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

[Jon Hertzberg]

It's certainly disappointing to read about Universal once again going too far with regards to the de-graining. Interestingly, I recall Uni getting killed on the FAST TIMES blu-ray and, IIRC, that was one Uni transfer that actually retained its grain.

 

[JParker]

This entire discussion has left out a major element.
I went to the mount yesterday, and called Gordon Willis. While I didn't take down his every word, his take on the way some films are handled on Blu-ray, couldn't be more simple.
**************
Apparently, there are studio execs who, for whatever reason, think DPs aren't a terribly intelligent group. That they don't think about film stocks, and emulsions, and how lighting, exposure, filtration, processing and printing will affect an image.
And they're wrong.
It is the characteristics of each particular film stock and emulsion batch that make up the look and textures of a film. The grain structure is the very essence of what appears on screen. Everything is tested, and the DP knows precisely how the film is to look, and how to use the selected film stock to get it there.
The mind of the DP is programmed to think with absolute knowledge of the specific film stock(s) while planning, testing, shooting and printing. Nothing is left to chance. And grain structure is a part of the final equation.
******

Thanks for this Mr. H.; call 'em as you see 'em and we'll just have to decide. I've a sub 65" display but I suspect I'll see the lack of grain. Obviously, Universal didn't use the 'Lowry' process of Reliance Media Works to ameliorate the grain, which from your prior posts is the best system currently out there. And the grain etc. aren't the problem, it's just that the studio executives see it that way. Oh, well, maybe they'll fix it for the 150th anniversary!

 

[Scott Calvert]

My problem is that the image has grain, but not natural grain.  It looks nothing like film, which it can and should.  And there are digital problems in many of the details.  As someone walks across a neutral background, there is an occasional force field moving ahead of them.  Details occasionally move like little snakes

Sounds exactly like Out Of Africa.

 

[JoHud]

Your point, which is known, is well taken.  "We're being paid the big buck.  Gotta use them tools!"
It's just so sad.
We're losing film.  Not simply in projection, but the entire look and texture of film is being lost to knob turning.
RAH

This is a very interesting case study about overdoing restorations. Previous Universal films released on blu for the 100th anniversary, like To Kill a Mockingbird, Pillow Talk, and All Quiet on the Western Front get more of a pass because actual restoration was done to get a quality transfer out of degraded source materials. However, with The Sting, a restoration was unnecessary so it all equates to a buzzword referring to digital tools cleaning up various imperfections and other perceived flaws in the film. Here, it seems to have lead to artificial grain that leaves "force fields" around moving subjects in otherwise static shots. Not a deal-breaker for me, but its interesting knowing the flaws of these sorts of "restorations."
In regards with replacing the real grain with artificial grain, it seems they do Patton-like clean-up jobs and filter in the pseudo-grain to cover their tracks. Or not? I'm curious to know why recent Universal Blu-ray transfers end up this way.

 

[Scott Calvert]

This is a very interesting case study about overdoing restorations. Previous Universal films released on blu for the 100th anniversary, like To Kill a Mockingbird, Pillow Talk, and All Quiet on the Western Front get more of a pass because actual restoration was done to get a quality transfer out of degraded source materials. However, with The Sting, a restoration was unnecessary so it all equates to a buzzword referring to digital tools cleaning up various imperfections and other perceived flaws in the film. Here, it seems to have lead to artificial grain that leaves "force fields" around moving subjects in otherwise static shots. Not a deal-breaker for me, but its interesting knowing the flaws of these sorts of "restorations."
In regards with replacing the real grain with artificial grain, it seems they do Patton-like clean-up jobs and filter in the pseudo-grain to cover their tracks. Or not? I'm curious to know why recent Universal Blu-ray transfers end up this way.

I don't know for certain but I really, really doubt it. The Sting is one of the 13 films Universal advertised as getting new 4K scans this year. I think it's just a result of the noise reduction application they are utilizing which "freezes" static areas of the picture. Believe it or not even Sony had a title slip through with these artifacts way back when with Life Of Brian.

 

[EnricoE]

is it worth to upgrade from the hd-dvd? universal is known to f*** up hd-dvd to blu-ray ... e.g. u571, the mummy 1 and 2 are miles better on hd-dvd, except for the audio of course... you can't beat dts-hd ma

 

[Osato]

Thanks Robert!
I'm on the bubble on this one as I have the SE DVD.
Interesting notes about the unusual film grain!

