USHE Press Release: An American Werewolf In London - Full Moon Edition (DVD/Blu-ray) - Page 2

Originally Posted by BillyFeldman 

 That's just fabulous.  And I have no real problem with it because I understand what the technology was.  But then let's simply not have any more complaints from reviewers here and elsewhere and posters here and elsewhere, talking about how awful the grain is in "certain" shots.  Let's just stop that right now.  

As to what they can and cannot do today, I don't think you or I have any idea what they can accomplish, and if some studio thinks they've found a way to have the grain of opticals match the grain of the rest of the film - bring it on and let's see it.  

No one is talking about revisionism - a word that gets trotted out whenever anyone makes any point.  I don't like sound bumps or anything that isn't the original mix of any film.  I want the film they made - always have, always will.  Don't need new sfx, new shots, new director's cuts, none of it.  You won't find more of a purist than me.  Since you're new here, you might want to just do a little research about people you respond to, so you know their deal.  But attempting to match optical grain to normal film grain (however little or much appears on the original camera negative) - absolutely.  That's not revisionism by any stretch of the imagination.  Revisionism is taking Hitchcock and team's brilliant sound mix on Vertigo and redoing it.  Revisionism is Spielberg's endless tampering with Close Encounters and ET.  Revisionism is George Lucas' tampering with Star Wars.  
 

Originally Posted by Worth 

Fair enough. And I agree with most of your points, particularly when it comes to reviews complaining about film grain.

My comments weren't really directed at you specifically so much as they were a lament against the general trend in video mastering these days.

I guess I'm in the minority on this point, but I just find the impulse to alter older films to more closely match the look of HD video baffling. Noise reduction, revised colour timing, blown-out contrast - I mean, why? To me, the ultimate goal of home video should be to most faithfully duplicate the look of a film's answer print.

And while I'm not opposed at attempts to "clean up" a film digitally, I have yet to see it done transparently - and that includes Lowry's work.

I find even the Bond resorations - as good as they are - have a kind of "digital signature" to them. They don't look like film to me anymore.

But again, I fear I'm in the minority here.

Originally Posted by Worth 

I guess I'm in the minority on this point, but I just find the impulse to alter older films to more closely match the look of HD video baffling. Noise reduction, revised colour timing, blown-out contrast - I mean, why? To me, the ultimate goal of home video should be to most faithfully duplicate the look of a film's answer print.
 

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben 




At HTF you'll find that you're not in the minority. Rather the contrary. HTF posters were among the first (and loudest) to raise alarms over such discs as Patton. Indeed, during our studio tour last October, a group of 50 or so from HTF met with a group from Fox, including their head of restoration, and voiced our strong support for presenting films on disc as close to their original form as possible.

There is a contrary trend, which has occasionally appeared in the wake of the campaign against grain reduction, and that is from a small group who automatically assume that any softness in an image on disc must automatically be the result of perfidious studio application of noise reduction technology. Often, these zealots have never seen any version of the movie in question on film, only video -- if that -- and they have little or no knowledge of the intended visual design. It doesn't seem to occur to them that an image may be intentionally soft or filtered for artistic purposes. This, too, is dangerous, because it can result in loud complaints about discs that have been accurately mastered, leading studios to conclude that yes, indeed, digital manipulation of the image is essential to keeping even some self-anointed "purists" happy.
 

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben 




At HTF you'll find that you're not in the minority. Rather the contrary. HTF posters were among the first (and loudest) to raise alarms over such discs as Patton. Indeed, during our studio tour last October, a group of 50 or so from HTF met with a group from Fox, including their head of restoration, and voiced our strong support for presenting films on disc as close to their original form as possible.

There is a contrary trend, which has occasionally appeared in the wake of the campaign against grain reduction, and that is from a small group who automatically assume that any softness in an image on disc must automatically be the result of perfidious studio application of noise reduction technology. Often, these zealots have never seen any version of the movie in question on film, only video -- if that -- and they have little or no knowledge of the intended visual design. It doesn't seem to occur to them that an image may be intentionally soft or filtered for artistic purposes. This, too, is dangerous, because it can result in loud complaints about discs that have been accurately mastered, leading studios to conclude that yes, indeed, digital manipulation of the image is essential to keeping even some self-anointed "purists" happy.
 

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott 

This to me leaves out another,  even more logical and likely common alternative- simple human or mechanical error. Movies are made by imperfect men  who, despite being conscientious craftsmen, are laboring under many restrictions. Budget, weather, time- and on and on. If a couple of close-ups aren't as razor sharp as the majority in the film- it suddenly becomes something worth pointing out in a review. 
People nit-pick these releases to an absurd degree that I have never seen when the viewing of the material is done solely in a theatrical setting. Sometimes the criticism is valid and warranted. But I'm thinking more often than not lately people are criticizing imperfections in the actual content rather than the delivery medium. And not seeing the distinction there is doing this format no good.