Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › A Few Words About By Robert Harris › A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray - Page 2

post #31 of 186
11/11/09 at 10:25am

Bummer. Top 5 film for me. Will stick with my dvd.

Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

It's a Wonderful Life [Blu-ray]
post #32 of 186
11/11/09 at 10:56am
This is a shock since captures I've seen in reviews don't appear to be processed this badly. But I am familiar with the "floating" grain appearance and it's incredibly distracting. What's odd is that while the Artisan/Republic DVD also had too much DVNR over what appeared to be an excellent 35mm source. Paramount's website noted that they restored the film mainly from the camera negative. I'm disappointed since I wanted to pick this up for Christmas viewing.

I'd like to hope Paramount would offer a fixed edition sans DNR. Even better if they switch Dolby Digital 2.0 for PCM or TrueHD on the audio.
Reply
post #33 of 186
11/11/09 at 11:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart View Post
I'd like to hope Paramount would offer a fixed edition sans DNR. Even better if they switch Dolby Digital 2.0 for PCM or TrueHD on the audio.

Pipe dream.
Reply
post #34 of 186
11/11/09 at 11:01am
Thread Starter 
The film is taken from superb 35mm elements, and I'll state once again, that the problem is not with the analogue work performed on the OCN and other elements in the creation of new print materials.  That work was all performed beautifully and to the highest professional standards.  The problems are totally in the digital realm.

RAH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart View Post

This is a shock since captures I've seen in reviews don't appear to be processed this badly. But I am familiar with the "floating" grain appearance and it's incredibly distracting. What's odd is that while the Artisan/Republic DVD also had too much DVNR over what appeared to be an excellent 35mm source. Paramount's website noted that they restored the film mainly from the camera negative. I'm disappointed since I wanted to pick this up for Christmas viewing.

I'd like to hope Paramount would offer a fixed edition sans DNR. Even better if they switch Dolby Digital 2.0 for PCM or TrueHD on the audio.
Reply
post #35 of 186
11/11/09 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick McCart View Post

I'd like to hope Paramount would offer a fixed edition sans DNR. Even better if they switch Dolby Digital 2.0 for PCM or TrueHD on the audio.

Paramount might start with some other titles, this isn't the first one that's riddled with DNR.
I almost bought this but I am glad both Michael Reuben's review and Robert Harris' words stopped me in time. Too bad, I've never even seen it and was getting interested, but it'll take a re-release from Paramount for me to buy this.
Reply
post #36 of 186
11/11/09 at 11:57am
I suppose I'll make do with my Laserdisc for the time being.....I can have a wonderful time in SD.
Reply
post #37 of 186
11/11/09 at 1:08pm
After The Godfather Trilogy, I trusted them. 

Thanks, RAH (and Michael Reuben in the other thread). Too late for me, but I'm changing my watching schedule now. 


Cees
Reply
post #38 of 186
11/11/09 at 1:14pm
Thanks Robert!
I hope you are doing well!
Here are some quotes from all the reviews I could find:
Blu-ray.com - "The image is consistently sharp, clear, and wonderfully detailed, with only the occasional shot going a bit -- but not distractingly so -- soft. Almost from the get-go, Parmaount's transfer impresses with the level of visible detail..."
DVDSavant - "The added sharpness and broader contrast in the B&W version really helps when reading fine details on faces and absorbing wide shots. The special effects also hold up well in HD. Clearly Paramount and Legend Films have taken pains to do the best job possible...."
DVD Verdict: "As for the transfer, it's nothing short of fantastic..."
DVDTown - "The black-and-white reproduction, though, is a different story altogether, among the most stunning such transfers imaginable, with some of the whitest whites, blackest blacks, and most gleaming contrasts one could ask for. Paramount claim in their press release that they fully restored the film. I shouldn't doubt it."
DVDFile: "It's a Wonderful Life has been spruced up and updated lovingly on Blu-ray Disc. First of all, the film looks spectacular - a film this age usually showcases quite a few examples of dirt and grime, but Paramount showcases It's a Wonderful Life with exceptional cleanliness."
My own DVDBeaver: "Contrast in the back and white version is extremely strong and may have some minor boosting of blacks and less grain that I would have anticipated. Zooming in extensively I couldn't find concrete or consistent examples of edge-enhancement. There was two instances of some minor chroma but it wasn't egregious enough to hinder viewing."  and, as someone pointed out - we have immediately added an excerpt of your comments from here.

Actually, I am thankful that it can improve even beyond what I have seen on my 60" Kuro - where, to me, it still looks the best compared to all the past digital releases.
Best,
Gary
Reply
post #39 of 186
11/11/09 at 1:58pm
Thread Starter 
Gary,

I've seen these reports.

