If one were to put them on a 20 point level with zero as a mid-point, a recent release such as Gandhi or The Sand Pebbles would rate well into the +9 category.

Patton would have the honor of a negative 8 or 9, while I'd probably place Amadeus at around a positive 3. While the image quality as viewed WITHIN A LARGER VIEWING SPACE of Patton would be in the Impermissible category, Amadeus would just be annoying, as while it has not been destroyed, something just isn't right.

I'm wondering if you've viewed Gangs of New York, the only negative 10 on my list, and if so, what your perceptions are as to how it looked on your monitor?

I hope this makes sense to you.

RAH
Such a scale not only makes sense, but would facilitate decision making in terms of individual tolerance for flawed presentations, I would think. However, it would probably alter the nature of your "A few words about..." approach, which is quite good, and may prove to be too much of a distraction from your observations if done with all the films upon which you comment. But in cases like these (Amadeus, Patton and Gangs...), perhaps a nod to such a scale would be useful?
Reply
post #100 of 207
2/24/09 at 9:41am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
With all due respect to your love for movies and your fantastic TV (I also have a 46" Sony and love it), that scree size and the distance that you sit from it are not "wide angle" and don't reveal the kinds of problems RAH and others are talking about.

David, I'm not seeing where he stated how far away he was sitting from the screen, or did I just miss it?

Regardless, is the consensus that 46" or 50" displays are too small to reveal these deficiencies regardless of the viewing angle? I sit about 6.5 to 7 feet away from my 50" plasma, which according to the website below is about the maximum recommended SMPTE viewing distance (30 degree viewing angle).

Viewing Distance Calculator
Reply
post #101 of 207
2/24/09 at 10:13am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Arnette
David, I'm not seeing where he stated how far away he was sitting from the screen, or did I just miss it?

Paul, that was an assumption on my part. Very few folks set up their sofa/chair to sit 1.5 screen-widths away from a 46" screen, though I'm sure there are exceptions. Dick, if you are indeed watching within the "theater wide" zone let us know.

Quote:
Regardless, is the consensus that 46" or 50" displays are too small to reveal these deficiencies regardless of the viewing angle? I sit about 6.5 to 7 feet away from my 50" plasma, which according to the website below is about the maximum recommended SMPTE viewing distance (30 degree viewing angle).

Viewing Distance Calculator

Paul,

There's nothing inherently compromised about a 46 or 50 inch 1080p monitor: screen-size isn't the issue, as you rightly say it's viewing-angle. As long as a screen is properly resolving all of the detal in in a 1080p image, then regardless of its size, as long as you sit within the sweet-spot to get a 30 degree viewing angle (around 1.5 screen widths away) you're getting a "theater wide" picture that should reveal the flaws as seen on a 100 screen viewed from 1.5 screen-widths away.

Naturally, with most small size screens, most viewers don't push their sofa or chair up that close because it doesn't mix well with room decorating etc. to have a chair facing the wall from only 6 feet away. And some folks move their chair so when the living room is a "room" the chair is far away but when they watch movies at night they slide the chair up to get their theater-wide perspective (that's a good way to do "theater wide on a budget" or when you just can't manage the logistics of a projector and screen).

Keep in mind that to get the proper viewing angle, a 3-foot wide screen should be viewed from around 5 feet back. A four foot wide screen should be viewed from about 6 feet back etc. (like you do).

But someone sitting 8 feet away from a 46" 16x9 set, for instance, is well outside the theater-wide viewing angle of about 30 degrees. I've seen many poorly mastered DVD and BDs that show their flaws at a theater-wide angle but that look sharp, clear and perfectly fine when you move back to 2 or more screen-widths away, which is one reason why there's so much confusion/debate about what discs look like on forums like this (folks rarely start the conversation with a clarification about their viewing angle).
Reply
post #102 of 207
2/24/09 at 10:43am

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

Thanks, David. I'm fortunate that, while I don't have the real estate for a projector and screen setup currently, I have a dedicated media room where I can position the couch so that it is more or less in the appropriate viewing angle.

I agree that all the different environmental variables that come into play certainly confuse the issue of what is and isn't an acceptable transfer. It also begs the question as to what is Blu-ray Disc's purpose? Is it merely to be 'better' than SD DVD or is it striving for something more?

