A Few Words About A few words about...™ Amadeus -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

Reviewers don't need to "agree."

I learned decades ago, probably during the Wilson administration, that I needed to find a reviewer who I trusted, and go with him. It was Roger Ebert, who is -- let's see -- it's almost 90 years later, still my film critic of choice. I trust him implicitly.

Those of us who post on line, or have columns in those paper things, are attempting to aid the consumer in making a choice as to how to spend their hard earned coin of the realm on a certain product.

The trick is to find someone with whom you agree most of the time, and just listen to them. No one else matters. If you happen to love the look of Patton or Gangs, wonderful! So be it! But the intent is to help the consumer in making those decisions without ending up discs that they don't like.

Simple as that.

RAH

 

[PaulDA]

This raises several questions.

Why do viewers like "a snappy Discovery channel look"? (Most likely because HD VIDEO, like that broadcast on Discovery HD and a lot of other HD programming broadcast elsewhere, is the BULK of their HD viewing experience).

Why should a FILM source (and not a VIDEO source) be EXPECTED to look like VIDEO by viewers? (Because, having been fed a steady diet of one kind of HD material, they are startled by the unfamiliar)

SHOULD a presentation of a FILM source be transformed to look like VIDEO? (NOT on the disc--use the features on your player and display if you want that--it's a win/win)

In the end, nothing is perfect. But when attaining a compelling close approximation of film is finally available, it is beyond senseless to DELIBERATELY deviate from that goal to satisfy the uninformed. Of course, we, as individuals, are free to decide what level of deviation from the goal (deliberate or otherwise) we are willing to tolerate relative to other factors (how much do we like the content, how long will we have to wait for a more appropriate version to be released and a host of other considerations) but to actively endorse (rather than, at best, grudgingly accept) a deliberate deviation from the STATED GOAL of getting closer to the source seems a bit much to expect from anyone who cares about this hobby, much less someone who makes a living in the field and knows whereof he speaks.

You are free to enjoy Patton as it is on the BD. That is a matter of personal choice. You should not expect a respected professional in the field to endorse what is clearly a purposeful deviation away from the goal of getting as close to the source as possible.

 

[PaulDA]

And I, for one, thank you for your efforts (Ebert as well is my most trusted film reviewer). I may not always agree with you (or him) but I always appreciate your work.

 

[frankie108]

Studios and directors moderinize their films by adding special effects and special features to films all the time.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Popular does not make best (or even good in very many instances).

And while I do believe in cause and effect, that does not mean everything has a good, intentional reason from those who were directly involved. For instance, a lot of baseball statisticians believe in something called "luck" in their analyses. And one Mr. Bill Dickey (from another generation past) was famously quoted, "luck is a residue of design." And I would submit that's basically what DNR/EE artifacts are in a sense.

The folks who apply heavy doses of such processing desire some kind of (apparently popular) effect and are either intentionally or simply ignorantly accepting the bad "residue" of their design -- and that's not even to argue whether film grain should belong in the best video presentation of the films for artistically important reasons.

Next thing you'll tell us is that it's good that TV manufacturers regularly put out TVs w/ (often hard to reverse) settings that are designed to be horribly incorrect (wrt to actual standards) just for the purpose of appealing to the masses in unrealistically brightly lit showroom floors. I'm glad though that at least some of them have recently made it easier to turn off such "torch modes" and change (most, if not all) settings to be much closer to what they should be. But that's basically what we're also arguing wrt BD: namely, they should release titles so that we can at least opt for a reasonably faithful presentation of the original film (as originally intended by the filmmakers) while letting everyone else the option to use their TVs' various picture processing features to do whatever they want for their own private viewings. If there was a reasonable way to actually reverse all the effects of undesired processing on the BD (like when one buys a TV and have it recalibrated), then that would be acceptable too. But there is not. That kind of processing generally only work in one direction.

_Man_

 

[RobertR]

I'm astounded you tried to make this argument as a counter to what Michael said. This discussion isn't about the merits of advances such as Technicolor, VistaVision, Cinemascope, 70 mm, etc. It's about changing what the film was in the first place. Trying to, say, change a 4:3 black and white film into a Technicolor Cinemascope film would be ludicrous (as is chopping a Cinemascope film down to 4:3), and for you to suggest that opposition to such a change is the same thing as saying those things weren't worthwhile advances is a non sequitur.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

You are either deliberately twisting the point or just completely missing it.

The point is not whether filmmakers should or should not try using other "improved" media, techniques, etc. for future films. The point is whether already made/existing movies -- perhaps, the use of the term "film" is the confusion for you -- should later be presented *ONLY* in such a way that no longer faithfully resembles the original. Just as nobody here (except you) wants Patton and Amadeus to look like Discovery HD programming, so nobody here is asking for Discovery HD content to then be put on BD w/ all sorts of "grain" and other film-like characteristics added in (assuming the content was shot on video).

Consider the issue another way. Do you cook and have some particular tasty, favored recipe/dish that you're proud of? Do you like it when you make such a favored dish for a friend to enjoy only to find that your friend insists that it's missing something and proceeds to add a ton of different seasonings to completely change the flavor, etc. and maybe even decide it needs another 5min in the microwave (of all things)? And would you actually agree that's really *your* dish anymore rather than something very different?

I would think in that scenario, at "best", you'd just shrug your shoulders and accept that your friend has very different tastes and let him have his way for his own private enjoyment. But I doubt you'd wanna throw out your favored recipe and adopt his version as your own and proudly present it as such to others.

Likewise, if your friend is a good cook and has such a favored dish to share, wouldn't you at least want to experience it the way he/she intended it and not also demand he/she present it in some totally different way not just for yourself but for others also, if you do decide you don't like it the original way for yourself???

