Paramount to re-do "Godfather" DVDs (1 Viewer)

[Jrf2]

I think we should all wait until we have more first hand reports from those who have the DVD's before we starting sound the alarm about crushed detail. Geoff D, who actually owns the discs, seems quite pleased. Those screencaps are good for showing us the new color timing, but in the end they are just screencaps.

 

[Geoff_D]

Yes, that scene with Michael and Clemenza looks just as blown-out as the cap suggests. But given that the apparent level of boosted contrast is nowhere near the same in the rest of the movie (e.g. the cap of Sonny's shot-up car has less contrast on the new version) I reckon it was a stylistic choice for that one scene. It's set in a dingy room or basement with one light on the wall and the blown-out look fits perfectly.

Folk want to pick nits with the restored versions, fine, they're entitled to an opinion. But make no mistake, this is no Lowry-on-auto-pilot cock up a la Bond. This project was overseen by RAH, supervised by Coppola and approved by Gordon Willis; when it comes to The Godfather, it doesn't get any more definitive than that.

There's a revealing little article at CNET about the restoration: A digital offer 'The Godfather' can't refuse | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

 

[Richard--W]

I'm buying it.

The Godfather played for over a year at the same theater, and I saw it many times in 1973 and several times at repertory screenings after that. I like the look of this restoration. It responds to my complaints about the mid-1990's re-release which was all wrong.

Random disjointed thoughts, as an aside: theatrical screens are white mattes. They are not luminous like our television displays. The expression "silver screen" used to be literal. Originally, movie screens were aluminized. They had silver in them, just like film emulsions had silver in them. They reflected, they were bright and sharp, they were luminous when the projector bounced light off them. Todays' white matte screens don't give anywhere near as good an image, not even when the projection is up to SMPTE standards for brightness (which, outside of L.A., is rare. Projection has never been worse in the USA). One can't expect a television display to be the same as theatrical projection. Technically and aesthetically it's two different experiences. The Godfather was meticulously lit for theatrical projection. It has never looked right on television. The screen captures look much closer to what it should be now.

 

[RickardL]

Actually, IMHO almost every second sceencap for part I and II shows overblown contrast and/or brightness, most notably in brighter areas.
This is for calibration illustration but it exemplifies what I am talking about:
Lion Audio/Video Consultants
See the examples for "Brightness Too High": the increased brightness actually decreases the dynamic range of the display, and will cause the picture to appear washed out and incapable of reproducing proper shadow detail. (scene with Sonny's shot up car...)

and for "Contrast Too High": Initially, this appears to create additional "punch" in the image, but extended viewing of the picture becomes quickly fatiguing... Note the complete loss of detail in Benjamin's cheeks and nose as the highlight details are crushed... reaches peak White at about 80% of the way up the Gray Scale, causing all details above this point to be "crushed" together.

 

[Vincent_P]

Yes, and the Godfather films also have "black crush" because Gordon Willis likes inky, deep blacks, so what? You're arguing against the stylistic choices of the filmmakers. Seeing every bit of detail in an image frequently isn't the point. That's why cinematography is often referred to as "painting with light". These are artistic expressions, they aren't meant to be blanket representations of actual reality.

Vincent

 

[Cees Alons]

Hear, hear!
And screen caps don't say a thing anyway. The shot can easily go through an overblown contrast from (and to) a differently looking image.


Cees

 

[BillyFeldman]

This is right. In this day and age of DVD and Blu-Ray for classics, I think everyone knows more than the director and the director of photography - everyone seems to think they know what's supposed to be, and yet this transfer was supervised every inch of the way by its director and cameraman, as pointed out above. As someone said, it doesn't get closer to the source than that. But if folks are only used to seeing these films on the older DVDs then that must be what they're used to - I think most of the nitpicking comes from people who haven't seen the film in 35mm. IMHO.

 

[John Hodson]

Announced now for September; DVD Times has the R1 SD set details here.

And the BD details are here.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Thanks John for the link.

Will probably be my first BR Movie as my PS 3 arrived today.