Chances are good however that projector/screen setups are still in the minority even when you take into account the fact that early adopter/home theater enthusiasts form a large portion of the market. It probably isn't reasonable to expect that these transfers to be done using 150" screens, but it is clear that whatever monitors have been used in the past are probably radically out-of-touch with what's found in today's households.
Reply
post #103 of 207
2/24/09 at 10:58am
Thread Starter 

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Arnette
I agree that all the different environmental variables that come into play certainly confuse the issue of what is and isn't an acceptable transfer. It also begs the question as to what is Blu-ray Disc's purpose? Is it merely to be 'better' than SD DVD or is it striving for something more?

Chances are good however that projector/screen setups are still in the minority even when you take into account the fact that early adopter/home theater enthusiasts form a large portion of the market. It probably isn't reasonable to expect that these transfers to be done using 150" screens, but it is clear that whatever monitors have been used in the past are probably radically out-of-touch with what's found in today's households.

Blu-ray can be many things to many people -- virtually whatever you want it to be, as long as the disc is well mastered.

Limitations?

I visited someone who has a reasonably nice home theater: dual amplification for each channel, HD, 2k and 4k projection, and nice seating.

WB's HD of Grand Prix was projected for me on a screen measuring 10 x 18 feet, and the image quality was perfect.

While not necessarily full theatrical quality, my personal feeling is that with everything done correctly, Blu-ray's limitations are virtually limitless.

RAH
Reply
post #104 of 207
2/24/09 at 11:27am

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

On my 82" the only way I can describe it as if there's almost a veil over the picture, in some shots you can see the beauty but it's just out of reach, with fine texture and detail that should be there in spades, missing.

A real shame as the score by that Chopin guy sounds amazing.

M
Reply
post #105 of 207
2/24/09 at 11:57am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick
PATTON and AMADEUS may seem too "processed" or lacking in film grain or seeming in one way or another unlike "film," but to me both look stellar on Blu-ray (as does THE LONGEST DAY)....those who decide not to purchase a certain title based solely upon his reviews might wish to rent a copy to see wheather or not it appears the same way to his/her eyes.
If you think a transfer that's too processed and/or lacking in film grain or simply doesn't look like film (as is the case with Patton and especially The Longest Day and now Amadeus) is "stellar", then there's no possibility that I'm going to agree with your assessment (or pay attention to it), since replicating the look of film is obviously not remotely as important to you as it is to me. I'll take the word of those to whom replicating that look IS very important.
Reply
post #106 of 207
2/24/09 at 5:39pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
If you think a transfer that's too processed and/or lacking in film grain or simply doesn't look like film (as is the case with Patton and especially The Longest Day and now Amadeus) is "stellar", then there's no possibility that I'm going to agree with your assessment (or pay attention to it), since replicating the look of film is obviously not remotely as important to you as it is to me. I'll take the word of those to whom replicating that look IS very important.
I have trouble with your statement "replicating the look of film." Honestly, I don't know what that means. Does it mean that ideally BD should replicate as close as possible my theatrical viewing experience at the local cinema ??? Because, if it does, Euuuchhhhh, I want something better.
Interestingly enough, every BD title I've viewed on my 108" home screen looks much better than what's projected on the commercial cinema screen at my local theater.
Reply
post #107 of 207
2/24/09 at 7:46pm

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

Frankie,

this topic has been covered enough that no one should be confused. When enthusiasts talk about "replicating the look of film" they are referring to the look of the original pristine source film elements that represent the look of the film as the director intended.

That's generally superior to the release-prints that get sub-par production quality that most of us screen at the local cinema. But, what the director screened in his or her screening room was what he or she wanted us to see (even if the typical commercial theater falls short of doing it right).

There are cinemas that take pride in getting good prints and in showing them right. When you see a 35mm print projected properly, it's breathtaking, and can look better-than-HD in many ways.
Reply
post #108 of 207
2/24/09 at 10:19pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
There are cinemas that take pride in getting good prints and in showing them right. When you see a 35mm print projected properly, it's breathtaking, and can look better-than-HD in many ways.
I agree, and since I live in Southern California, I've been able to see film projected properly quite a number of times. The key phrase is "properly projected", not "poorly projected at my mediocre cineplex". That's what I mean by replicating the look of film. I saw a pristine print of Patton at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater (the theater of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) in all its 70 mm Dimension 150 glory, and the current Patton Blu Ray damn well doesn't look anything like the film did at that showing. And before anyone starts to tell me "well Robert, you saw the film under unusually good circumstances", it defies reason to claim that the print I saw is better than the film elements the STUDIO has access to (it OWNS the film!) for making the Blu Ray, and that THEY are somehow incapable of knowing what the film should look like.
Reply
post #109 of 207
2/25/09 at 3:36am

