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

[Michael Reuben]

If this were truly an open and frank debate, I'd agree. But you've been sniping at RAH's standards for BD quality (and they're admittedly high standards) since you arrived. To paraphrase Monty Python, this isn't a debate, it's just contradiction.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Ouch indeed. The artifacts we criticise are not there because we watch video. They are there because the video was processed to have them, changing the look of the video from film-like to something else. For no good reason whatsoever when the target medium is a Blu Ray disc.

 

[frankie108]

Yes....to what extent we utilize reviews can be as varied as the reviews themselves. But, there's no right way or wrong way with these things....ultimately, it's just your way that's important. It's your dime.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

There's a right way and wrong way to master a film title to Blu-ray Disc. The ability of a given reviewer to discern how well a studio accomplishes the goal does not negate the goal itself.

The discussion on the board has been about the right/wrong way to master a disc, and some HTF members have expressed their personal opinion about purchasing or not purchasing discs that fall short of the goal.

No one has declared anything right or wrong about an individual's decision to make a purchase. If misunderstanding that was the compulsion for your previous debate, you were arguing a point that no one was contradicting. We all agree that people can buy whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

At the same time, at HTF we have agreed-upon goals for a studio to acheive when they deliver the art of film on a 1080p medium. To criticize a disc that falls short is to criticize the decisions made by studio that produced the disc, NOT a criticism of anyone who purchased the disc, enjoys the disc, or is unable to see the flaws in the mastering on their display system.

 

[frankie108]

I understand your point, I'm just not sure whether I agree with it.
Let me illustrate my point.
Years ago on network television a western series was "filmed" using video cameras and I thought the "effect" was astonishing; much more of a 'you are there' imersive impression (OK..early Discovery channel effect) and the series lasted only one season and was forgotten about. Turn ahead the clock to Star Wars III, released in 2005. I saw this movie in Las Vegas at a theater showing it in DLP and my mouth dropped open!!! I could only compare it to early 70mm projection....it was so crystal clear with such beautiful color renderings my heart soared thinking this was going to be the norm in a few years. Anyway....this is what I mean when I say I want something "better" than film and if this can be achieved via technical manipulation, I say go for it!!!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Frankie,

forget the word "film" for a minute and instead replace it with "master recording".

Just like an audio carrier medium like LP, CD, SACD etc. has the job of replicating the sound of the original *master recording* whether the master was analog or digital, the same is true of a video medium.

Whatever the "master recording" is, that's what matters. If the director of a production shot on 1080p video, then the 1080p video master that they approved is the "Master Recording" that the Blu-ray should replicate.

If the master was a 70mm film negative, then that's the "Master Recording" that the Blu-ray should try to be faithful to.

If the master was a 480i VHS or Beta tape, then *that* is the "Master Recording" if it represents what the director wanted you to see.

When we talk about "film" and the importance for a Blu-ray to "look like film" we're talking about instances where the "Master Recording" *is* a film element, as is the case with the majority of motion pictures.

 

[Michael Reuben]

As I said, I knew you'd find some way to take back the concession, and here it is.

This is a familiar theme from you: Improve the film! The same argument was used to support colorization, pan 'n' scan and other alterations of films to suit various tastes.

One person's "better" may be another's abomination. The only reliable course is to reproduce the film as close as possible to the source and let the buyer choose. "Improving" a film with modern technology would be like rewriting Shakespeare to make him easier to understand -- and about as legitimate.

 

[PaulDA]

It's already been done to Bill.

As for DNR/"improvements via manipulation"--the solution is simple. Use the features on your display. HD displays are loaded with "picture enhancement" features. Use them to your heart's content. For the rest of us, leave the picture "as it was" as much as possible. That should be the de facto position. When releases fall short, then it is us to us individually to decide whether we can live with the flaws.

 

[RobertR]

The kind of technical manipulation we're discussing involves high frequency filtering (which kills fine detail) and smearing away the grain with DNR (even though the detail is in the grain), followed by cranking up the sharpness in an attempt to regain the lost detail, resulting in hard edges and halos (which further obscure detail) that were never there to begin with. Instead of being able to see the pores in Karl Malden's face, he looks more like a wax dummy. Such a look is what you consider to be "better" than what was there in the first place. I see.

 

[Michael Reuben]

So have colorization, pan 'n' scan and heavy DNR. What's your point?

 

[PaulDA]

I'm not supportive of any of those. I was just observing that, sadly, Shakespeare has not been spared such an indignity. Guess I should have included a :frowning: with my post.

