A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Longest Day -- in Blu-Ray (3 Viewers)

[Dave H]

This DNR madness which is becoming more and more prevalent has got to stop. I really hope all of the insiders are pressing this issue with the studios.

 

[andrew markworthy]

On a related point - there are a fair number of non-Region A users on this forum, and this release was said by some 'experts' [not on HTF, I should quickly add] to be all-region. I got my copy today and it ain't - it's Region A ONLY.

Thank you very much, Fox - even 45 year old movies have to be region encoded, do they?

And there's no sign of a Region B release. :frowning:

 

[Michel_Hafner]

That you liked or disliked this product. If you buy consistently and there come other films, some black and white, some color, some US, some not US etc. the patterns are forming. If you want to give precise feedback per title please mail them your thoughts. That is most appropriate. But money still speaks loudest in the end.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

How can you be so sure of that? If the studios have released after some time say 30 catalogue titles, some in color, some in black and white, some of this genre, some of that. If early adopters care about DNR and buy accordingly the patterns will establish themselves. The later in the game we are and the more undiscriminating people buy disks (undiscriminating concerning DNR) the less such patterns form and other patterns take over. Voting with your wallet as a videophile is most effective now. Less so after it has become a mass market and and videophiles are a small minority.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Based on information I have personally received and from other reliable sources. Anyhow, you do what you want in this matter and let me do the same.




Crawdaddy

 

[andrew markworthy]

Early adapters of any new system are going to be enthusiasts and thus amongst the most critical of consumers. They will notice DNR.

Having said that, a lot of our fellow enthusiasts haven't helped matters. How many reviews of hig def releases, particularly of older films, contain something about how noticeable and annoying the film grain is? [Note: this isn't the same as simply noting that film grain may be noticeable]. Anyone heeding these complaints may well be tempted to smooth things out to appease these morons.

 

[Jim_K]

Previously on the fence due to price.........The progression of this thread has swayed me................

To pick this up in order to support the future release of more B&W classics.

 

[captain_celluloid]

RAH; thanks for your candid review.

I would ask your readers WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

Reducing sharpness to reduce grain is simply outrageous . . . .
and should not be tolerated.

I have been in the film business long enough to know that it tends to cater to the lowest common denominator by appeasing the complaints of
those who know the least.

Let me be clear: not knowing everything about film does not make one a bad person . . . . that said, not knowing does not, or rather SHOULD not, give one any special rights or influence.

Alas, that is what appears to be happening on a more regular and widespread basis.

The studios are diluting their product to accommodate folks who
don't seems to understand that if they don't like grain they can just as easily
turn down their sharpness and contrast controls to get the look they prefer

. . . . rather than ruining the experience for the rest of us.

Again, where is the outrage.

I have no idea what to do about this . . . but I certainly hope there is
SOMETHING that can be done.

-30-

Captain Celluloid
Film Guy Finishing on Digital

 

[PaulDA]

The same thing happened with music--dynamic compression has killed the SQ of most mainstream non-classical and jazz releases when all people need to do is "turn up the volume" on their player/receiver/etc. of choice. The outrage has been expressed in audio circles and it is expressed in the video realm as well. Unfortunately, it is such a minute component of the buying public that studios/content producers will NEVER, in general, bend to the will of those who are outraged. Sad, but there it is.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm outrage! However, I'm still waiting on my BRD to arrive here.






Crawdaddy

 

[Douglas Monce]

I'm not sure that the studios are looking closely enough to be able to determine that a particular title sold well because of DNR or the lack of it. There are so many reason that a film doesn't sell. They might just determine that people didn't like the movie, or that b&w movies have gone out of style.

I just don't know that they would make the connection with something as obscure as DNR, when the executives may or may not know what it is, or that it even exists on a particular title.

Doug

 

[PaulDA]

This bears repeating. Many executives (in many businesses) have only a passing familiarity with the nuances of their products. I'd bet a week's pay that the first thing that would come to the studio's mind if a title doesn't do well is that the title is not as popular as they thought it would be--DNR would be a long way down the list.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Having worked in the film industry, I think it's likely that most executives have never heard of, and have no idea what DNR is.