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

I watched the first 30 minutes of Amadeus on a large screen and I fully agree that this disc should be recalled immediately. As long as we have static shots where not much moves it looks like scrubbed HD light, very mediocre. Once things move we get also an ugly veil of DNR smearing over all moving textures. Stone age DNR, that is. Not remotely close to what could be done with sophisticated grain processing methods available today. This disc is a major embarrassment to WB. The worst Blu Ray I have seen from them so far. An affront to the film makers.
Reply
post #110 of 207
2/25/09 at 7:41am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Frankie,

this topic has been covered enough that no one should be confused. When enthusiasts talk about "replicating the look of film" they are referring to the look of the original pristine source film elements that represent the look of the film as the director intended.
I see.....so for 99.9% of the film enthusiast's population, comparison is made against pristine film source elements that, unfortunately, you're never able to examine or see except for, of course, Mr Harris and others in the profession. Well....pardon me but from my angle, it looks like most enthusiasts have no first hand knowledge of this "look" before it's processed for commercial production and, therefore, have no basis for accurate comparrison against the BD disc. I don't mean to be obtuse. I'm just confused about the very strong prevailing opinions and attitudes that most posters have that would prevent them from buying "Amadeus" without ever viewing the BD title for themselves. Kind of scary if you ask me.
Quote:
That's generally superior to the release-prints that get sub-par production quality that most of us screen at the local cinema. But, what the director screened in his or her screening room was what he or she wanted us to see (even if the typical commercial theater falls short of doing it right).
But, WE don't really know nor have any first hand knowledge of what the director SAW in the screening room and how far his/her vision was compromised (if at all) during the commercial production run, unless the director specifically goes on record and comments about this issue. No? Unless, he or she does, all we're doing is making some vast assumptions about quality or lack there of. Here's one...isn't it possible to assume that Milos Forman saw the BD disc and gave his approval?
Quote:
There are cinemas that take pride in getting good prints and in showing them right. When you see a 35mm print projected properly, it's breathtaking, and can look better-than-HD in many ways.
If you say so, but it has been my experience that 35 mm film projection in theaters even when properly focused is far from "breathtaking." Now I saw several films years ago shot on larger film stock, and THAT I would describe as indeed....breathtaking.
Reply
post #111 of 207
2/25/09 at 8:02am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie108
I see.....so for 99.9% of the film enthusiast's population, comparison is made against pristine film source elements that, unfortunately, you're never able to examine or see except for, of course, Mr Harris and others in the profession. Well....pardon me but from my angle, it looks like most enthusiasts have no first hand knowledge of this "look" before it's processed for commercial production and, therefore, have no basis for accurate comparrison against the BD disc.
That's true up to a point. The lack of a reliable source for comparison can make it very difficult for a reviewer to evaluate things like color values or degrees of blackness. The debate over the BD of Bram Stoker's Dracula is a good example.

However, certain digital artifacts have a unique signature and can be spotted by anyone who knows what to look for, even if you've never seen the film projected under ideal conditions. Excessive DNR is one such artifact. It is as obvious as image break-up or pixelization on a cable or satellite broadcast, and you'd never confuse either of those with the film source.
Reply
post #112 of 207
2/25/09 at 8:55am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie108
WE don't really know nor have any first hand knowledge of what the director SAW in the screening room
We can say with certainty that DNR\EE\filtering artifacts (the kind that show up on poorly mastered BDs) were NOT present in that screening room. They're the kind of artifacts that are ADDED to a source that didn't have them to begin with. Therefore, it's inescapable that what you're seeing is changed from what was seen in the screening room. I truly can't figure out why anyone would have an "It means very little to me that a BD doesn't closely resemble the FILM source it was created from" attitude, especially on an enthusiast website such as this one.
Reply
post #113 of 207
2/25/09 at 8:57am

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

I thought CTHD and Amadeus were recently RE SCREENED IN theaters!

Did they show REMASTERED versions? or old prints?
Reply
post #114 of 207
2/25/09 at 2:16pm

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

I ordered Amadeus from Amazon, then subsequently found this thread. I just returned it unopened, and I'm pleased to report Amazon is picking up the return postage. I have such a large backlog of movies to watch on various formats that I don't feel compelled to pay for a subpar 1080p treatment of a top title. I can wait, for years if necessary.
Reply
post #115 of 207
2/25/09 at 4:23pm

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

Frankie,

We should each decide for ourselves what we find acceptable/satisfactory and choose/buy (or not) accordingly.

