special effects becoming noticeable (1 Viewer)

[Ethan Riley]

It's not just old films. I was watching the blue of "Once Upon a Time" which uses LOTS of green screen. The CGI is pretty shoddy. Looks at everybody's hair when they're standing in front of a green screen.

 

[Alan Tully]

It doesn't bother me at all. In every WW2 film at sea I've seen, you can see the wire pulling the torpedo along, fine with me. Early digital effects look a bit shonky now, & special effects now won't look so good in ten years time. The question is; do you fix them. In the 50's, War Of The Worlds, do you get rid of the wires holding up the Martian war machines, it would be easy to do. And you can see a lot of wire work in 80's & 90's action films. Films are what they are, & I think the older one's are better acted, better written, better photographed & better edited, I can take the odd obvious special effects shot.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi billy,

i would prefer not to see the wires, because it was not the intention of the show to do so.

but in this particular episode of tz, it totally wrecks the entire story. and it is such a deep and moving and meaningful story. twilight zone and rod serling, at his best.

 

[Retro00064]

If the wires, etc., are visible in the original negative but not visible in original release prints, then perhaps they should simply use the best available example of such an original print instead of using the original negatives. I think that would be reasonable. It is, quite frankly, a bonus that we are able to see films from the original negatives these days; back in the day, the best quality that any motion picture shot on negative film could be seen in is from a print one generation away from the negative. Painting out wires, etc., in a transfer of a film is revisionism. And unless a film is also made available in its original form in high quality, warts and all, then I am firmly against revisionism.

 

[Bob_S.]

One thing I never noticed until Blu-Ray is that the shot of Batman on the rooftop in the 1989 film is a cartoon! I love it!

I noticed this the first time I saw it on dvd. It's a great comic book panel shot though.

 

[Richard V]

When the original WotW was re-released on SD, boy, were the wires visible. Were they meant to be seen, no, not at all. What would happen if it came out in BD? I would want 2 releases on it. One of the original, darkened like it was meant to be seen in the theaters in 1953 and a release that removed the wires (or maybe scenes in the extras section), just to see what it would look like. Some may think that was talking blasphemy, but I bet some people would like the choice.

There is a quite spirited discussion in another thread here regarding the "wire" question in WotW

 

[jimmyjet]

hi richard,

can you post the url ?

do people really want to see wires and other such stuff that was never supposed to be shown ?

hi john,

i have no problem with multiple releases. however with this episode, i was not requesting that it all be put back to 240 resolution. i enjoy the clarity - i remember all the halos and such when i was a kid.

i just dont want it to spoil the show. i dont think i would care much whether they dulled the resolution, or used some other technology - just so the faces can not be seen, as was the intent of the original show.

btw, does anyone here have the dvd release of the twilight zone ? if so, can you see the faces ?

i dont have a timer on my blu-ray player, but the one very obvious time that i recall seeing the faces clearly is toward the beginning of the show, when the first nurse walks in.

most of the shots of the doctors and nurses dont have the face in the picture at all. but in this particular case, the nurse walks behind a screen of some sort, which was good enough at 240 to hide the face. but at 1080, the face came in much too clearly.

i think there were a couple other instances where the faces showed too clearly, but this is the one that really comes to mind. it hit me right away.

 

[Douglas R]

I saw WAR OF THE WORLDS for the first time theatrically round about 1963 and the wires could be easily seen then. They never bothered me because everyone knew/knows that these are special effects. If anything it adds to the charm. What does it matter if wires can be seen - I just don't understand how they can spoil someone's enjoyment of the film.

 

[Richard V]

hi richard,

can you post the url ?

do people really want to see wires and other such stuff that was never supposed to be shown ?

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/322514-the-war-of-the-worlds-1953-possible-blu-ray-release/?hl=%2Bwar+%2Bthe+%2Bworlds

 

[Johnny Angell]

I never thought I'd read complaints about a Blu-ray's transfer being too clear. The whole point of this format is to create a window that offers as close a view to the original negative as possible. I certainly don't want studios to start making random decisions about what should and shouldn't be seen.

If it's there, I want to see it, apart from the rare wire or garbage matte. Even then, I have little to no problem with it. TZ was filmed on film, but shown on television, which hid a lot of flaws. That doesn't make a case for reintruducing the limitations and flaws when a superior format comes around.

If your goal is fuzzy images, stick with DVD.

You just zig-zagged around the OP's original point, made about one specific TZ episode, in order to support the blanket "No Changes!" viewpoint. This is not a case of wires showing revealing special effects, this is a case of a critical plot point being revealed early. Come on, you've got to admit the original producers didn't want this revealed until the end of the episode.

I've seen it written many times here, home theater should reproduce as closely as possible the theatrical (in this case living room) experience. For me that means putting me in the seat and letting me forget I'm watching a movie.

First, it wasn't a flaw for the creators of the episode to cloud the image on the equipment on which they expected the episode to be viewed. Second, if the higher resolution eliminates the mystery intended in the episode, it is a very reasonable to drop the resolution in that one scene so as not to compromise it. Maybe there is a better way to do it without creating some goofy modern effect that alters the orginally intended image. However, it's by no means silly.

Yup.

I saw WAR OF THE WORLDS for the first time theatrically round about 1963 and the wires could be easily seen then. They never bothered me because everyone knew/knows that these are special effects. If anything it adds to the charm. What does it matter if wires can be seen - I just don't understand how they can spoil someone's enjoyment of the film.

I grew up in the 50's and saw lots of chintzy FX. That always took me out of the movie. I don't want to watch a movie as an industry technician would, I want to watch it as a fan.

I remember an interview with Spielberg and he mentioned seeing the wires in WotW. He got excited and liked it because it reminded him of the people who made the film. That's fine for him, he's an insider. I'm a fan. I don't want to be reminded I'm watching a movie any more than is necessary.

Let me get excited about the "how's and why's" of movie making while listening to the commentary or watching the making of doc. Not during the movie.

 

[Gary Seven]

I have this Twilight Zone set and I did see 'Eye of the Beholder', and while it is indeed more clear, I think there is an over-reaction to this. Having seen the episode many times, I naturally knew the ending. Knowing that, I was looking to see if the faces could be more easily seen, and they can, with some effort, but it is still vague. I think the OP has also seen this episode before so I would be curious to see if someone who has not seen this episode before, would the BR representation ruin it for that person? I highly doubt it.

The last thing I want is some studio schmuck making arbitrary changes to source based on what one thinks should be and not be seen.

 

[TravisR]

You just zig-zagged around the OP's original point, made about one specific TZ episode, in order to support the blanket "No Changes!" viewpoint. This is not a case of wires showing revealing special effects, this is a case of a critical plot point being revealed early. Come on, you've got to admit the original producers didn't want this revealed until the end of the episode.

I'm not 100% sure exactly which shot in Eye Of The Beholder that the OP was referring to but if it's what I think, it's still not a give away because it's early on in the episode and at that moment, you don't exactly know what the situation is so the gag isn't really revealed. And if it's the shot that I think he's talking about, it was also noticeable in syndication and DVD releases too.

And I love the episode but if I'm being honest, the twist is pretty obvious to today's viewer who would be aware that the TZ frequently employed a twist ending and realize something was up because they spend the entire episode not showing anyone's face.

EDIT: Gary basically made my point a minute before me.

 

[MatthewA]

What I find most noticeable is the increase in grain and contrast caused by dupes from optical effects. Transitions in 1950s CinemaScope films and the pre-Roger Rabbit attempts to combine live-action and animation footage are some examples. In the latter case, the only way around that is to recombine the elements (depends on whether they still exist, but doing it right would not be cheap). In the former, it depends on whether the transitions were cut into the negative or A/B rolled.

Visible wires, boom mics and other production errors are relatively simple to remove; it's merely a question of paying for the time it takes to do so without cutting corners. I would rather see studios do that than dumb down the picture quality to make them less obvious.

 

[moviebuff75]

Regarding the wires in "The Wizard of Oz." I wish they had left them. They may have not been seen when static, but what about when they moved about the frame?

 

[Brandon Conway]

I noticed the wires during the dance flashback in Airplane! when watching it a couple weeks ago. Would rather not see them, but at least with that film it plays into the comedy of the scene.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi gary,

i agree with you, most instances, regarding some studio schmuck making changes.

but in this particular episode, there is no argument as to what was supposed to be seen.

i hadnt seen any of these episodes since they were originally aired, but this one in particular hit me hard when i first saw it. so i did know that the doctors were ugly.

however, i did not recall details.

when they showed the front view of the nurse behind the screen, i said to myself - "she does not look that ugly". i had completely forgotten how they actually looked until the last shot.

they are not dressed up in those pig faces earlier on. and obviously serling was trying to save money, since there was no reason to hide the faces anymore than he already did - with the 240 resolution.

had i never seen it before, it is possible that i would have forgotten what the face looked like in the earlier part of the show, and been completely surprised.

but if serling was making that show in 1080 today, you can bet your bottom boots that one would not be able to discern the faces at all, early on.

i think serling may have deliberately chosen to show front of the face behind a screen, attempting to draw away some from the fact that the faces are not shown during the rest of the episode.

in any case, what a wonderful, wonderful lesson learned. and i saw it when i was about 6-7, when "cute" was the only thing that one would talk about, regarding girls.

 

[schan1269]

And Bonanza would have spent more money on the sets...Little house on the prairie would have real walls...Adamms Family would have had better dungeon walls...God 1080p sucks...

 

[haineshisway]

hi gary,

i agree with you, most instances, regarding some studio schmuck making changes.

but in this particular episode, there is no argument as to what was supposed to be seen.

i hadnt seen any of these episodes since they were originally aired, but this one in particular hit me hard when i first saw it. so i did know that the doctors were ugly.

however, i did not recall details.

when they showed the front view of the nurse behind the screen, i said to myself - "she does not look that ugly". i had completely forgotten how they actually looked until the last shot.

they are not dressed up in those pig faces earlier on. and obviously serling was trying to save money, since there was no reason to hide the faces anymore than he already did - with the 240 resolution.

had i never seen it before, it is possible that i would have forgotten what the face looked like in the earlier part of the show, and been completely surprised.

but if serling was making that show in 1080 today, you can bet your bottom boots that one would not be able to discern the faces at all, early on.

i think serling may have deliberately chosen to show front of the face behind a screen, attempting to draw away some from the fact that the faces are not shown during the rest of the episode.

in any case, what a wonderful, wonderful lesson learned. and i saw it when i was about 6-7, when "cute" was the only thing that one would talk about, regarding girls.

Oh, dear. I got news for you - you could see exactly the same thing that you see on the Blu-ray on the DVD and the VHS and on broadcast TV - there is NO difference - yes the entire image is sharper - a good thing - but the shot or shots you're referencing have always looked that way. And then you admit you haven't even seen the thing since it was broadcast??? How do you even think you remember what you saw forty years ago or more in terms of one shot. Your MEMORY thinks it remembers but you don't really remember at all. And had you even a perfunctory knowledge of this episode or had you seen it in any subsequent years the thousands of times it's been shown, or seen it on VHS or DVD you would have made this same post - it has NOTHING to do with Blu-ray or 1080p. Your posts are beyond baffling, but somehow I just think you know that.

 

[Mark-P]

Just what is 240 video? Analog video doesn't compute resolution in the same way that digital does. Digital is measured in pixels, like 1080, 720 or 480 and analog is measured in lines and the two don't correlate. I think the 240 you are referring to is the horizontal resolution (lines) of VHS, which is lower than TV broadcast resolution which was about 330 lines. Both had 525 scanning lines.

 

[jimmyjet]

hi mark,

yea, i was using 240 as a shortcut for regular tv in the 60s when tz aired. my mistake.

i am understanding you to say that tz had 330 lines, when originally aired ?