Am I the only person who thinks AI is a lousy transfer? (1 Viewer)

[Luc]

Josh, I posted before I got to see your post. If what you say is true, it does make sense but is pointless. Only through this discussion that an explanation such as this comes up, meaning not many would have caught it and most would just complain at the quality of the film. The effect was unnecessary if it is indeed an effect like you said. I suppose you could call it art of filmmaking but sense this is a major release, mainstream movie, don't the target audience need to be considered before employing such artisitic skill that few will notice and prefer?

 

[Josh Dial]

Luc,
You make a good point about the nature of a mainstream movie such as A.I. However, I think that Kubrick having a hand in things may have allowed a sort of duality to the picture. Such occurances are in many great modern days movies, such as "Full Metal Jacket" (to cite a Kubrick movie), where we have both a gritty war movie, and a subtle political statement about the nature of war (among other things).
I tend to think that finding hidden meaning, meaning that was probably intended by the writer/director/et cetera, is a bonus for film fans; though missing such gems don't discount one's intelligence or astutness. Some people watch movies to be entertained, some to be intrigued, some both. I myself try to cover all three. If I want to be entertained, sans deep meaning, I'll pop in jurrasic park 3 , if I want to be intrigued (or whatever you want to call it), I'll pop in 2001; if I want both, in goes any Kubrick movie (or similar fare).
cheers!
Josh

 

[Michael Reuben]

but the grain I don't understand so someone please explain.

Maybe this analogy will help. It's not perfect, but it's useful.
Go to a museum and look at an oil painting that depicts everday objects. The paint will have texture; it will be thicker at some points, thinner at others. Depending on the artist's technique, the texture may be even more noticeable than the images (think of a Van Gogh, with all those rough splotches of paint that add up to a flower, a tree, or even a face).
Now go to the museum shop and look at a postcard or poster of the same painting. It will no doubt be well-photographed and the colors will be accurately rendered. But the image will be flat, without texture. It won't quite be the same painting. Close, but not quite.
People who routinely complain about grain in film transfers want the texture taken out of their movies. By and large, I suspect they're people who don't see many films in theaters. They've forgotten that grain is part of the texture of film. Depending on the filming technique, it may be more or less visible. If the filmmakers have chosen a technique that renders grain more visible, a good video transfer is one that recreates the same effect as much as possible.
A.I. is a good transfer.
M.

 

[Josh_Hill]

A.I. had just a goregous transfer I thought. Probably the most film-like in my collection. Just great all around. Really preserves the look of the film.

 

[Sean Patrick]

well i finally got around to watching AI on my new 16:9 in progressive mode, and i have to say i think it looked granier than in the theater, but for the most part very film-like. There are some interior scenes, early on, that seem to have a very digital edge to the graniness that i found very distracting. It was like the grain was adding to some nasty artifacting in the fine details.

 

[John H Ross]

This is precisely why I have reservations about the success of HD-DVD, D-VHS, etc etc. There are so few films out there that look "perfect" once you exclude films 10+ years old, film with inherent grain, etc.

AI is still going to look grainy, even on the most state-of-the-art, hi-definition disc/tape media. So why invest in more equipment when regular DVD will do just fine?

John

 

[Eric Fisher]

Gladiator and BlackHawk Down have a similar grain to them also. Did anyone else notice this?