A Few Words About A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

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).

 

[Paul Arnette]

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.

 

[Robert Harris]

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

 

[Mark Anthony]

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

 

[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.

 

[frankie108]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[RobertR]

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.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

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.

 

[frankie108]

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.

 

[Michael Reuben]

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.

 

[RobertR]

We can say with certainty that DNREEfiltering 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.

 

[arsh]

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

Did they show REMASTERED versions? or old prints?

 

[Mike Brantley]

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.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

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_

 

[frankie108]

 

[frankie108]

On the other hand can you think of any better place to debate this point of view?

 

[RobertR]

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.

 

[Andre Bijelic]

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.

 

[JohnMor]

And on a ipod these days.