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

[MatthewA]

Why is it that only Lowry/DTS can remove or minimize grain without removing high frequencies? Or do studios just go too far with their own DNR (which is probably it)?

 

[Robert Harris]

Lowry has a proprietary system. Where their processing can take many seconds per frame, others can move frames through at much higher speeds.
Both remove grain, as can numerous other software packages, but only Lowry can reduce the grain while losing nothing of the image. I've seen their system in action, and find it amazing.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Lowry has a proprietary system. Where their processing can take many seconds per frame, others can move frames through at much higher speeds.
Both remove grain, as can numerous other software packages, but only Lowry can reduce the grain while losing nothing of the image. I've seen their system in action, and find it amazing.

Except when it came to "Citizen Kane".

 

[Robert Harris]

I met the individual responsible for Citizen Kane. They were totally unfamiliar with the film. The word "embarrassment" doesn't come near how they feel.
Total operator failure by someone who was not given enough information. I also believe that this was a very early post-beta version of the program.
Properly directed their work was superb.

 

[TravisR]

Except when it came to "Citizen Kane".

If I remember correctly, didn't someone from Lowry say that they made a mistake and removed too much grain from Citizen Kane?
EDIT: RAH answered my question.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

To be fair, the algorithm used in Citizen Kane was an early version. One would hope the technology has improved in 8 years.

 

[Robert Crawford]

To be fair, the algorithm used in Citizen Kane was an early version. One would hope the terchnology has improved in 8 years.

Of course it has which is why I attached a smilie to my sarcastic comment.
Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

I met the individual responsible for Citizen Kane. They were totally unfamiliar with the film. The word "embarrassment" doesn't come near how they feel.
Total operator failure by someone who was not given enough information. I also believe that this was a very early post-beta version of the program.
Properly directed their work was superb.

RAH,
I was just kidding with my Kane reference, but my smilie wasn't enough to convey that.

 

[Dave H]

Not to jump the gun, but one has to serious wonder just how bad something like Godfather will be DNR'd when it comes to BD. Paramount has quite the track record for DNR too.

 

[Robert Harris]

Smiley observed and taken.

 

[Rachael B]

Not to jump the gun, but one has to serious wonder just how bad something like Godfather will be DNR'd when it comes to BD. Paramount has quite the track record for DNR too.

After seeing the DVD, I decided I liked my LD better. Yeah, it's scary what they might do.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Not to jump the gun, but one has to serious wonder just how bad something like Godfather will be DNR'd when it comes to BD. Paramount has quite the track record for DNR too.

Given that the Godfather films have recently been digitally restored under RAH's supervision, hopefully all Paramount will do is downconvert the restoration files to BD resolution. I'm sure RAH will advise us if the case turns out to be otherwise.

 

[Edwin-S]

Okay. The only complaint I have is that somehow you seem to be equating and blaming this practice on the BD format, when the blame properly lies with the studios. It is they who are creating grainless masters through the use of DNR. BD is only the means, not the cause, for studios to transmit their 'washed' product.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Okay. The only complaint I have is that somehow you seem to be equating and blaming this practice on the BD format, when the blame properly lies with the studios. It is they who are creating grainless masters through the use of DNR. BD is only the means, not the cause, for studios to transmit their 'washed' product.

Edwin,
To which person are you referring to?

 

[Edwin-S]

Edwin,
To which person are you referring to?

I'm sorry. To the original poster, Mr. Harris. When I read the review I got the impression that somehow the BD format is responsible for the way these films are appearing.

 

[PaulDA]

That's not how I read it. I believe he intended to convey his dismay that the studio did NOT use the full potential of BD to properly provide a "film-like" experience--something that has been achieved, according to Mr. Harris, on a number of BD and HD DVD releases already.

 

[Vincent_P]

I'm sorry. To the original poster, Mr. Harris. When I read the review I got the impression that somehow the BD format is responsible for the way these films are appearing.

If you read Robert Harris's "A few words about... THE LONGEST DAY" ( http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...y-blu-ray.html ), another title he had issues regarding DNR with, you'll see that he isn't faulting the Blu-ray format at all, but rather the studios. This quote from that review in particular confirms this:
"To my eye, the image appears to be highly processed, removing grain, and with it, much of the high frequency information that can be so easily replicated in the wonderful Blu-Ray system. This is what high definition Blu-Ray is all about."
So, he's not faulting the Blu-ray format at all, he's faulting the studio for messing with the master.
Vincent

 

[Edwin-S]

Maybe I was reading too much into his comments. I do want to say one other thing though. I think if a person has strong feelings about the issue then they should take a definite stance. If the use of DNR is altering the look of the film to the point that it no longer looks like film, then I would say that the practice is no better than modifying aspect ratios or colourizing black and white films.
Would Mr. Harris recommend films that have undergone those types of modification? I am going to hazard a guess and say no, so why recommend a film that has undergone high frequency filtering? I think a person who feels strongly about something should just take a stand.
To me, the stance here should be this film is not recommended due to the issuing studio's use of DNR which has resulted in a modified presentation. Taking such a stance is also entirely in keeping with the stated objectives of this website's mission statement.

 

[Vincent_P]

I think Harris puts enough detail into his reviews that people can figure out where he stands. There's a hell of a lot more to his commentaries here than the usual dumbed-down "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" variety, all he asks is that you take the effort to read his comments and then make up your own mind.
I have to say, though, that I find it odd that you started out bashing Robert Harris on one issue, and when you were shown to be wrong in that regard, you've now moved on to attack him on another issue. What's up with that?
Vincent

 

[Edwin-S]

I have to say, though, that I find it odd that you started out bashing Robert Harris on one issue, and when you were shown to be wrong in that regard, you've now moved on to attack him on another issue. What's up with that?
Vincent

I'm not hidebound or close minded. If I think I have made a mistake then I will admit it. Also, if you think I'm attacking him then that is your interpretation. My intention is not to attack him and I don't think I am. I think he has strong feelings on the use of DNR so I think he should just take a firmer stance and not recommend the film.
If he feels that I'm out of line then he can respond and tell me so. I am sure he is quite capable of defending himself without any help. Furthermore, he asked for people's opinions on this issue. My opinion is that DNR'ing film is no better than MARs or colourizing B&W. When excessive DNR is used on film then it should be strongly opposed. The best way to send the message is by saying [bold]not recommended[/bold].
We, as consumers, can send the message by not purchasing films that have been modified by excessive DNR.