Has detailed critiquing of Blu-Rays gone overboard. (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

The overriding problem with any cogent discussion re: Patton is that viewing environments and film knowledge around the web are all over the place, as one would expect.

As I stated early on, Patton looks superlative on a small monitor, but things go down rapidly in direct proportion to monitor size and quality from there.

My problem, and my current mindset is simple.

I feel that anyone purchasing a Blu-ray disc is entitled to superior quality. The films deserve it, and the consumer is paying for it.

This is based upon two things.

1. The Blu-ray system has incredible capabilities.

2. The original marketing and promises that we've been reading for two years about reproducing the theatrical image in one's home.

Any dolt should be able to purchase a Blu-ray disc, fully knowing that it will look great on any quality system OF ANY RATIONAL SIZE. About a month ago I viewed Warner's transfer of Grand Prix vis 2k projection on a screen measuring 10 x 18 feet.

I'd better repeat.

TEN by EIGHTEEN FEET!

And it looked terrific!

I know that someone is going to ask "what is rational size," so lets call it up to 120" diagonal in 16:9. That's fair, surely.

That means that if someone is currently viewing at 34 or 42 inches, the image should be superior. The fact that they may not be able to see problems on infected discs should never come into play.

And that individual should be able to take that same disc when they move up to a larger screen and KNOW that they will not have problems.

The public should not have to second guess quality.

The web is not helpful to this regard, as many reviewers still have no idea what it is that they're looking at, and are incapable of sharing accurate information with the public.

And THAT is why my comments regarding Patton changed over several day's time.

My point is that it really doesn't matter if someone viewing on a 42" LCD is happy. That just isn't the point.

That same person must be happy WITH THAT SAME DISC several years hence, viewing on a 100" projection screen.

To achieve this the studios will have to put something into place to patrol their own product.

Sony seems to be doing this well, after a bit of a rocky beginning.

Fox had some recent changes which should place their output, once the pipeline is emptied into a similar situation.

Warner is now working on getting their Blu-ray act together.

Disney's new releases are coming along nicely. Discs like Gangs of New York from Disney are stupid errors, based upon the use of archaic masters that were horrific to begin with. If they attempt to release Cold Mountain as it is, they will once again create a dilemma for themselves.

Paramount's new releases should be fine.

But someone. A human, with a keen eye for film and a passion for its reproduction on video must be in charge.

Simple.

RAH

 

[PaulDA]

I recall the comments and have followed the thread from its inception. My point is there is a difference between "undesirable" and "unwatchable". I want the best quality I can get, of course. But if the difference is between watching a flawed copy of a film (say, Patton) and not watching it at all, it's no contest. I'd rather watch my first edition SD DVD than not watch it at all. Now, this doesn't mean I'll BUY Patton on BD as it is (though I will likely rent it--just to see the fuss for myself, at this point). Nor do I think anyone is wrong to A) complain and B) not buy the BD. Moreover, I completely agree with RAH when he says one should not worry about how big a display one has when selecting a BD to watch. I have a 64 inch 16x9 screen with a front projector (small room, but I sit just under 8 feet away, so it's big enough for me), along with a 22 inch HD monitor (for when I need to screen just a few scenes when preparing notes for class--I don't fire up the PJ for anything under than 90 minutes--usually at least 120 minutes).

Ultimately, I think it's a matter of degree. Complaints are more persuasive when they are reasonably expressed, rather than hyperbolic rants.

 

[Josh Dial]

I don't think it's overreacting, or "going overboard," to expect high quality products. Further, it's certainly not overboard to complain, even vehemenantly, about said quality, when it has been promised and promoted to be of that high quality. And quite frankly, I think that claiming such comments to be hypberole, is, well, hyperbole. Certainly, some posts may not be structured in the most the constructive manner; however, the central complaint remains valid and fair.

If a studio promises "perfect" quality (kindly substitute any synonym you wish), and fails to deliver on that promise, especially as a result of its own "meddling," (for example, excessive DNR), then it deserves to be taken to task.

 

[PaulDA]

The day I take a promise of "perfect quality" seriously, FOR ANYTHING AT ALL, is the day I will resign from society. Marketing slogans do not reflect reality as a general rule (unless the slogan is bland enough to be a truism).

I fully support people's right to complain. I do not have to abide unnecessary exaggeration (which usually cheapens the point) in order to do so. And having worked in several "customer service" jobs, I know that the most credible complaint is the most reasonably voiced one. And even strong complaints do not require exaggeration to make their points, if they are serious ones. If someone just wants to vent, that's a different kettle of fish--but let's not confuse ranting with constructive criticism.

 

[Phil Menard]

If one can tolerate hyperbole in marketing, then one should be able to tolerate it in criticism.

 

[PaulDA]

Only if one has so low an opinion of people as to not expect better from informed individuals (as hobbyists usually are) than from marketing departments whose "content providers" are often ignorant of the workings of the products they promote. Moreover, you're assuming I would "tolerate" marketing hyperbole if I engaged in direct exchanges with the authors of such hyperbole--I would not (not in the sense of "tolerate" you seem to mean--I would use the word "endorse").

Beyond all that, countering one set of distortions with another is not conducive to advancing anyone's understanding of, well, anything. Don't get me wrong--hyperbole does have its place. It can be used to great comical effect. It is, however, rarely productive as a means of expressing a serious concern.