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by JoHud /t/320885/a-few-words-about-the-sting-in-blu-ray/60#post_3928787
Previous Universal films released on blu for the 100th anniversary, like To Kill a Mockingbird, Pillow Talk, and All Quiet on the Western Front get more of a pass

Not from me they don't. Annoying edge enhancement and far too "clean" looking.

Everyone keeps talking about Universal and too much noise reduction, no one is talking about the added sharpening issues which to me are VERY annoying.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

As another member stated in an earlier post, I am worried about 'JAWS'. Being one of Universals biggest films, the chances of it emulating the original look of film is slim.

This is one title I'm not worried about. Spielberg and his people will have full say and control over what it looks like.

 

[Anthony Neilson]

As ever, a fascinating discussion - and a deeply sad one.
So - RAH - what can be done? Who is going to deliver us from these wrong-headed practices. I'm sure you're doing your best to raise the issue at every opportunity. But is there some more active step that can be taken?
As consumers, we're in a Catch-22 situation. If we boycott, we diminish the sales and the studios - so we're told - take that as a sign of disinterest in classic titles. We can petition but it'll be hard to get significant numbers behind that.
Is it perhaps time that the professionals united to lobby the studios? We would, for sure, have some heavy hitters on side - Spielberg and Scorsese would understand the problem. Their names on a petition of directors, cinematographers, editors, producers and restorers would be worth a thousand of ours.
Would you be the man to get that ball rolling? Starting with Gordon Willis and branching out from there. It just seems to me that our discussions here will do little to alleviate this problem (however prestigious the HTF awards may be!). Film-makers need to take a more active role in this from Day One. It might surprise people how little input directors have into the Home-Theatre versions of their work. It might surprise them more to discover that some don't really care about/ aren't very aware of the problem. Director approval (cinematographer approval?) of Home-Theatre versions should be a contractual point. The job is not done when the film opens in cinemas. And someone needs to stand up for the artists who are no longer with us.
Otherwise, I fear that all we'll have left of many classic films are these digitally manipulated versions. We are in the last days of film as a medium. It would be tragic if we lost it as even a memory.

 

[ShellOilJunior]

I'm a bit worried how Universal will handle the Hitchcock set planned for later this year.

 

[MattAlbie60]

Aint It Cool posted a glowing review of the new JAWS restoration and even went as far as to call for a theatrical rerelease. I'd love to take that as a good sign, but the cynic in me remembers how much Harry Knowles loves the way the PREDATOR: Ultimate Hunter Edition looks...
Harry Knowles didn't write the JAWS piece, but still.

 

[TravisR]

Aint It Cool posted a glowing review of the new JAWS restoration and even went as far as to call for a theatrical rerelease. I'd love to take that as a good sign, but the cynic in me remembers how much Harry Knowles loves the way the PREDATOR: Ultimate Hunter Edition looks...
Harry Knowles didn't write the JAWS piece, but still.

Yeah, no offense to the folks at AICN but I don't put much stock in their views on topics like this. In my experience, they don't have the eye that people here have. That's not to say that they're bad or ignorant just that their standards might not be indicative of mine. That being said, I have faith that Spielberg's even slim involvement with this disc means that Jaws will look great.

 

[Yorkshire]

So - RAH - what can be done?

Good question.
But we need to couple it with another. If we can do nothing (or nothing that works, at least), what do we do then?
Boycott? Give up on Blu-ray Disc? Buy them anyway, warts and all?
As you suggest, whatever response we choose, it'll doubtless be wrong in one way or another.
Steve W

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /t/320885/a-few-words-about-the-sting-in-blu-ray/60#post_3929375
Good question.
But we need to couple it with another. If we can do nothing (or nothing that works, at least), what do we do then?
Boycott? Give up on Blu-ray Disc? Buy them anyway, warts and all?
As you suggest, whatever response we choose, it'll doubtless be wrong in one way or another.
Steve W

I hate to sound like Penton, but this is something that I'm best not to discuss at the moment.

