1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

A Few Words About A few words about...™ Casablanca (70th Anniversary) -- in Blu-ray

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, Mar 9, 2012.

  1. benbess

    benbess Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    330
    Real Name:
    Ben Hufbauer
    Is this how they are also showing Ben-Hur?
     
  2. benbess

    benbess Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    330
    Real Name:
    Ben Hufbauer
    It's great to read that what we are seeing in the new To Catch a Thief blu-ray is "similar" to what we would have seen in a good theater back in 1955.+++
     
  3. TravisR

    TravisR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    24,943
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    I can't say for sure but I'd imagine so. The times I've seen a Fathom event, I went with the idea that I was getting to see the movie with an audience (which is usually fun) and not as much for the presentation.
     
  4. benbess

    benbess Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    330
    Real Name:
    Ben Hufbauer
    What does the term "Fathom" mean?
    The showing I'm seeing of Ben-Hur is at Cinemark:
    http://www.cinemark.com/movie-detail.aspx?node_id=50971
     
  5. TravisR

    TravisR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    24,943
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    Fathom is the name of the company that usually does those 'one-night only events' (like the upcoming Casablanca). I've never heard of Cinemark's handling of movies but I would expect the same as what Fathom does. That being said, I have no basis for saying that other than if other chains do it, why wouldn't they?
     
  6. Adam_S

    Adam_S Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2001
    Messages:
    6,257
    Likes Received:
    102
    Real Name:
    Adam_S
  7. Charles Smith

    Charles Smith Extremely Talented Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Location:
    Nor'east
    Real Name:
    Charles Smith
    What a sickening prospect. So, now, people can go to these things and come out saying how lousy the old movies actually look on the big screen.
     
  8. benbess

    benbess Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,049
    Likes Received:
    330
    Real Name:
    Ben Hufbauer
    Thanks for the link. I may have missed it, but I did not see Ben-Hur there.
    Maybe Ben-Hur is not part of this and is getting a better presentation?
    About 8 years ago I went to a Hitchcock film festival at the beautiful Palace theater in Louisville. They were showing DVDs. I kid you not. As long as you sat up on the balcony of that beautiful baroque place it actually looked sort of ok. Mediocre, really, but still the audiences really enjoyed Hitchcock's films in spite of the poor presentation.
    And so if the worst case for Ben-Hur is that they are showing the blu-ray--well, that's still 6 times better than a DVD...
     
  9. Scott Calvert

    Scott Calvert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 1998
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    2
    Mr. Harris, with all due respect, I hope you are not honestly trying to sell digital audio compression as some kind of sonic benefit. The only benefit to be had is a reduced file size. If there is enough space for a lossless file, then there is no benefit.
     
  10. Guest

    Shouldn't this lossless debate have occured during the last Casablanca release? The new one is lossless, so I'm not understanding the discussion in this thread.
     
  11. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    4,022
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    You would be incorrect.

    RAH
     
  12. Scott Calvert

    Scott Calvert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 1998
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    2
    The discussion is in response to Mr. Harris's assertion regarding the inclusion of a lossless track : "But it doesn't really matter that it does. There is little to be gained."
    Now with these latest comments, it appears that the inclusion of a lossless track has gone from a negligible gain to actually being detrimental....
    Hopefully studios will stop including lossless tracks on all of their vintage films.
     
  13. Guest

    How can lossless be detrimental? And I still don't understand how I'm able to see the wires in The Wizard of Oz on a 1985 vhs version that is blurry, soft, and no detail, but audiences couldn't in 1939? I know that the dye transfer prints were softer, but detail is clearer on a vhs copy? Sorry, but I don't buy that.
     
  14. Mike Frezon

    Mike Frezon Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    35,858
    Likes Received:
    4,566
    Location:
    Rensselaer, NY
    Nowhere have I called for "bigger and louder" audio. I believe that the audio reproduction should simply be given the same high-quality treatment as the video.

    I DO believe that uncompressed audio can have EVERYTHING to do with "faithful reproduction."

    Robert, if you can believe that Blu-ray can provide a more accurate reproduction of the original film experience in the home due to its higher video resolution, I believe it is legitimate for me to believe that Bu-ray can also provide a more accurate reproduction of the film experience in the home due to its higher audio resolution.
     
  15. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    4,022
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    It's really all about smoke and mirrors.

    The rush toward 4k projection. But to what end? We never had 4k quality in 35mm projection. Properly set up 2k theatrical is just fine, unless one wishes to test the limits of 70mm.

    Same thing with audio. Uncompressed is nice for those who have very high end systems. For everyone else, it serves no purpose.

    RAH
     
  16. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    4,022
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    There are distinct differences between the visual and the aural.

    While one generally needs every bit of resolution that the Blu-ray format can provide for image, audio is another matter.

    Especially when dealing with older, optically based tracks, the added dimension that uncompressed audio can add for high end systems, simply isn't there in the original recordings of many older (pre-50s) tracks. One can take advantage of having uncompressed audio, but no difference will be heard, and if not processed properly, the uncompressed format can be detrimental, ie. revealing too much of what's behind the curtain, ie., splices, dirt and bloops.

    RAH
     
  17. Mike Frezon

    Mike Frezon Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    35,858
    Likes Received:
    4,566
    Location:
    Rensselaer, NY
    Robert: Thanks for engaging in this side discussion.

    Why not strive for that high-level of audio excellence? Doesn't the HD video benefit those with higher-end displays?
     
  18. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    4,022
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Restoring audio has little to do with what is heard that should not be heard. Preparing a old track for uncompressed reproduction will take more effort and expense than delivering compressed, but to what advantage?

    This is what you're hearing:

    This example is 1/8 of a second of Vertigo.

    [​IMG]

    Which is a copy of a copy of a copy. If one is hearing a reproduction of an analogue image, that has been digitized, unlike a modern soundtrack, it is still no better than the black and white image seen at the left. That image is turned back into sound waves as it is projected on to a cell via light from an exciter lamp. That impulse then goes through various amplification and filtering toward a final result, as it travels through wires, and generally into speakers coated with dust. In the final analysis, the difference between the compressed and uncompressed information on a Blu-ray disc is zero.

    RAH
     
  19. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    302
    I find this sort of thing fascinating, and it's great that we've got a true expert like RAH on board. I suspect there are few places in cyberspace where such expertise is so readily available to the average ounter.
    Robert, moving back to picture quality, you noted that:
    "...classic films were not meant to be viewed from their camera negatives, which in many cases reveal far too much within the image, that would be hidden in original multiple generations."
    If a Blu-ray Disc goes back to the original camera negatives and shows up detail the director never hought would be seen at the cinema (poor make-up, or whatever), do you think the picture quality can ever be I]too[/I] good?
    If we can see things which suddenly cause us to stop suspending disbelief, isn't that a bad thing?
    Steve W
     
  20. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    8,621
    Likes Received:
    4,022
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Yes. Going back to an original element is sometimes problematic. And you deal with it, shot by shot, and frame by frame.

    An example: In GF2, during the murder of Fanucci, in a 4k scan of the camera original, tiny wires attached to squibs in the actor's face became visible. These had to be digitally removed. They were not visible in final prints.

    RAH
     

Share This Page