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

[Robert Harris]

The Blu could have had a great deal more information.

 

[PaulDA]

, and will not be incorrect. If you don't know that something is missing...

This is what I've found in most reviews. Now, I'll have to wait to see it for myself, but as I have never seen it in the theatre (the best version of it I've seen is the first SD DVD release), I suspect I will be quite happy with it.
That said, I don't doubt it could have been even better (I'm more "sensitive" to poorly mastered music than home video formats and I've heard my share of "hi-res audio" releases that are reasonably good, but could have been much better, so I can empathize with your position on this issue). I just hope that it will someday get the release it deserves or, barring that, that future releases of classic titles are handled with care throughout the ENTIRE process. In the meantime, I will enjoy the fact that I can access so many wonderful films at home in a way that was scarcely imaginable when I was a child.

 

[Jrf2]

This is somewhat disappointing, but I'm still going to be pick this up. I can't see Fox revisiting this anytime soon. Patton often pops into my ten favorite films of all time.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

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.

The technical reason is temporal filtering with correct motion estimation. There might be other ingredients in the sauce. But getting the motion estimation right is key.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

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

That's one part. The other is budget. Are you willing to pay for an auto pilot run only or for hand tuned and human supervised processing? The latter costs more.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

1. This cannot be seen in screen grabs.
RAH

I don't understand your point here.
If the screen grab is 1:1 1080p and looked at in full resolution from a monitor or projector the lack of HF detail can certainly be seen. The Beaver shots are essentially SD and useless for examining fine detail on the HD (they show the difference between DVD 4:2:0 and SD 4:4:4).
Are you talking about dynamic versus static aspects of perceived detail?

 

[Michel_Hafner]

I must have my 60" HD Sony Wega on some sort of a different setting. I had a showing last night with some of my friends who also love Patton. We were all blown away by the detail....in the pores of Scotts face ( too much of his heavily made up eyebrows)....to the detail of the ruins of Carthage....to the intricate detail of the ceiling in Patton's room in the last scene before intermission.

Project it large and you see the missing detail if you are familiar with really detailed 1080p material.

 

[JPCinema]

On my 60" screen it is very detailed.

 

[Robert Harris]

Michel,
Yes, very difficult to discern as a still image, which does not contain all information anyway.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't understand your point here.
If the screen grab is 1:1 1080p and looked at in full resolution from a monitor or projector the lack of HF detail can certainly be seen. The Beaver shots are essentially SD and useless for examining fine detail on the HD (they show the difference between DVD 4:2:0 and SD 4:4:4).
Are you talking about dynamic versus static aspects of perceived detail?

There is no home format that can display a 4:4:4 color space, so where would DVD Beaver get screen captures at that level?
Doug

 

[Keith Paynter]

The DVDBeaver comparisons from SD to BD are rather jaw-dropping, on both this and The Longest Day. I watched my 2006 version of TLD on my PC and almost and felt I needed new glasses, it is so soft on my DVI display. All my BD's look amazing, so I look forward to these releases.

I would never question RAH's view of how a film should look. Film on the big screen is one thing, but sadly, film on television will always have its limit in perceived quality, when original creators or qualified restorationists are not consulted.

When I was young, McDonalds was the best thing in hamburgers. Then I switched to Burger King. Now I prefer chicken, and can't stand anybody's fast food burger, but I will occasionally take one out of 'convenience'.

I'm anxious to see these BD's on my PC.

 

[Douglas Monce]

. I watched my 2006 version of TLD on my PC and almost and felt I needed new glasses, it is so soft on my DVI display. All my BD's look amazing, so I look forward to these releases.

I think this is part of Mr. Harris' point. It looks good, but it could look better. Or more to the point it could look more like the film that was projected in theaters.
Doug

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Michel,
Yes, very difficult to discern as a still image, which does not contain all information anyway.

I'm still not sure what you mean. The stills as on the disc (the film after decompression is nothing else but a series of stills played at 24fps) are not different from what you see when you play the disc at regular speed. 1080p stills direct from the disc are used all the time to analyse static aspects of the images including sharpening, detail, DNR, colors, contrast.... Even if they are (moderately) JPEG compressed (when they are put on the net for downloading) you see pretty much all you can see from single frames. Played at 24fps you get a somewhat different impression since the HVS integrates over time. For example the grain may really stand out on a single frame while at 24fps it looks less grainy. But how stills do not show lack of detail while playing them at 24 fps shows it, I do not understand. It is not the case in my experience. If the stills show superior detail then film shows it and vice versa.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

There is no home format that can display a 4:4:4 color space, so where would DVD Beaver get screen captures at that level?
Doug

We are talking abou the detail on the BD disc which is 1080p 4:2:0. This detail you can judge playing the film at >= 24 fps or looking at single stills (either by pausing the disc or extracting the stills with software direct digital with 1:1 pixel mapping, which is done all the time to judge what is actually on the disc). It's not a 4:4:4 issue. We don't compare the BD to the DI here.

