MGM Press Release: 007 on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Michael Elliott]

I know Robert and I don't want to sidetrack this thread too much but I'm really worried that this issue is going to overtake the format. Since it's still a young format, I'm hoping people can be educated on it so that it won't be a widespread problem. If P&S and EE were the evils of SD then I fear DVN and this grain problem will be the evils of BR.

I'm probably the only Blu-Ray owner in the world that hasn't bought any discs yet.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Some battles are worth fighting with some studios, and it's pretty much official word from on high that this particular battle with Fox isn't worth it, because they very obviously aren't listening, and not buying isn't sending that message. If they're offering it in your region, that's not really an argument anymore, and it's not informing the studio of the problem. It's pretty much doing the opposite. Seriously, if we've learned anything on this forum, it's that the only message not buying sends is that you don't care about the movie. The only way to get your message across is directly via contacting the studio.

If you believe they're getting your message about region codes when they're providing this title in your region, then you're sorely mistaken.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

It's hard to stay gone when I read things like "educate". My eyes don't like a film image to appear grainy. It's got nothing to do with "being taught" anything. You either find something aesthetically appealing, or you don't.

 

[TonyD]

grain is part of the film just the same as the plot and the actors and the sets and the special effects are, just the same as the aspect ratio is.

if i don't like the story or the plot or the actors then i probably won't watch a movie again if ever.
if you don't like grain then it's the same thing.
it's part of the movie, if you don't like an aspect of a movie that much, then you don't like the movie.

 

[Jim_K]

Unbelievable. Six James Bond movies get announced (yeah one of them pretty much sucks ) reportedly loaded with bonus content (great news to me) and there's almost nothing here but two pages of the usual [url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/f/f6/htf_imgcache_31645.gif] [/url]bitching, [url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/0/0a/htf_imgcache_31646.gif] [/url]whining ,[url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/a/ae/htf_imgcache_31647.gif] [/url]moaning and paranoid DNR induced hysteria [url=https://static.hometheaterforum.com/imgrepo/d/d6/htf_imgcache_31648.gif] [/url]

For fuck sake has anyone sampled these discs to merit all this noise? No wonder why the studios want nothing to do with this place anymore.

 

[Edwin-S]

In this case I agree with you. The discs haven't even been released and people are already complaining about grain (or the lack of it) with out ever seeing the actual releases. The least we could do is wait for reviews of the actual BD releases before bitching about them.

 

[Jesper Hall]

I seem to remember an interview with Charles Lauzirika from perhaps five years ago, where he said, that he was going to work on completely new supplements for alle the Bond films.

Lauzirika was the one who made the supplement on the original "Die Another Day"-disc, and his stuff was the stuff missing from the later Ultimate Edition. It makes sense that they would hold his stuff back until the later release.

According to the press release it doesn't seem to be this release though. I love the idea of Bond on Bluray, and why not release the Ultimate Editions now and then again with completely new extras in a few years.

That makes me think, that at some point (maybe the 50'th anniversary in 2012) we'll get the "Lauzirika"-versions on Bluray.

 

[troy evans]

It is very cool that Bond is now coming to Blu-ray. However, I won't touch these early releases until after Bond 22 hits Blu. If I'm buying all these damn movies again then I need an almighty complete Blu-ray collection. If I don't get it, then I'll buy Quantum on Blu and be done. I have Casino on Blu and as stated a few posts back the current sd dvd releases are packed to the brim with features and all kindsa shit. Not to mention, they look very nice. Don't get me wrong, I want to upgrade all my Bond films to Blu. I just need it to be all together. Not broke down into seperate titles that will run me hunderds of dollars before it's done. Maybe that's just me.

 

[Jari K]

Fully agree.

To me this is great news.

 

[Reagan]

Based on the information offered in the Patton thread and the fact that LDI did the work on all of the early Bond movies, I predict that the Bond BDs that LDI worked on will have a very clear, grain free picture with tons of picture detail, leaving almost all satisfied.

-R

 

[RobertR]

Better to make noise BEFORE the discs come out to help ensure that they're done right, than have to make even more noise about discs that weren't done right.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Normally, I would agree with you; but, realistically, by the time a press release is issued it is probably too late.

