Some bad news concerning the dvd release of the original "King Kong" (1 Viewer)

[Jim Peavy]

No need to get snippy...

What you said is literally not what I said.

So there!

 

[Patrick McCart]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, are you saying that you define a DVD as being of "Reference Quality" based on whether you think the film is "good" or not? If so then that would no doubt be the first time I have ever seen that term defined that way.

I mean film in the technical sense. Because a 1960's film doesn't look as spotless as a digital film made in 2002, should we give lower ratings?

Reference quality means that the DVD exhibits the image and sound in the best possible way. For example, Sunset Blvd. has mono sound. It's likely the best possible sound which can be heard from a 52 year old film recorded in mono. Why isn't it reference quality? Because it's not DTS 6.1 ES? On the other hand, reference quality would NOT go for a DVD of 2001: A Space Odyssey that had 1.0 mono. That's not the best for the sound.

For video, a film on DVD such as Singin' In The Rain looks wonderful. While grain has been erased, dye-transfer Technicolor prints would have an extremely low-grain look. If it looked like Artisan's "wonderful" The Quiet Man DVD(s), it wouldn't even be near reference quality.

A clear mono track for a film without obvious problems is reference quality. What can you say is wrong about a mono track like Citizen Kane's? It's not 5.1, thus isn't as good as a surround sound mix? Most people can tell that mono doesn't have as many channels as stereo surround.

And one word about Kane, the brightness "problem" can be corrected to an extent by just adjusting your monitor controls. I usually alter settings for each DVD I have, and doing this for Kane provided the correct brightness for certain scenes.

 

[Thomas T]

Re: "I'm sorry, I simply do not understand this way of thinking"

Mr. Peavy, let me try to explain as simply as I can. Some of us prefer that classic films look like real movies which include grain, not videos that are so "cleaned" up that their look no longer represents their original look in pristine condition.

It's like taking a photograph with a state of the art camera of a Van Gogh painting and then air brushing all the texture from the painting. It will certainly look nice and clean but we've lost some of the quality that made the original work memorable.

 

[Kevin M]

Well, I now see my thought that you had a unique way of defining the term RQ was correct. Although I have to say Patrick, don't be surprised if a great many people question you on this because most of the people I know who are interested in film and film transfers, and I would think a great many people here at HTF, define the term Reference Quality as something you would "refer" to in order to demonstrate the apex of the medium, not just as the best transfer a film has had on home video irregardless of imperfections due to age and source material.
Criterion's transfer of Spartacus is absolutely beautiful as is the DD 5.1 representation of the original 6 track mag soundtrack, however due to the limitations of sound recording/mastering of the time and the badly deteriorated condition of the film elements themselves it will never be exactly of "Reference Quality" when compared to other transfers of films from even the same period, and that is no knock to the work of Robert Harris and the rest of the restoration team, what they did for the film was and is wonderful, but there is only so much that can be done for films of a certain age and condition. And this certainly applies to an optical effects laden film as old as King Kong. You will never be able to raise it quite to RQ, not unless you want to totally compromise what the filmmakers intended or simply re-make the film.

Nonetheless, you can use the term RQ anyway you wish Patrick, and more power to you, but don't be surprised if people raise their eyebrows and ask the same questions that I did because, as I said, most people I know use the term as I described above, being something you would refer to in order to demonstrate the apex of the medium, and King Kong will never be that (as good as the restoration might hopefully be).

 

[Jeff_HR]

I thought that this thread had been closed by Mr Crawford. Nice to see that it is still open.

 

[Robert Crawford]

At this time, there isn't a need to close this thread.





Crawdaddy

 

[Jim Peavy]

