A few words about...™ Apollo 13 -- in Blu-ray

Apollo 13 must have been through as many home video format changes as any other film.  Finally making its way to Blu-ray, after a brief stint on HD, we are treated to uncompressed audio -- an upgrade, as well as occasional odd digital anomalies.

I'm not having any major problems with the image, which I recall looking a bit more film-like on HD, but from the very beginning with the edges of letters in the main titles as well as identification titles, things just seem to lack cohesion and stability.  The seem tainted. In many scenes, we generally have what appears to be decent original grain structure. Then it seems to disappear in certain shots, revealing an overall pretty, softened image.

I can just hear an actress at age 40, remarking to the DP to soften things up a bit.

But Gary Sinise?

Bottom line is that there is nothing terribly wrong.  I just wish that things had been left in their original state, as I really doubt that they needed digital help.  That is, unless cinematographer Dean Cundey blew it.  

The back of the packaging has a wonderful (and meaningless) phrase - "Perfect picture and purest digital audio available"

I have no idea what the word "available" means, but would be interested in finding out.

This disc is outfitted with U-Control, BD-Live, and is D-Box Motion enabled.  I'd love to see all of those things dropped as superfluous, and more time spent on getting the image "perfect."

A good film that can be viewed by the entire family, Apollo 13 is still worth a view.  Also of interest should be the NASA documentary, Houston, We've Got a Problem.

The film that I wait patiently to arrive on Blu-ray is another production on space, Philip Kaufman's far superior The Right Stuff.  That is filmmaking at its finest.  Come on Warner.

RAH


 

Xylon,

I'm seeing this, but I disagree that it was "terrible."  We're far from Gangs of New York territory.  It also won't be noted by the general audience.  Much of the film is without problems, and they do arise, they're annoying, but not to a point of extreme.  To me, the overall look of the disc falls into the "far better than okay" category.  Unfortunately, today, that isn't good enough.  When the ringing is there it appears to be in softened (read: grain reduced) shots, that then need sharpening to give them some "apparent" detail.  The affect may also be a contrast boost seen in light against dark areas of the image. This may be an older master that has gone through additional and expensive processing, rather than harvesting a new image from a timed IP, or spending the extra funds -- and this can get expensive -- and returning to an OCN.

What I'm beginning to see at the studio level are films of "importance," and the definition of that word may vary, going through the 4k process to yield 1:1 film quality negs (if desired) as well as archival quality data, which can be used for DCPs or down-rezzed for other uses in the future.  Look what Warner is doing with A Star is Born (1954) or numerous other titles. Fox, Disney and Columbia have also taken this tack.

In the long run, I believe that this procedure will be less expensive and continually yield high quality.

Be aware that Universal also might be given a bit of slack, as they're still dealing with the repercussions of the June, 2008 fire. On the other hand, insurance should have come into play, which should have given them the ability to re-visit and upgrade.  At this point in time, their releases should all be top quality, material permitting.  By material permitting, I'm referring to their Paramount pre-49s and some early Universal nitrate titles which may be problematic.  Generally, the studio has done wonderful things with their nitrates, and have had a quality preservation program in place for decades.

Taking a peek back at Universal history in HD, if one examines their initial three dozen releases, it will be found that two-thirds were derived from digital intermediates, while the other third were film based.  It is some of those latter titles that are among the problematic and processed, including, unfortunately, Spartacus, which should, and could have looked extraordinary on HD (two discs).  There is no reason for it not to be perfect on Blu-ray, with a bit of clean-up by if performed by knowledgeable hands holding a digital scalpel.  We'll find out shortly if the films has been properly handled or has fallen into the digital abyss.

Also, please note that I am unable to recommend A13 as it stands, based upon the promise of "Perfect picture and purest digital audio available."  If a claim is made, it should hold up.

There was period in the beginning of HD, when techniques were changing and being honed, and the studios needed a bit of breathing room to get things right.  It was during that period, for example, that Warner brought out their 1080i releases.  Those were replaced as quickly as possible, and numerous titles removed from their release schedule as a result.  Many Paramount film-based titles looked nothing like film.  My favorite example, which remains to this day, is The Untouchables.  We had Gangs of New York from Miramax and Patton from Fox.

But most everyone has now learned how to handle film for Blu-ray.  In simple terms all this means is that it need not be dumbed down as for DVD.  Most everyone.  Look toward smaller publishers such as Blue Underground, who continually get it right.

We're now in 2010.  There enough people who know what they're doing.  There are also still some snake oil salesmen out there.  The final results on Blu-ray should replicate the look of film.  Blu-ray certainly makes this possible.  And the technical path is very, very simple.  

Less is more.

With the single reference point of films that no longer have extant elements that might allow a quality disc, and by that I mean films that cannot be restored -- and the word "cannot" should not be used without proper research or used lightly, as it has been in the past -- all film based Blu-ray releases should be able to hit a 9 out of 10 at minimum.

Anything less should not reach the public, and there are no longer any excuses.

If and when something technical does go wrong, and discs reach the public, there can always be a recall.  While it might be a tad embarrassing, recalls are nothing horrific.  Besides, if properly handled, they allow a publisher to make lemonade out of their lemons, bolstering consumer good will in the process.  BTW, I am not, by these comments, suggesting that Apollo should be recalled.  Apollo 13 is not a bad release.  My eyes tell me that it just could have been better.

RAH

That's a question I can't answer.  Could be either, both at different times through different eyes, or neither.  The answer print may (or may not) survive.