USHE Press Release: Back To The Future 25th Anniversary Trilogy (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Steve , King Kong 1933 was always very grainy. Didnt get the blu yet, just saying. Ghostbusters, was never that grainy on previous dvd/ vhs releases, so why is the blu ???

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou





I agree, Ghostbusters was a little too 'noisy' in places. 2001 sequel 2010 had problems in this regard. I watched Live and Let Die on Blu last week, a very fine layer of grain, perfect. King Kong? A friend brought it round recently, almost unwatchable. No sale here and I'm a huge fan.


I'm sure the Back to the Future films will look fine, it won't be another Predator. [wink]

I choose to watch my films on a projector because it's like having a cinema in your home, i am hardly obsessive about film grain or dnr, i just don't appreciate them adding it to the mix and i know the consequences which come from excessive use of dnr, indeed even a little too much use of it ruins the film look.


I remember having this little argument with you regarding Zulu and screencaps i made up, you couldn't even spot the dnr or the sharpening halos which were on the caps as a result of adding edge enhancement, they needed to do that to sharpen the film after the dnr had removed the detail, you didn't even spot that so i hardly consider you an authority on what makes a great looking film title on blu ray. ( maybe i should add a nice smiley here )


Learning about your hobby would be a good thing, Ghostbusters does not have excessive grain, it's problem was they contrast boosted it which makes the grain stand out more.


I repeat though, name me your list of films which you consider have too much grain.

 

[Steve Christou]

It's a Greek invasion here Xenia. Kong was grainy before but not this grainy. But we're off topic here, Back to the Future, scrubbed clean, with a brillo pad?

 

[Steve Christou]

Malcolm, I remember liking your Zulu caps and finding not much wrong with them. I saw the film and found not much wrong with that either, in fact it's one of my favourite blu's.


Mercifully I haven't seen that many excessively grainy or noisy films, Kong is currently no.1 on my admittedly short list.. But to repeat, it's you with the problem not me, your screen magnifies all the defects. On the whole I'm happy with the blu-rays I've bought so far, and that includes Patton, Longest Day and Zulu.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

Now that we are in discussion about film grain, I always liked it on blu rays when used right. 1 perfect example of when grain is used right, is warners blu ray of the original 1984 nightmare on elm street.It has the right amount of grain. The only blu ray in my collection, where the grain is way too much is Ghostbusters.

Just in case you missed my post, the film grain was normal for that movie but because the film had contrast boosting applied, this made the film grain more prominent than it should have been, so blame the person who decided to contrast boost it and not the film grain.

 

[TonyD]

Some of you guys are getting a little grumpy, and condescending.

 

[Todd H]

Personally I got into this hobby so that I could replicate as closely as possible the theater experience in my own home. Film grain is part of that experience. Even on my modest setup (52" set sitting 6' away), DNR is distracting.. I want blu-ray to replicate the look of film, not make older movies look like smoothed over HD video. Considering that almost every HD set I've ever looked at included a DNR setting in its menu, the studios should leave a film's inherent grain intact and let the end user remove the grain themselves. This is just my humble opinion of course.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Todd H

Me too or i would have just stuck to dvd, i'm glad someone can appreciate my post and that i was not being condescending but was trying to ask people to learn about this hobby and about film.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

But to repeat, it's you with the problem not me, your screen magnifies all the defects. On the whole I'm happy with the blu-rays I've bought so far, and that includes Patton, Longest Day and Zulu.

Are you seriously saying that issues like excessive grain, DNR, EE, etc., are only a problem when someone's screen is big enough to reveal them? Well, duh! But you're wrong, that isn't a problem with the screen--it's a problem with the disc for having those defects in the first place. There are plenty of Blu-ray discs that look just fine when projected on a large screen. I'm glad you're happy with discs that are known to have severe issues like Patton and The Longest Day. Indeed, they look fine on smaller screens, because such screens can't resolve enough detail to bring out the flaws. But make no mistake, the flaws are still there on the disc. It's ridiculous to claim that the issue is in having a display large enough to reveal them.

 

[TravisR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

...i was not being condescending but was trying to ask people to learn about this hobby and about film.

First off, I want to say that I completely agree with what you're saying about grain and I mean no offense in any way but trying to convince someone who has decided that grain is bad is a waste of time because they've heard all the arguments about grain being part of film, etc. but they just aren't going to listen to you no matter what you say. You probably have about as good of a chance of changing someone's mind about politics and religion so why bother to continue the grain debate?


Once again, I agree with what you're saying but some people just don't care and aren't going to listen no matter how correct you are.

 

[Xenia Stathakopoulou]

Originally Posted by Steve Christou

It's a Greek invasion here Xenia. Kong was grainy before but not this grainy. But we're off topic here, Back to the Future, scrubbed clean, with a brillo pad?

With a brillo pad, lol !!! Back on topic, blu ray.com has now put a review on their front page. They give it 4.5/5 stars. They think the sequels look better. Its really strange reading all these diffrent reviews. The digital bits thought the original looked best on blu.

 

[Van594]

I think somtimes ignorance is truly bliss and in my case I'm glad I'm ignorant as I don't think I could enjoy movies as much as I do if I analyzed them as much as some. Unless it's so obvious it slaps me right in the face I just don't see most issues where as others are so tuned to it thats all they see. There has to be a balance or it sucks all the fun out.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Van594

I think somtimes ignorance is truly bliss and in my case I'm glad I'm ignorant as I don't think I could enjoy movies as much as I do if I analyzed them as much as some. Unless it's so obvious it slaps me right in the face I just don't see most issues where as others are so tuned to it thats all they see. There has to be a balance or it sucks all the fun out.

The thing is though that it is usually very obvious and it does slap you in the face, no analyzing needed, the analyzing actually comes when you visit the forums and talk with others and express opinions but on watching the film these issues do hit you in the face and stand out.


On great transfers you can sit back and relax and enjoy the film, and there are many great transfers out there.


It's just a shame there are so many average ones too but most of them are down to using old masters, anyway as usual it's another release with conflicting reviews, whats new.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm taking a small bit of solace in the fact that there isn't a consensus of negative opinions on this. I'm hoping that the issues will be minor enough so that someone viewing it on a 60" Sony SXRD won't be able to notice much of a problem...

 

[Ruz-El]

I don't think I've read anywhere that Steve has said he prefers no grain over a natural looking picture. I mostly agree with him, I'd rather have a natural picture with less obvious grain over one that has an over abundance of grain. Hopefully it's not scrubbed of all film grain, but I'll take less if need be. And yes, I understand what grain is and how it's the basic composition of what makes the picture. I too want a home viewing experience similar to what's in a cinema. I'd argue that projecting film is a completely different beast from digital projecting. And transferring ALL the information off an analog film print into the digital realm, wart's and all (you can apparently better see wires and effects on the new Exorcist blu ray, this should be considered a flawed transfer, you never used to see them that clearly, and you never were supposed to, technology pulled out information that never used to be projected, that's a flawed transfer if so, I haven't watched my copy yet to confirm), into the digital realm isn't the correct way of doing it. I have never, in my life, as a life long hobbyist, heard "Wow, that showing of Star Wars in 78? Awesome grain structure!" And the reason for that is with projected film, in a theater, you don't see the grain in as noticeable a way as you do in your home. I think that's because we're getting a bit more then we should since the technology allows for information to be broadcast without any filtering or environmental factors. Criterion seems to get this balance right. The pictures on their blus look like film, but you don't notice the grain in an un-natural way. Why would the film makers, unless for specific effect (as in Robert Richardson's masterful film stock choices in JFK) want you to notice the grain on their films? Why is an over abundance of film grain considered ok? It's just as bad, in my opinion, then having no grain at all.


If all grain is good, and it should be represented as exactly whats on the negative, would you be happy having reel four of "GONE WITH THE WIND" looking to have a completely different, noticeably heavy grain structure because it had to e sourced fro a different negative on a different stock? Of course not! You'd expect the entire film to look the same, with a natural look, and to do that, they'd have to manipulate the transfer to make it all even. Why is that ok, but the thought of toning down the ridiculously heavy grain (not scrubbed clean!) to a point where you're not losing the detail that was intended by the film makers and giving it a natural looking picture for a film of it's era a crime against film fandom? It's seems more like bizarre fanatical line in the sand to me instead of a thought out compromise. And anytime you transfer analog material into the digital realm, your dealing with nothing but compromises.


In the case of these Back to the Future discs, they look exactly what the cinematographer thought they should. I don't remember BTTF looking all that grainy, I remember them looking really clean. I recall the 1950's part of the first film looking artificially clean. It sounds like these Blus are dead right.


And sorry Malcolm, I'll trust reviews on LCD and plasma set ups over projectors any day. Regardless of how much you spent on it or how well you set it up, there are too many environment factors that can come into play compromising the picture on front projectors.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina

That won't do me any good, since I have a 123" screen. Logically, studios should make transfers that look great on front projection. The look on smaller screens would then be taken care of automatically. Unfortuntately, studios don't always follow logic. Their "we'll target everything to look good up to 40-60 inches" reasoning is rather pathetic.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

OK, having looked at blu-ray.com's screenshots in 1080p, I think this is much ado about nothing. All screenshots there show a healthy amount of grain, and certain matte processes result in haloing that may be misinterpreted as EE. If any grain reduction has been done, it is likely on the process shots, where there would be a buildup of grain. If the price is right, I'm biting the bullet.

 

[Nelson Au]

I don't want to get into the argument here, but the part that isn't making sense here is that it sounds like some people are suggesting that more grain is added! If I understand film, it has grain. Does making a transfer for a blu ray magically add grain?


I can see the realities of film production and I appreciate the above description about how contrast was boosted for a particular film and that made grain more visible. But it didn't actually add grain. So I don't mean to presume that people actually think grain is added!


So what is it that DNR is being used for in those bad examples? I haven't seen Predator yet, only screen caps, so I understand that is a good example of bad DNR usage. But for other situations when it's used well, it doesn't seem to remove grain. I don't have a problem with how King Kong looks. I haven't compared it to the DVD yet.


Is this video noise that DNR is used for for things other then grain? Scratches must not be one of them, I always imagined that is fixed either by hand or other means.


That sounds good Stephen, I'll have a look at that review!

 

[Zack Gibbs]

When people talk about the 'amount' of film grain in the picture, they're essentially talking about viability. If a picture has "a lot of film grain," then that just means the grain is very pronounced.


If you're not careful in mastering a picture you can end up making the grain far more apparent than it is/should be. As well, DNR doesn't have to scrub a film clean, it can simply fade the appearance of the grain so that it isn't as noticeable. (which is often desired)

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

I don't want to get into the argument here, but the part that isn't making sense here is that it sounds like some people are suggesting that more grain is added! If I understand film, it has grain. Does making a transfer for a blu ray magically add grain?

It boils down to film and video (and HD or no, Blu-Ray is still video) being two completely different processes. If an image harvesting is done correctly, including colour timing, grading, contrast balancing (not boosting), the grain should be no more apparent than it was on release prints. Given that sources used for harvesting are ideally that much closer generationally to the ONeg, grain should be finer and less apparent.


I personally don't think the grain issue on Ghostbusters can be entirely attributed to contrast boosting: much like the BTTF series, Ghostbusters was a film that relied heavily on optical processes, resulting in a buildup of grain combined with contrast and lighting issues. Since Ghostbusters obviously didn't have any grain reduction applied, the grain will be espelly thick in process shots. On the other hand, the only grain reduction that may have been done on BTTF appears to be in process shots (take a look at blu-ray.com's screenshots of Doc and Marty standing over the flaming tire tracks in the mall parking lot and the DeLorean's wheels folding up underneath it as it hovers don the street). I can hear people screaming already about "edge enhancement" and "wax figures" with respect to these shots, but if you look closely, the edge haloes are caused by process shooting in both those scenes. The grain appears to have been reduced in those shots to the same level as in non-process shots, and any detail lost would have been lost as a result of generational loss anyway.