RAH

 

[JParker]

I hate to sound like Penton, but this is something that I'm best not to discuss at the moment.
RAH

Who's "Penton"? I can't find the reference.
For whatever reason, this industry, if you contact customer service or even the executives, don't care about such criticism. Perhaps marketing focus groups tells them that the typical purchaser prefers this "shiny" look. But Mr. H, you wrote here in response to Tequila Mockingbird:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/318055/a-few-words-about-to-kill-a-mockingbird-in-blu-ray#post_3895590

Originally Posted by Kevin EK
Robert, please correct me if I misstate this:
A field enlargement is a way of turning a wider angle shot into a close-up...As we watch, the shot changes from a wider shot to a close-up of her face. The picture quality goes down as her face gets bigger and bigger in the frame.
For me, this is the same kind of idea as if I have a small jpeg image and I blow it up. I can make it bigger, but there's a drop in picture quality.
Hope I didn't just mangle the description...

Generally correct. But not necessarily turning a wide shot into a close-up. One can move in on any part of the frame. As I believe I stated earlier in the thread, there should be a mechanism of digitally resolving more of the image as we move in, while concurrently equalizing grain. This was one of John Lowry's concepts, and as far as I have seen, Lowry Digital, now Reliance, is the only facility that can do this well.
RAH

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Anthony Neilson /t/320885/a-few-words-about-the-sting-in-blu-ray/60#post_3929352
Film-makers need to take a more active role in this from Day One. It might surprise people how little input directors have into the Home-Theatre versions of their work. It might surprise them more to discover that some don't really care about/ aren't very aware of the problem. Director approval (cinematographer approval?) of Home-Theatre versions should be a contractual point. The job is not done when the film opens in cinemas. And someone needs to stand up for the artists who are no longer with us.
Otherwise, I fear that all we'll have left of many classic films are these digitally manipulated versions. We are in the last days of film as a medium. It would be tragic if we lost it as even a memory.

Some directors want to destroy the film look for their older titles, take the French director Jean-Pierre Jeunet as one example, that guy loves the degrain tool and if we are to believe Twentieth Century Fox then John McTiernan approved the second edition release of Predator, Spielberg also apparently approved Jurassic Park despite the fact it has obvious edge enhancement on selected scenes ( whether you think it's mild or not it is there ) i guess my point is that maybe directors are getting it wrong some of the time and cannot be relied to get it right anymore than a studio employee, after all didn't the makers of Back To The Future approve that release and if you ask me its a little too "clean" and HD video looking.

I don't think we can rely on every director getting it right, i'd prefer the cinematographer approval instead, what happens though when its a catalog title and the director and cinematographer are no longer with us.

As for boycotts and all that jazz, well do whatever your heart and head tells you, if you don't want to buy a release after you read a review ( i would suggest reading several reviews to get a consensus - even then the reviews can sometimes miss things or be wrong although using the word wrong can be debated as my idea of wrong and right might not be the same as the reviewers or other people ) but are interested in viewing it then rent it and make your mind up on the quality of the release after renting it, that's what i would do, i personally will not spend money on what i consider to be a poor release, by that i mean a release that from beginning to end is poor, if the release only has selected poor moments but has other things about it which are good or to which i consider good ( such as Jurassic Park ) then i'll buy.

As for Jaws, it could look stunning, it could look magnificent, the master could be reference quality, its what they do when they make the encode for blu ray that counts, thats where Universal is currently falling down, because while making that encode they are turning the noise reduction features on, they are sometimes using selected edge enhancement, so i put no faith in sites which say the "restoration" of Jaws looks stunning.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

Who's "Penton"? I can't find the reference.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/150 start at post 165. He was a popular "insider" on another forum who implied he was associated Sony. He was recently outed as not really being an insider by an actual Sony executive.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich /t/320885/a-few-words-about-the-sting-in-blu-ray/60#post_3929520

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/308191/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray/150 start at post 165. He was a popular "insider" on another forum who implied he was associated Sony. He was recently outed as not really being an insider by an actual Sony executive.

Very interesting considering how he used to occasionally put people down for their strong views ( including me ) i guess we all have the last laugh, i guess this is the lesson to be learned from the internet, that is how anyone can make a name up and claim to be an insider or something they are not.

 

[haineshisway]

Aint It Cool posted a glowing review of the new JAWS restoration and even went as far as to call for a theatrical rerelease. I'd love to take that as a good sign, but the cynic in me remembers how much Harry Knowles loves the way the PREDATOR: Ultimate Hunter Edition looks...
Harry Knowles didn't write the JAWS piece, but still.

No one over there knows anything about what films like these look like.