Very few executives even understand how films are made much less something like the minutia of converting film to video.

Doug

 

[Kris Z.]

But if DNR matters so little when it comes to evaluating titles, and the heads don't know anything about it, why even do it? It's just unnecessary, additional work. And who then is making the decision to appeal to the "squeaky-clean" crowd? I think my faith in humanity would be shattered if the people actually working with the video, the ones who are supposed to be experts in the field, would have so little respect for the films to ruin them like this out of their own will.

 

[Robert Harris]

DNR, at least at a certain level, was almost a necessity for standard definition releases with heavy grain structures, as grain created a myriad of compression problems in SD.

Which means that some releases could be carry overs from HD to SD down rezzes of old, or simply "carrying on the good work."

HD is another matter.

 

[Douglas Monce]

There are people in the industry doing these home video masters that are VERY good at their jobs and really know what a film is supposed to look like. Most of the Warner catalog titles are fantastic for instance.

Having said that, I think there are a fair number of people in these home video devisions that come from a video background rather than a film background. They look at these older films and say to themselves, "look at how grainy this is, what a shame. Well we can fix that!" All the while having no idea that is the way the film is supposed to look. I think a lot of this is as much about educating the studio's home video departments as educating the general public.

Doug

 

[captain_celluloid]

Great point, Doug . . . I think that's the crux of the matter.

This GRAIN HATER movement looks to be as much of a potential quality problem as the FILL MY SCREEN / LETTERBOX HATER movement.

The studios, the hardware industry and the dealers have done a terrible job
[ if they've even tried ] of educating the public as evidenced by the constant over-bright, over-sharp and incorrect aspect ratio set-ups on display at any given BEST BUY or CIRCUIT CITY.

Perhaps where we can make a difference is with the On-Line Blu Ray
disc reviewers who regularly dismiss any film without sufficient
3D DEPTHY-NESS POP OFF THE SCREEN VIBRANT PUNCHY HEAD TURNING IMPRESS YOUR FRIENDS EYE CANDY WOW FACTOR-AGE as boring and thereby negative.

Even among the good on-line reviewers it is fairly appalling how
often we see something like " I haven't seen this projected from a film print
in a theatre but I know what I like and blah blah blah."

The video is supposed to look like the film, gentleman.

If you haven't SEEN the film on film your opinion can not be completely informed and thereby cannot be completely valid.

Perhaps this is unconscious, perhaps it stems from being under-infomred perhaps it's being too busy to go out to see movies in theatres . . . .
but the net result is the same:

I'm thinking On-Line disc reviewers are in effect creating and advocating a new visual film aesthetic . . . . one that is video based not film based.
One that dislikes grain because it quite simply and quite literally doesn't know what it is missing.

This is a bad, bad thing.

I propose starting by writing these on-line critics every time they
make pronouncements on the look of a film that have nothing to do
with the actual look of FILM.

I would also suggest referencing them to the well-informed and constructive reviews of Robert A. Harris on the subject. I would also reference
the humility and openeess with which he writes . . . something that is
also missing in most on-line disc reviews.

. . . but I rant . . . and blah blah blah

-30-

Captain Celluloid
Film Guy Finishing On Digital

 

[Pete T C]

Too bad Blu-ray players don't have that Nvidia "artificial grain" chip that was a mandatory part of the HD DVD spec (it was never taken advantage of). While it wouldn't bring back the lost detail, at least you could simulate the grain that was removed and give the option to watch with or without grain...

Referring to this:
Thomson's Film Grain Technology Specification Approved by DVD Forum

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Why would we want something that would piss off both film enthusiasts (by keeping the detail/filtering issues intact) and those who hate grain? That's the worst of both worlds.

BTW, as nVidia supported both formats, I highly doubt the process was limited to just one.

 

[Dave Mack]

screengrab courtesy of Xylon from AVS

Looks like cel animation or even an oil painting...