 

[Douglas Monce]

This all depends on what the individual viewer can tolerate. Personally I can't tolerate the waxy look of people's faces in the BD of Patton I find it distracting and I am unable to pay attention to the movie. I sold my copy of Patton because I won't watch it again. I probably won't watch Patton again until there is a re-release that doesn't have a sledge hammer of DNR used on it.

Doug

 

[JonZ]

"Discs like Gangs of New York from Disney are stupid errors, based upon the use of archaic masters that were horrific to begin with."



So what can be done about it? Is it as simple as creating a new master or are there other issues that are more difficult to solve?

 

[Robert Harris]

It comes down to a lab order and a direction. It ain't brain surgery.

 

[PaulDA]

That is fine. It does not meet the level of quality you expect for the money spent (or at all) and you've acted accordingly. But does that make it "unwatchable" as an absolute statement? If someone has never seen Patton, would you tell them not to bother with any presentation (70mm presentations in cinema are not available to most people) and just sit out the film awaiting for a "watchable" version? I know that "it's better than the SD DVD" is not considered sufficient grounds for a lot of people to "upgrade" to the BD, but isn't it considered at least "better" than any previous home iteration?

Your posts (that I've read and recall, at any rate) have always struck me as reasonable, so I presume you would tell someone in such a situation that whatever home video iteration they watch, including the BD, will be a far cry from what it can be visually, but it is still worth seeing at least once via rental. Or is it truly so far beyond redemption that even that is not worth the effort? (for the record, I've yet to encounter any presention of a film--in any format--that was simply "unwatchable". Way below ideal, of course, but "unwatchable"--not yet)

Anyway, I don't wish to belabour the point any further (probably have gone on too long on it already). Perhaps it's because of all the essays I've had to mark recently (with all the needless exaggeration and hyperbole therein) that has made me more irritable in the face of hyperbole than usual. I guess I'd like to see some balance restored, that's all.

 

[Robert Harris]

A point that seems to be being missed is that for some at least, Patton in high quality Blu-ray might well be cause to upgrade to BD.

As far as "unwatchable" is concerned, I find it quite viewable (as noted in the past) on small monitors.

Projected, I find the disc "unwatchable."

 

[Dave H]

And money, no?

Aren't the studios probably thinking *at this point in time* it's not worth spending the money to do new masters....and also allows them to re-release the title down the road with new extras, maybe an extended version, and a "new transfer"? That might sound a bit cynical, but I'm just basing it on what I saw with DVD.

 

[JonZ]

Well that doesnt exactly describe....

""The best High Definition Picture."
"Blu-ray disc's unrivaled capacity delivers the ultimate high definition experience directly into your home."
"Beyond high definition. Pristine picture. True to the original master quality."
"Best high definition picture available with unsurpassed capacity."

... does it?

They knew they were releasing a shitty product and didnt care.

So they wont get my money.

I bought SD titles that I knew were lacking because I wanted to have them on DVD over VHS or LD. But I wont be doing that for bluray.

GONY was a must have title for me too.

 

[PaulDA]

I stand corrected regarding your opinion of "unwatchable" (though I appreciate the caveat of display size--something that will matter to many people, in a negative sense, as most people have what you would likely categorize as a "small monitor").

Ironically, while I was already planning to add a BD player (it's been promised to me as a gift--either for my birthday or for Xmas, though I get to pick the player) AND Patton was not really a motive for "going blu" for me, it may well be among the first, if not the first, titles I will screen so I can see for myself what all the fuss is about.

I have made several HD DVD purchases based upon your reviews and have yet to be disappointed, so my anecdotal experience suggests I will not be happy with what Patton looks like--however, curiosity is a powerful motivator for me, so I will view it sooner rather than later (once I have the player).

 

[Douglas Monce]

I suppose it would all depend on the person I was recommending it to or not recommending as it were. If it was someone that I knew had a fairly good knowledge of of what film is supposed to look like, I would warn them that the film could look much better than it does.

Honestly however because people have very different tastes in movies in general, I almost never recommend that someone buy a film sight unseen. I typically suggest renting first to see if the film is worth buying to them.

Beyond redemption for me, on the equipment that I'm watching it with....yeah.

I had a hard time watching the first DVD release of To Catch a Thief because it looked so doopy. The newer version is much more palatable however it may have had a little too much grain removal, though its hard to tell on an SD DVD.

Doug

 

[DavidJ]

Thanks again for your insightful comments. It is great that we have a forum like this where people are passionate about film and home theater.

 

[Vern Dias]

On a side note:

The "word" is "Dupey". We can make a dupe of a source. There is no way to make a doop of a source....

Vern

 

[Ron-P]

It's funny, I see 10+ pages on a 10 year old movie which looks fantastic on Blu that's getting torn up and yet tonight I watched 28 Day Later which looks like utter shit on Blu, worse then some SD-DVDs I own and yet I cannot even find a thread on it.

 

[PaulDA]

It's quite simple. The source material for Patton has more resolution than BD and should look much better--the source material for 28 Days Later was deliberately shot on low resolution cameras as an aesthetic choice and looks about as good as possible on the BD. If Patton (a 38 year old movie, by the way) was shot the same way as 28 Days Later (assuming such a thing were possible at that time), then no one would be complaining.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Maybe that's because those of us who own 28 Days Later are familiar enough with the movie to know that the BR is faithful to the source. The film was shot on consumer-grade digital video gear. That was the only way they could afford to make it.

EDIT: PaulDA beat me to it, but I think the reference to a "10 year old movie" was to Dark City.

M.