 

[RobertR]

That makes me nervous. Now we have to wait and see how these titles were handled.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I suspect they are simply going to port over the masters made for the UE editions. So the work was probably already done several years ago.

Doug

 

[gobrigavitch]

That's not true. Film grain is not part of a movie. Movies shot in Digital (ie Star Wars prequels) don't have film grain. They are a byproduct of film and have nothing to do with movies. I foresee film slowly being phased out of movie production so eventually any grain will have to be added artificially. Will it then be part of movies?

 

[TonyD]

if it's a byproduct of the film used then it is a choice to use that film stock and it is part of the movie.
also film grain can be added to a digitally shot film if the creators of the film decide to do so. no?

anyway since this is off topic i don't want to keep going on this

 

[StevenA]

By that logic, if you happened to find the color green to be aesthetically unappealing, I imagine you would support the removal of the color green from all films released on Blu-Ray.

As I see it, motion pictures should be presented on home media formats as accurately as possible, i.e. appearing as similar as possible to the original creative product. Thus, motion pictures shot on film should appear on Blu-Ray as what they are: motion pictures shot on film.

One's personal aesthetic preference is irrelevant, IMO, and the attempt to pander to such preferences is what leads to practices like pan and scan, the "enhancement" of mono soundtracks, and grain removal.

 

[Mark Oates]

I have mixed feelings about buying the Bond films again. I had them all on VHS, I had them all in SE form, and when the prices dropped I bought the UEs. Will I buy the BRs?

Maybe.

I have the current Casino Royale as one of my meagre 4 BR collection, and it's a constant source of wow. BRs have that effect on me. I think I'll most likely buy Live And Let Die, as that was my first Bond movie and I've always had a soft spot for it. If prices start to drop, I'll most likely upgrade the Roger Moore Bonds if I upgrade any. The prices will have to hit parity with DVD prices first.

Wandering offtopic and into the realms of grain and other film artifacts - I'm an old 8mm collector, and I fell in love with cinema back in the 1970s. I'm used to all the little foibles that celluloid has that tend to be eradicated by transfer to video - grain, print weave, hair-in-the-gate, projectionist's fingerprints, the whole gamut. As an amateur projectionist, I've relied on film grain to get an image as sharply focussed as possible - if the grain's sharp, the rest of the picture is. And what stuff grain is - it's the fabric of the moving image itself - tiny flecks of silver, or the coloured ghosts of flecks of silver making up the image. No two frames identically alike, so as the film passes through the projector at 24 frames per second, it boils like a closeup of the surface of the sun, almost like a living thing. It's special and it shouldn't be done away with.

I suspect that in the past, there have been problems balancing economy of bitrate with retaining a filmic image. 1970s movies tend to be grainier than modern movies, and if the authoring house skimps on the bitrate, you wind up with that hideous parquet-flooring effect and mosquito noise. There shouldn't be that problem with BR - so movies might start looking like movies again.

Otherwise, you might as well be watching a television programme.

Quick afterthought - are we all talking about the same thing? Are grainy films (which bother Joe), the same as films with proper film grain? Does Joe hate old movies, because they have higher levels of grain than, say, something shot on HDvideo? Could this do with quantifying (and turning into a thread of its own?)

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Great news here. I do like the recent box sets however. They look great imho when upsampled.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Actually this isn't true at all. Video has what is referred to as noise. That noise becomes more apparent as the gain of the camera is increased, but like film it is always there.

Grain IS very much a part of the movie because the detail of the film is contained in that grain. Also different films from different eras have very unique looks as a direct result of the films stocks available at the time. 3 strip technicolor films look the way they do because of the the processes used at the time. A 3 strip technicolor film from 1938 looks very different from a 3 strip film from 1951. I would be very dissapointed if they tried to make The Adventures of Robin Hood look like The Matrix.

Removing the grain is in effect changing the look of the film. It's kind of like taking Shakespeare and rewriting it in modern English. Its interesting but it loses much of its character, and I really wouldn't want to read it that way. Just as I don't really want to watch films that have had the grain removed.

Again are we going to remove the brush strokes from the Mona Lisa because it was a limitation of the technology available to da Vinci?

Doug