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't know why we are even debating this. Blu-ray was promoted as a home video medium with the capacity to reproduce, as closely as possible, the quality of a given film's master. That should be the goal of all of these studios. DVD transfers required compromises due to the inherent limitations of the format. Blu-ray, largely, eliminates the restrictions of DVD so the amount of image manipulation a film undergoes should be reduced to the absolute minimum required for reproducing an accurate filmic image that is free of dirt and scratchs.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Gotcha. Sorry!

Usually, though, when Shakespeare's language gets modernized, it's advertised as such. I'm thinking of things like Cliff Notes. Indeed, the rewrite is touted as a feature.

Now if some studio wanted to release, e.g., The Discovery Channel HD Version of PATTON, based on the classic Fox film!, at least that would be truth in advertising. People with frankie's taste would know that they're getting exactly the sort of grainless, plasticized, waxworks look they seem to prize, and the rest of us would know to save our money.

(Not that I'm advocating this approach, you understand. )

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I would love to see someone take this approach in a satirical way on an actual release; something along the lines of the Drive-In Classics line of DVDs from a few years back that came with a 5.1 "Distorto" soundtrack, which attempted to replicate the experience of the drive-in by putting the soundtrack of the film (heavily distorted, like it was coming out of the drive-in speaker you would hang on your window) in the front left channel, and filling the remainder with "the ambient sounds of the drive-in."

Of course, any studio that would be willing to do something like this would run the risk of being taken seriously.

 

[PaulDA]

I'm sure part of the problem is the decision making is not left entirely (or, in some cases, even primarily) in the hands of people who value "as close to the original source as possible". CD releases are a prime example of how horribly wrong things can go--but so many people have become accustomed to poor mastering these days, they don't care (and don't know any better--likely prefer things the way they are). Same applies to "make it pop" and "get rid of the grain". I can't even count the number of times I've been scolded in stores for setting TVs to "cinema" or an equivalent as a bare-bones way of evaluating how a proper image should look (and I've surreptitiously--gave up actually explaining a long time ago--done the same to friends' and relatives' TVs, only to return and find they've gone back to "vivid").

I know "pan and scan" vs "OAR" is often invoked as "victory" in getting releases "done right" but anyone can see the black bars (or their absence). This fight will be harder, for a variety of reasons (not that it should not be made, just that one should not become apoplectic over the fact it will only be a partial victory). Hell, studios STILL release, in 2009, FULL SCREEN pan and scan versions (4:3 ratio) of current films because there are still enough people who complain about "the bars".

In the end, and this is how I decide for myself--no one else need do this, I hope for the best and use rentals to gauge "the worst". In the case of Amadeus, I'd likely have relied on a rental if I'd read RAH before making the order, but the low price was too tempting. I privilege the content first, quality of presentation second and format third--content is by far the most important to me. So I'm willing to live with some disappointment presentation-wise if it means I can see the content. I lived with my SD release of the Director's Cut of Blade Runner for a long time, knowing it could look better (even on SD) but not wanting to go without one of my favourite films. I suspect I will have to do the same with BD, even if I'd rather not.

 

[frankie108]

What you choose to call "sniping" I call an honest difference of opinion...a perfectly normal reaction that reviewers should come to anticipate and expect. It would certainly be an odd reaction if no one disagreed with a Mr Harris' reviews....I loved "Patton". However, I do think that advising consumers to boycott certain titles because they don't meet his standards for quality goes beyond reviewing and more into the realm of crusading, IMO. Just my 2 cents.

 

[RobertR]

So you want Mr. Harris to say something like "It's my honest evaluation that this release does not properly represent the look of the film and is not a quality release, but I recommend you buy it anyway"? That makes no more sense than telling your friends to go to a restaurant even though the service was lousy and you didn't like the food. And by the way, Mr. Harris is hardly the only person (one does not need to be an "officially" designated reviewer to evaluate discs) who evaluates BRs on the basis of how well they replicate the look of the film. There are MANY such people, even if you're not aware of it.

 

[frankie108]

There are reasons for everything and we are left to guess as to why a particular studio releases a title a certain way. Was it because of economical reasons. Perhaps they process the video to appeal to mainstream viewers that like a snappy Discovery channel look. I really liked the "look" of PATTON when viewed on a 108" screen. At no time did I feel I was being robbed of any picture detail. I've shown this title to a lot of family members and friends and without exception, ALL were totally amazed at the PQ. And yet, this title is considered unwatchable by many members of this forum. Something's terribly wrong here.

 

[Robert Harris]

"Lord, what fools these mortals be..."

Puck

 

[frankie108]

You misunderstand me. My point is that usually BD disc reviewers can not even agree among themselves as to what constitutes a satisfactory release, IE. one reviewer says a particular release is garbage while another reviewer praises the PQ for the same release. So, all I'm saying is check it out for yourself.