 

[Felix Martinez]

I'm still not sure what you mean. The stills as on the disc (the film after decompression is nothing else but a series of stills played at 24fps) are not different from what you see when you play the disc at regular speed. 1080p stills direct from the disc are used all the time to analyse static aspects of the images including sharpening, detail, DNR, colors, contrast.... Even if they are (moderately) JPEG compressed (when they are put on the net for downloading) you see pretty much all you can see from single frames. Played at 24fps you get a somewhat different impression since the HVS integrates over time. For example the grain may really stand out on a single frame while at 24fps it looks less grainy. But how stills do not show lack of detail while playing them at 24 fps shows it, I do not understand. It is not the case in my experience. If the stills show superior detail then film shows it and vice versa.

You may laugh, but I recently had to "erase" some pockmarks on an actor in one brief shot of a sequence in an HD project. Using Apple's Shake and some of its rather good filters, my first pass looked quite acceptable - even stepping thru the frames of the short shot. All other detail looked intact. Stills from the "fix," which I emailed to the clients as an example of how it was going (BIG mistake) - looked fabulous. However, when run at normal speed, things looked...wrong. Detail, which was present in the stills, appeared smeared in motion. The eye senses something is not quite right, because the filter(s) are moving things around, frame by frame. It's as if you put a dot that's under the threshold of the filter on one part of the screen, and when you step frame by frame, you still see the dot, but when run at full speed, that dot slightly shifts around the frame and appears indistinct as the filter erases the bigger stuff around it while nudging the dot around in the process. But it's rock solid in the stills, I say
It's a temporal thing that's not represented by still images. Persistence of vision and all that good stuff.
This is an extreme example, but my point is that we're dealing with motion pictures, and screenshots (even if they are at full resolution) may not tell the whole story. I discovered this the hard way.
Looking forward to Patton anyway and will post my thoughts in the coming week.
Thank you once again Mr. Harris for your thoughts.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Quote:

So I was asking where they would get an SD version that was 4:4:4.
Doug

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

:frowning:
Had the privilege of seeing the premier showing of "Patton" when it originally opened at the Orpheum Theater in San Francisco.
I'm very disappointed that the Blu-ray was authored with the lack of understanding and vision from the studios. Resolution - missing detail- that could have added the hobbyists coveted "collectors-value" to their collection in keeping with the idea "close to the original print as the technology will allow."
Instead, the studio chose the "Video" look that Joe-Six-Pack likes, once again hurting the true purist intent like Pan & Scan is to Original-Aspect-Ratio.:rolleyes
We need to fight this, tooth-and-nail, to get a copy of what was originally created. Anything else has no value.
The term "It's good enough" should have died with HD DVD's demise!
I've decided to vote NO with my wallet on this one.

Paul

 

[Kris Z.]

Totally agree Paul. BD is a format whose sole selling point and reason for existence is the amazing quality and ability to reproduce the original work to a very high degree, so we shouldn't have to expect or accept anything less. We need to keep making our voices heard across the forums, getting as many people as possible to join and hopefully it'll reach the studios' ears.
Seems exceptionally difficult to find feedback e-mail addresses for them (as futile as this may be). There's a contact page on Link Removed and although it's supposed to be used for defect DVDs/BDs maybe people could voice their complaints about Patton and The Longest Day there.

 

[Edwin-S]

:frowning:
I've decided to vote NO with my wallet on this one.

Paul

The problem is the situation is a Catch 22.
Buy the product and a message is sent that people like what is being done, meaning more product like it.
Don't buy the product and a message is sent that people aren't interested in older catalog films on HD media.
At least that is how the releasing studio is likely to interpret the sales results. It is unlikely that they would interpret low sales as a message that people are unhappy with the quality of presentation.

 

[Mike Williams]

Which is why it isn't enough to vote with your wallet. I think you have to TELL the studio via LETTER (not phone call or e-mail) the very reason WHY you are not buying their product which you actually WANT to buy.