Any evaluation comes down to three things: the system on which the disc is being viewed, the background, experience and perception of the viewer, and lastly how critical an eye one wishes to use and how forgiving one is of the product in question.

I'm generally reasonably forgiving of a bit of DNR, as well as minor digital problems. I'm not at all forgiving of heavy DNR and extremely poor compression or authoring. I'm seeing the digital problems which are a part of IaWL on a 30" Sony HD CRT which is a quite forgiving unit. I put this up about 30 minutes ago, and could easily discern the problem in the long shot of Stewart and Reed just after the fade in after the swim, and this is an extremely minor example.

If I'm seeing this on a 30" monitor, it either speaks volumes of the studio's QC program or points to the fact that they don't care.

As to the reviewers that you note above, I can't answer for them, for what they're seeing, for their equipment, or ultimately for their mindset or parameters for reviewing.

I can only make the point that I would be embarrassed to have allowed something like this go public on my watch.

I've become weary of hearing things such as "looks better than my VHS by a long shot," "the new Blu-ray looks far better and more detailed than my SD DVD," or as you put it "it still looks the best compared to all the past digital releases."

The point should not be one of comparison to lesser quality formats, but rather against how good it could look if properly produced. I acknowledge that many reviewers and much of the public cannot perceive this. But my bottom line comes down to the fact that someone at the studio level CAN.

And in that role, they should be preparing for public consumption the finest product that can be technologically created with rational budgetary guidelines and the capability of the technical staff at the studio.

The concept of Blu-ray and the technical parameters under which it exists, allows for a fully cinematic representation of 35mm film in a home theater setting. That is the basis via which every Blu-ray should be created. Nothing less.

I cannot say with specificity what went wrong with IaWL, although it would point to some sort of auto-filtering. Only that something did, and I wish it were otherwise.

I take no pleasure in writing negatives, but the bottom line comes down not to what the public is seeing today on a system that may have limitations, but rather what they'll see in the future in a full blown media room if they wish to have one.  A Blu-ray disc is not something that should be purchased today for immediate needs.  That same disc should be able to service future needs in far more demanding environments than the typical 32" LCD.

The Blu-ray system is up to these standards.  The problem comes down to what is encoded on them.

RAH
Reply
post #40 of 186
11/11/09 at 2:02pm
No sale.  I'll stick with my DVD, audio glitches and all.  Disappointing to say the least.
Reply
post #41 of 186
11/11/09 at 2:28pm
I must say I've seen some of the comments around the internet and the accompanying opprobrium being heaped on Robert for daring to pop his head above the parapet. I'm genuinely shocked by the vitriol, the snide comments, the insinuations, all of which make me appreciate the fact that RAH has had the backbone to do the decent thing even more. Without wishing to appear in any way obsequious - three cheers for Robert Harris.

Presumably, they have eyes, but they cannot see...
Edited by John Hodson - 11/11/09 at 3:01pm
Reply
post #42 of 186
11/11/09 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Tooze View Post

Here are some quotes from all the reviews I could find:
 

Thanks for the collection, Gary.

It's very interesting how often the same concepts, even the same words, are invoked, especially "sharpness" and "cleanliness".
Reply
post #43 of 186
11/11/09 at 3:00pm
I have to say I was bummed that I had pre-ordered and already received this BD before reading this thread.
Though IMHO it looks better than my Artisan DVD, so at least I can justify to myself my purchase.

However, I am concerned about another matter. If we all vote with are wallets (and I think we should), we also need to make sure that Sony Paramount understands why we are not purchasing this movie.
  1. It is not because it is an old movie
  2. It is not because no one is buying Blu-Ray
  3. It is because it is an inferior product.

With all the reviews out there, will the powers that be understand that?
How do we make sure they understand that they need to release higher quality, and not just shut the door on older movies?
I can just see the bean counters thinking that they should stop wasting their time with Blu-Ray and go to MOD with any movie made in the last century.

-Rodney
Edited by Rodney - 11/14/09 at 4:36pm
Reply
post #44 of 186
11/11/09 at 3:08pm
Dang, I already purchased this along with MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET and A CHRISTMAS CAROL. If I had known, I would have just been stuck with my DVD version and saved myself a few bucks.
Reply
post #45 of 186
11/11/09 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney View Post

we also need to make sure that Sony understands why we are not purchasing this movie.

Paramount, not Sony.

- Steve
Reply
post #46 of 186
11/11/09 at 3:25pm

Hey Michael!
Hope you are well!

I don't blame the positiveness of other reviewers - even the 'thumbs up' on my own site. The reason terms like "sharpness" and "cleanliness" are used is because it certainly looks that way... compared to the previous DVDs. I would expect that the number of people of Robert's expertise are few and far between - by that I mean those who would be more aware of the appearance potential of this film in 1080P - and those who have enough of an eagle eye to note the manipulation weaknesses. (Kudos to you too Michael!)
 