_Man_

 

[frankie108]

Understood. If your on the fence about buying a particular title a reviewer you trust could certainly come in handy. Myself...I already know beforehand what discs I'm going to buy based on how much I enjoy the title and how it stands up to repeat viewing, IE. I could watch a title like "Forrest Gump" every week and not tire of it....sheer filmatic poetry.
It follows that I would buy "Forrest" in a second based on nothing more than a belief that a BD version would have better quality than my DVD version.

 

[Michael Reuben]

There's certainly a difference of opinion here. Whether it's "honest" is open to question. I'm not sure if you're playing games or really believe what you're posting, but either way whatever credibility you may have had when this thread started is pretty well shot.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

And just because you're happy to buy any movie you like regardless of the quality of the disc, does that mean that we still shouldn't pressure the studios to do the best that they can? If you're happy to buy any movie you like regardless of the image quality, then WHY NOT enjoy the fact that others are advocating for improved picture and sound to help improve the quality of the discs that you'll buy anyway? You'll essentially be getting improved image quality for free based on their efforts. What's your problem?

If you don't want BD image quality to be substandard for those enjoying on large-screen systems, then what are you protesting for?

HTF is not a place for attitudes like yours. Plenty of places are, including Walmart. But why thread-crap here about your lack of appreciation for properly mastered film transfers?

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Apart from the fact that many people know what film looks like and make decisions on that basis I really wonder what the merit of a Blu Ray in its own concerning image quality would be if not its accuracy and fidelity to the original source it came from? Someone's random taste and preferences? Who's? Yours? What do you suggest as an alternative basis that is not purely subjective? There is none, plain and simple. The basis for judging image and sound can only be if the Blu Ray looks and sounds as the creators of the source (in this case a film shot on 35mm and made for theatrical distribution) intended it to on that medium Blu Ray. And the default assumption clearly is that the Blu Ray should come as close to an ideal screening of this source in its original form. When this goal is not met at all and the look of the source has been considerably changed without any technical necessity to do so for a release on Blu Ray then criticism is well deserved for as long as the film makers have not declared that the modifications are intended and fully supported by them. I sincerely doubt that either the director or the director of photography are happy with this transfer for use on Blu Ray in 2009, given the current state of the art of transfering films to HD which allows for a far more accurate version with none of the current digital artifacts to be made.

 

[Robert Harris]

Thank you!

In regard to whatever film is and how it is represented on home video, there is an entire cross-section of the public out there -- possibly the Walmart set -- that have no problem viewing a down-rezzed sub-master of Gump on SD DVD in 4:3 and monaural.

And loving the film, most likely having either no knowledge or no care that they are only able to see 40% of the image in sub-par resolution.

It's Gump.

Well not really, but they perceive it to be. And they're happy.

And good for them. There are multitudes walking the surface of the earth daily, who simply smile and move on, never harming anyone or anything, and leaving nothing in their wake when they leave.

And the studio creates a special master just for them.

All's well.

Then there are the others, unhappy if a quality film has been visually or sonically impaired, who know what they are viewing, desire a home theater experience as promised by a technical format, and are verbal about it. For the record there are also studio people, responsible for the quality of those releases, who are equally upset when something they stand behind misses the mark because something, somewhere along the long and sometimes tenuous production line has fallen through the cracks.

If those in the first group remain unaware of the beauty, the exultation, the serenity, the sheer joy (or terror) that one can get from a quality film print, or in this case, a properly prepared Blu-ray disc, they are best not to waste a single cent on Blu-ray.

Standard definition DVD will do nicely, in whatever aspect ratio and audio format they prefer.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with these people.

RAH

 

[RobertR]

Excellent post, Robert!

 

[frankie108]

That low price was awfully temping wasn't it. I'm encouraged that Warner Bros decided to "go low" on one of their premier catalog titles and I sure hope this is a trend to be followed by other studios in pricing their catalog titles. I'm an avowed collector of HD movies off satellite and even though I had a superb HD recording of "Amadeus" in my collection, the BD price was so tempting, I bought anyway.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Frankie,

how big is your viewing screen/how "wide" an angle do you view from? Are you watching in full 1080p from a viewing distance of less than 1.7 screen-widths away? I'm curious how the Blu-ray of Amadeus compares to the HD broadcast recording that you have...

 

[frankie108]

Without having the means to directly compare the BD disc to the actual film elements themselves any objective comparison is highly suspect, IMO.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Then threads like this should be of no interest to you, and yet you're constantly popping up in them, making the same arguments. Do you have any purpose beyond trolling?

Think carefully before you answer, because I'm asking this in an official capacity.

 

[frankie108]

I certainly don't expect Mr Harris to endorse anything of what I have to say. In fact, when you think about it, we ALL have the same goal, and that is to enjoy the superior PQ/AQ of movies in the BD format. Any difference is simply which level of "superior" we are willing to accept.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

No, that's *your* goal.

The goal of most HTF members isn't just to enjoy something that's marginal, sub-par, or at best just "better than DVD",

the goal of most members of a place like HTF is what's been stated repeatedly in this thread: for a medium to be as transparent to the original (film) master as possible.

That's my goal for BD even for titles I don't care about and don't want to own. Why? Because I want them to look their best for the fans who *do* want to own them and enjoy them.

That's a very different goal than your continum of anything that's argueably better than DVD.

Now, we all enjoy owning movies and we all allow ourselves the necessity of compromise so we can own and enjoy films that aren't properly mastered. However, owning sub-par versions of our beloved movies is not "our goal".

 

[frankie108]

Wouldn't you like to hear something...ANYTHING from these "filmmakers" about this very subject. Absent evidence to the contrary, one can assume that "filmakers" are happy with BD titles as their currently released or they simply don't give a damn.