To say the DVDs I mentioned no longer "look like real movies" (as well as your Van Gogh analogy) is, with all due respect, an absurdly over-the-top statement. Did you see Citizen Kane in it's original run? If not (which I'm guessing is the case), how do you know what the "original look" looked like anyway? I've still not heard a definitive answer on the proper aspect ratio of Horror of Dracula, a film made 18 years after Kane (and one of which 2 of it's lead actors are still with us). Forget about the amount of grain present in a film's image, we can't even find out at what proportions many films were originally composed at! And you're willing to blast these (IMO, wonderful) DVDs because to you (and, granted, others) the amount of film grain isn't enough? I'm sorry, Mr. T., I simply do not agree with your "simple" explanation.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I've seen original 35mm prints of Citizen Kane - both nitrate and safety - from the 1941 release and later reissues. The DVD doesn't look like any of them, a lot of the "life" of the image has been stripped away by the noise reduction. The DVD looks very nice, but it doesn't look like the film anymore.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Nonetheless, you can use the term RQ anyway you wish Patrick, and more power to you, but don't be surprised if people raise their eyebrows and ask the same questions that I did because, as I said, most people I know use the term as I described above, being something you would refer to in order to demonstrate the apex of the medium, and King Kong will never be that (as good as the restoration might hopefully be).

Home theaters have a purpose of showing films in the best possible way with the current technology. Not having films showing off your home theater.

I'm just saying, you're not proving anything by saying King Kong isn't as reference quality as a newer film. Why not apply reference quality in an adjusted way? Anyone knows that a film made in 1933 wasn't made on digital video, recorded with DTS 6.1 ES in mind, and with courser grain stock.

I want to know EXACTLY how King Kong would acheive reference quality to your standards.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm just saying, you're not proving anything by saying King Kong isn't as reference quality as a newer film. Why not apply reference quality in an adjusted way?

Depends on your point of reference. Sure, Kong may look as good as humanly possible - or equivalent to the way it looked in 1933 - but few will regard it as "reference quality" because most people take that term to mean the absolute best the FORMAT can offer. The expression was never meant to cover the best a movie can look - it's to judge the top that we can get from the format. The adjust it for age makes no sense - while I'll happily state that something old looks terrific for its age, I wouldn't call it "reference quality" unless it looked and sounded as good as something modern. Otherwise it simply confuses people...

 

[Patrick McCart]

Depends on your point of reference. Sure, Kong may look as good as humanly possible - or equivalent to the way it looked in 1933 - but few will regard it as "reference quality" because most people take that term to mean the absolute best the FORMAT can offer. The expression was never meant to cover the best a movie can look - it's to judge the top that we can get from the format. The adjust it for age makes no sense - while I'll happily state that something old looks terrific for its age, I wouldn't call it "reference quality" unless it looked and sounded as good as something modern. Otherwise it simply confuses people...

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Jim Peavy]

As I said, I don't understand how anybody could say these DVDs have robbed the "life" of the films. Maybe I'm not enough of a videophile to see it. Maybe...

It's not as if they "digitized" the image and completely recreated it in CGI. The films look very clean, but we certainly agree a clean print is a good thing, right?(!)

It's just the ultimate of ironies that me and my friends (back in the 70's, pre-home-video-revolution era) would be in heaven when a station would play a 35mm print on TV instead of their standard 16, or even a decent print instead of a spliced and diced mess. And now, when great films are being given beautiful DVD presentations, many say they're too clean (!). Lordy, lordy.

If these transfers err on the side of too little grain (and for me that's a big "if"), better that than too much. I'm grateful for what they (studios and DVD houses) have given me (which is considerable), and for what is available to me as a home theater fan. Ya' gotta' pick the hill worth dyin' on, and for me, this ain't it.

 

[Kevin M]

"Thanks for proving my point."

How the hell do you see this as proving your point exactly?


Now if you want to continue this off topic discussion I suggest you start a new thread and I'll join you there as I generally don't like hijacking threads the way that we have.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Why not apply reference quality in an adjusted way?

Because, you would destroy the word: reference.
Which is pretty important in the phase; "Reference Quality"!
If you have a "King Kong" reference, you would then have too have a "Dances with Wolf's" RQ, and a "Harry Meet Sally" RQ, and a "Rock & Roll High School" RQ, etc, etc, etc.
You would have to have a RQ for sound for 80's stereo movies, 50's mono, 60's re-mixed for 5.1 movies, 90's 5.1 remixed for 6.1, 2000+ Dolby Digital movies remixed for DTS, 90's SDDS movies remix for Dolbly Digital, etc, etc, etc.
Where is your reference?
It just got 'buried' under the weight of your proposal to reference 'every' movie differently.
Reference refers to; The Best.
And "The Best", refers too: The best it can possibly be by "today's" standard.
Not, yesterday's standard, not last week's.
Reference Quality's reference is today.
If you would like too state that the PQ of the new "King Kong" DVD, is the best it has ever been, and I hope that's becomes true, I believe people will agree with you [OK, not 'everyone'!]
But if you say "King Kong" is RQ, it will be compared to "Blade II", for sound & visual's, for which comparison it will not fair well.
Unfortunate as that may be.

 

[Thomas T]

Mr. Peavy, no one is saying you are wrong for feeling the way you do. Since you claimed not to understand how some of us feel differently from you, I merely attempted to explain it to you, I wasn't challenging you.

If you like your movies to look more like video than film, that's your perogative. You do not have to justify your position.

And for the record, yes, I have seen Citizen Kane and North By Northwest in theatres many times and while their cleaned up video versions are indeed quite handsome, they don't resemble the theatrical incarnations.

 

[Jim Peavy]

I've put in my 2 cents. Anyone else care to chime in?

 

[Patrick McCart]

Hey go right ahead Pat, if you wish to put your own spin on the term then do so but don't be surprised when people get confused and flat out disagree with with that use of the term.

You're basically saying that this will be a "reference quality transfer but only in the context that it is for a 1933 film that has been digitally cleaned up and released on DVD in the year 2003/2004" and I say that is a pretty large "catch all" pallet to interpret a easily understood basic term with.

It's like someone saying "The Godfather is a reference quality DVD because it looks better than it has ever looked before...but only if you ignore all the flecks and dirt and don't compare it to other DVD transfers of films from the same era" (BTW I happen to like The Godfather's transfer nonetheless, fleck's and all.).
I'm sorry Patrick but I disagree with your interpretation of the term Reference Quality and I think your logic/approach is flawed, You want to define things on your own terms but you don't bother to define those terms to others until three threads asking you what the heck you're talking about

Also, you seem to think that showing of a Home Theater means everything to me and you couldn't be further from the truth, I'll take a well executed transfer that has all the grain that film naturally exhibits and a good Mono soundtrack over a digitally modified & homogenized transfer with a silly over produced 5.1 track any day.
That's why I asked in my first post if this was an actual physical restoration along the lines of Vertigo or Metropolis or is it just a cleaned up video transfer along the lines of North by Northwest or Citizen Kane as I would like to see a restored King Kong in a theater.

This logic is not flawed. It's NOT logical to look down on an older film's picture or audio quality because it's not as perfect as a brand new film. It's logical to adjust ratings from film to film.

The Godfather, which you mentioned is about 80% reference. The color is wonderful, but some scenes obviously came from lesser elements (and I'm not talking about the occasional stock footage). It could be improved if a better restoration happened. The sound is excellent.

This method of analyzing doesn't seem to be popular, but I'd like to see someone mention at least ONE 1930's film on DVD with reference quality video and audio. There has to be ONE film that can be supported.

 

[Jim Peavy]

!!

1,2,3,4...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

This logic is not flawed. It's NOT logical to look down on an older film's picture or audio quality because it's not as perfect as a brand new film. It's logical to adjust ratings from film to film.

You're exactly right about that. It's not logical for me to give something like King Kong an "F" for audio because it'd sound terrible compared to 2003 films. Of course ratings and opinions should vary based on the age of the material.

But "reference quality" shouldn't. That's a totally different issue. "Reference quality" relates the CURRENT standards of the best. Apparently nothing anyone says will get you to understand that. It's one thing to argue that films from 1933 shouldn't be slammed because they don't match up with films from 2003, but it's totally different to argue that the former is "reference quality" because it's really great for its age.

For the 97th time: "reference quality" connects to the standards of the current era, not the past, and they constantly change. Heck, what we regarded as a "reference" DVD in 1998 might not pass muster today...

 

[Patrick McCart]

Which is what - that you're the only person who thinks of "reference quality" in the way you do? Clearly you have an unusual spin on the term - don't get snotty because I try to explain why no one else seems to see it the same way.

No, there are others here who acknowledge that older films can be reference quality and aren't expecting a Moulin Rouge or The Fellowship of the Ring. In fact, they ADAPT their analyzation to fit.

In fact, LOTR: FOTR looks better than Moulin Rouge, so MR can't be reference quality, right? There is always a bigger fish.