We often joked in the past that 'ignorance can truly be bliss' when it came to something like edge-enhancement - because once you are aware of its appearance - you never tend to stop looking for it. The softness and grain extraction of DNR is a new thing to many reviewers and although it exists on Criterion's Nights of Cabiria (OOP, BTW) - it still remains one of my most tresured DVDs. I've already heard from a number of our DVDBeaver following who are thrilled with the IaWL's Blu-ray. I was too - it gave me a lot of joy watching this 63-year old film in the higher resolution - and despite it's digital weakneses will look forward to sharing a viewing with friends and family as the holiday's approach. Of course I could probably just hear "To my big brother George... the richest man in town" spoken from the film and I'd shed a tear.
 

I think it's fabulous to encourage Paramount to do this title right - I'll gladly sign a petition - if someone prepares one. Thanks again to Robert for spearheading this observation.
Cheers,
Gary
P.S. I really miss this Forum - I think it's my favorite and will try to post here more often. Thanks Ron!  

Reply
post #47 of 186
11/11/09 at 4:13pm
Spot on, John - And the best use of the world opprobium that I have seen in a while!

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hodson View Post

I must say I've seen some of the comments around the internet and the accompanying opprobrium being heaped on Robert for daring to pop his head above the parapet. I'm genuinely shocked by the vitriol, the snide comments, the insinuations, all of which make me appreciate the fact that RAH has had the backbone to do the decent thing even more. Without wishing to appear in any way obsequious - three cheers for Robert Harris.

Presumably, they have eyes, but they cannot see...
 
Reply
post #48 of 186
11/11/09 at 4:33pm
Oh what a shame, I might as well upscale my old dvd than. I'll just spend my money on something else.

Gary joked about "ignorance being bliss" and it got me wondering. If some of us had somehow missed RAH's review and bought the dvd, and watched it, would the less observant, like me, have noticed something was wrong with this picture?
Reply
post #49 of 186
11/11/09 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Tooze View Post

Here are some quotes from all the reviews I could find:
 

I read all of those and assumed it was ok, but now Robert has commented on what it looks like in motion, I can see it in your screencaps too. This should have looked like the silent version on the Sunrise BD, the Casablanca BD, instead of the waxy appearance Jimmy and Ingrid seem to have.

I was shocked when Robert didnt recommend this one, actually, because it had been such a good run: it was ten ecstatic thumbs up from Wizard of Oz onwards, with only the Z SD and Gladiator BD as exceptions. But I was glad, because as much as I love this movie, I wouldn't love to see it struggling to express itself on my system.
Reply
post #50 of 186
11/11/09 at 5:23pm
sounds like the region A is a walk in the park compared to the region B. 

region B seems to have similar problems with grain plus some of the weirdest compression artifacts i've ever seen - not surprising since universal squashed 2 versions on one disk. thanks for that guys. saving a bit of money ? you'd have done E. Scrooge proud.

I can see a LOT of mosquito noise for starters. Then, there's ... well, i don't know what it is. for example, in one scene, there's a man with a hat. you can clearly see the mosquito noise swimming around this hat. nothing unusual about that. just a bit starved transfer. we've all been there. However, this mosquito noise (or something else) seems to be in the shape of a hat sitting on top of his hat. it's like he's wearing two hats. his real hat and then this ghost like hat image sitting on top that looks like it's made up of mosquito noise ... i didn't know mosquito noise could do that ... but lower the bit rate enough and i suppose anything's possible.

on a 120"inch screen, one screen width away, i've got to be honest, these problems didn't manifest themselves too much. but on closer inspection, HOLY HELL !!!! 
Reply
post #51 of 186
11/11/09 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Hodson View Post

I must say I've seen some of the comments around the internet and the accompanying opprobrium being heaped on Robert for daring to pop his head above the parapet. I'm genuinely shocked by the vitriol, the snide comments, the insinuations, all of which make me appreciate the fact that RAH has had the backbone to do the decent thing even more. Without wishing to appear in any way obsequious - three cheers for Robert Harris.

Presumably, they have eyes, but they cannot see...
 
John,
Really then maybe you need to stick to only reading this internet forum.;)

I'm going to watch this BRD this weekend to see how it compares to previous releases with this problem like "The Longest Day".




Crawdaddy
Reply
post #52 of 186
11/11/09 at 6:05pm
That is really too bad.  I probably would've upgraded at some point, if the transfer is good.  Guess it makes my decision easier, especially since there are so many other worthwhile titles to own (and only so much $ to go around).

Thanks much, RAH, for the big warning, especially under the circumstance.