However, I don't think it's wise to believe that all good reviewers should also only be limited to our own (often lower) standards/criteria in their reviews/critiques. It's good to question and understand where the reviewers are coming from to help make your own informed choices. But that does not mean their opinions shouldn't matter just because we can't see what they're saying at this point in time given our particular setup/situation, especially if you like to own a lot of titles and might eventually go to a much bigger display.

For instance, I finally made the choice to buy this title for the $15 price from Amazon. Maybe I'll be disappointed or maybe I'll be content enough w/ it given my current setup. But it's still good to know where the limitations are for this (and any other) title whether for future reference or simply how much it's worth to me right now. Afterall, I'm someone who might eventually go for a big FP setup (or some 100" OLED display a decade from now ). But on my current 61" DLP RPTV, which I plan to keep as my main display for a long time, this title might well be good enough.

_Man_
Reply
post #116 of 207
2/25/09 at 6:03pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
However, certain digital artifacts have a unique signature and can be spotted by anyone who knows what to look for, even if you've never seen the film projected under ideal conditions. Excessive DNR is one such artifact. It is as obvious as image break-up or pixelization on a cable or satellite broadcast, and you'd never confuse either of those with the film source.
The trouble with EE/DNR artifacts is that opinions about their severity vary even between reviewers on the same web site. Given that EE/DNR sensitivity is so subjective in nature it just makes so much sense to evaluate these discs with your own eyes and make your own purchase decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Purchasing an NG title sends a bad message, and the message should be that if one creates garbage, it will not sell.
Again... buy a used DVD and enjoy the show, which used to be a decent film.
RAH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toddwrtr

.....The good news about this Blu-ray release is that Warner’s 1080p VC-1 encode is a vast improvement, with solid colors and deep blacks. The bad news is that it does appear that some DNR (Digital Noise Reduction) may have been applied, which does on a few occasions produce smearing and pasty-looking flesh tones, but I found them to be few and far between, and almost purposeful considering the makeup styles of the period. The DNR does not hamper detail in strands of hair, fabrics, etc., especially F. Murray Abraham’s complexion....
Reply
post #117 of 207
2/25/09 at 6:23pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
We can say with certainty that DNR\EE\filtering artifacts (the kind that show up on poorly mastered BDs) were NOT present in that screening room. They're the kind of artifacts that are ADDED to a source that didn't have them to begin with. Therefore, it's inescapable that what you're seeing is changed from what was seen in the screening room.

Obviously. Film is film and video is video. Ouch. I see more questions than answers, so...sufficient to just say, some viewers notice artifacts...others don't and just leave it at that.
Quote:
I truly can't figure out why anyone would have an "It means very little to me that a BD doesn't closely resemble the FILM source it was created from" attitude, especially on an enthusiast website such as this one.
On the other hand can you think of any better place to debate this point of view?
Reply
post #118 of 207
2/25/09 at 6:53pm

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie108
Film is film and video is video.
Video can never be identical to film, but that isn't a justification for not striving to get as close as we can. A well done BR looks very much like film, and it doesn't take extraordinary measures to achieve this; in fact, since the video artifacts we're discussing are typically caused by too MUCH processing, it can be argued that it's EASIER to achieve the film-like look, not harder. Unless one hates the look of film (raising the question of why one bothers to watch an entity created on that medium), and/or doesn't care if he's watching something that doesn't look like what the filmmaker created, there should be no reason not to want BRs to achieve such a film-like look.
Reply
post #119 of 207
2/26/09 at 6:47am

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

Quote:
Obviously. Film is film and video is video. Ouch. I see more questions than answers, so...sufficient to just say, some viewers notice artifacts...others don't and just leave it at that.

I'm not quite sure what it is that you're arguing here. Are you saying that a properly transfered, well-mastered, filmlike image would somehow look worse on smaller sets?

Of course video, even HD video, is not the same as film. But video, especially HD, can very closely approximate the look of film. And it seems to me that anyone interested in films - particularly catalog titles - would want transfers that, as closely as possible, approximate the look of the original photography, and that look equally good on a 10' foot front projection system as they do on a 15" monitor.
Reply
post #120 of 207
2/26/09 at 6:58am

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Bijelic
And it seems to me that anyone interested in films - particularly catalog titles - would want transfers that, as closely as possible, approximate the look of the original photography, and that look equally good on a 10' foot front projection system as they do on a 15" monitor.

And on a ipod these days.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

Amadeus (Book) [Blu-ray]
$7.99 at
See it »