_Man_

PS:  This (following from the recent Gladiator BD and various others some time ago) is precisely why I was also reluctant to preorder the Galaxy Quest BD, which is also a Paramount title (albeit originally from Dreamworks and was originally released to DVD thru Universal much like Gladiator).  Under the circumstance, perhaps, I need to wait for RAH's ok on Galaxy Quest too...
Reply
post #53 of 186
11/11/09 at 6:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong View Post

Under the circumstance, perhaps, I need to wait for RAH's ok on Galaxy Quest too...

 

Our own Neil Middlemiss is very reliable.
Reply
post #54 of 186
11/11/09 at 8:52pm
It's (well-written, thoughtful) reviews like this (and Michael's) that I look to before making all of my BD purchases these days.  No other site is as trustworthy, in my opinion.  It seems these days that nothing is a "safe" purchase (examples include this release and "Gladiator"), so I'm forced to wait for HTF reviews before cracking open the wallet.  Sure, I miss out on a lot of pre-release sales and street date discounts, but I figure the amount I save on sub-par purchases like "It's A Wonderful Life" more than make up for it.
Reply
post #55 of 186
11/11/09 at 10:40pm
I'll go and hide after posting this, but taking out the evil/good of colorization, the colorized version present on this release is far beyond what Capra saw with the 1980s technology colorization. I personally have no problem with what people like Legend Films are doing so long as the b/w versions are also available, and if the money they get goes to funding restoration and cleanup of the b/w masters prior to the color work this is good for the films themselves too.
Reply
post #56 of 186
11/12/09 at 12:08am

The colorized version isn't that bad. Some folks demand perfection for the same price.  I certainly wouldn't want to pay more for a "perfect" restoration. If you are a serious collector, why not spend the $$$ for an original print?


I plan to enjoy the BW version sometime this month.  It's only a movie folks, not some wedding event.

Cheers!
Reply
post #57 of 186
11/12/09 at 12:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbailey100 View Post

I certainly wouldn't want to pay more for a "perfect" restoration.

 


As has been stated several times in this thread, there is no issue with the quality of the restoration work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbailey100 View Post

It's only a movie folks, not some wedding event.

 


Funny you should say that, since the look of the B&W version would be better suited to a wedding video than a movie. 
 
Reply
post #58 of 186
11/12/09 at 1:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moe Dickstein View Post

I'll go and hide after posting this, but taking out the evil/good of colorization, the colorized version present on this release is far beyond what Capra saw with the 1980s technology colorization.

Without wishing to get into yet another debate about colorization, I think Glenn Erikson's comments in his review of IAWL deserve an airing. Like many folks here, after years of arguing the toss with those that can't see what's the problem (and I'm not pointing the finger at you here Moe), these days I generally confine myself to simplistic negative comments, so it was refreshing to see Glenn articulate a specific artistic rebuttal, thus:

"...I didn't view the colorized version on the previous DVD and thought I'd do so now, especially to see how it looks in HD. Commercially speaking the bottom line is that ordinary viewers will like the color, and will quickly adjust to the very unreal tints that do enliven the image. It's also fun to see what hues have been assigned to the clothing and what has been done with the views of outer space, etc.. "Tinting" is the proper word because when the screen goes black, the colorization process cannot add chroma. that's why the entire film has been lightened in contrast. Still the chocolate syrup or whatever was used on James Stewart's lip looks like dark grape jam, or motor oil -- they can't make something jet black look red.

"Putting the B&W version back on immediately reminds us of the difference between the versions. The B&W brings the contrast back to the correct values, sharpening the photography and focusing our attention more precisely on parts of the image that the cameraman intended us to see. For instance, in the nighttime "Buffalo Gals" walk after the dance, the colorization now places Mary and George in the middle of a lot of flowers, which are now in bright color. Bedford Falls seems a real garden spot, and the art direction has been changed drastically. George's nightmare visions in the horror sequence have the same color scheme as the normal nighttime footage. The bleak, sinister "noir" aspect has been drained away: with all those bright neon signs, etc., downtown Pottersville seems an exciting and attractive improvement over dull Bedford Falls. That's something that Capra surely didn't intend. With parallel versions like this there's always the likelihood that the original will be set aside when somebody decides that the colorized copy is the only one people still want to see. So far Paramount doesn't seem to be going in that direction..."

Reply
post #59 of 186
11/12/09 at 2:58am
Damn.  I'd seen screen caps and was impressed by the additional detail so ordered.  It's already on the way and I guess it'll be making a return trip.  I was so excited about seeing this in HD...
Reply
post #60 of 186
11/12/09 at 8:25am

I think this release looks great! I can't wait to watch it again....I'm glad Paramount got this title out for this Christmas.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

It's a Wonderful Life [Blu-ray]
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads › Blu-ray › A Few Words About By Robert Harris › A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray