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

[WinstonCely]

...Film will be an interesting relic from the past. Admired, but considered old.

Or used for an effect, similar to Scorsese's color timing in The Aviator.

 

[Worth]

While I have no issue with grain or so many of the other features of film, many do. It's my belief that over the next 20-30 years, audiences are simply going to expect perfection in moving images. Film will be an interesting relic from the past. Admired, but considered old.

I think it's only a relatively minor but vocal subset of the home theatre community that has an issue with grain and other film related artifacts. The general audience doesn't know the difference between film and digital and doesn't really care - they're more concerned with the story.

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by Cinescott

There are always exceptions to the rule, but all things being equal, more money generally yields a better quality result with regard to presentation alone. I doubt there are many filmmakers who would deny that.

It's my belief that over time many people are going to view movies that were done on film as a weakness. I don't feel this way, but I fear many will. It's kind of analogous to the switch from B&W to Color. Really good B&W films are respected and admired, yet there is still the culture of many bought up in the age of color that avoids them. Color was just being introduced to television when I was very young, so B&W holds a nostalgia factor for me.

With digital technology, there's going to be a tidal wave of very sanitized looking images. No defects. Nothing. With the next generation being largely bought up on this "perfection," there may be an inclination to view film itself as "old."


For example, CE3K is approximately 34 years old. Looking back from 1977, a comparable quality comparison then would have been a title from 1943! A completely different era technologically and thematically. I love film; I love the look of it and the artistic feel it gives moving images at 24 fps. While I have no issue with grain or so many of the other features of film, many do. It's my belief that over the next 20-30 years, audiences are simply going to expect perfection in moving images. Film will be an interesting relic from the past. Admired, but considered old.

you mean to say in 20 or 30 years something filmed in th 1970's will be considered old?


You mean to say something 70 years will be considered old - I would hardly consider that young!


it definiately ain't new!

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

you mean to say in 20 or 30 years something filmed in th 1970's will be considered old?

Not exactly. What I mean is anything done on film, including anything done today, will have more of an "old" appearance to it since less and less will be done with film as time goes on.

 

[GMpasqua]

it was really a joke, most stuff would be considered old at 70 years

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

it was really a joke, most stuff would be considered old at 70 years

Yoda would be pretty young at 70. )


That's me looking ahead six weeks to all the arguments on the online forums when Star Wars gets released on blu ray, and then i thought of little Yoda.

 

[Dave H]

There is some obvious edge enhancement going on, much like American Graffiti, but the overall appearance of Animal House isn't too bad at all.

I notice some edge enhancement on all of Universal's catalog titles...even the (few) better quality ones.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I noticed the edge enhancement in places when watching this last night, too, and I usually am not that cognizant of EE. It wasn't horrible, but noticeable. Overall, though, the transfer was decent, considering the source material. Anyway, I spent too much time laughing to worry about nitpicking the transfer. Great comedy!

 

[GMpasqua]

I noticed Edge enchancement too. Over all the image wasn't bad, much better than I expected, but the edge enchancement was not needed - why do they put it in?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

I noticed Edge enchancement too. Over all the image wasn't bad, much better than I expected, but the edge enchancement was not needed - why do they put it in?

I think Universal just don't want to pay to make new scans of older films, i don't think i see it on their new releases, Universal think they can use their "digital tools" to make these old releases better rather than spending some money on their heritage, shame really and i tend to be very wary of Universal catalogue releases, on the other hand i never hesitate to buy a Sony back catalogue release.


I have just spent the last eight hours fixing annoying website error messages relating to htscanner, zend optimizer ( now zend guard ), ioncube and homeloader, all because i upgraded to php 5.3.6 and my hosts wanted $120 an hour to fix things, i chose to do it myself, my eyes now hurt from looking at a computer screen, they hurt even more from looking at edge sharpened images on a large screen, how i wish the studio's had agreed to minimum standards for blu ray and a vetting procedure for every single release, a sort of THX standard for blu ray where someoone could tell a studio no unless the standard is met, its a shame something like that did not get implemented.


Oh you know that An American Werewolf In London also has some edge enhancement, i'm real suspicious that these transfers are DNRed and then have fake grain added after a little sharpening up, ok probably unlikely but still, i am suspicious and i feel if they went back to the original negatives and made a new film scan we would still get the grungy, grainy and earthy look but it would be so much better due to having a new modern film scan, i feel they are using older transfers all too often.

 

[Cinescott]

After seeing this Blu-ray recently, I was very pleasantly surprised. A bit of digital manipulation, but not to a distracting level. Overall, I think Animal House looks very good on Blu-ray and the "gritty look" for lack of a better term, is a nice fit for the content.


Also, for once a video company used some decent cover art.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Cinescott

Yes ok but, is the gritty look due to real film grain and real detail underneath the film grain OR have the studio removed all the film grain with dnr and then put some fake grain back on top, with An American Werewolf In London it looks like there is no fine detail underneath the grain, the grain looks fake, i felt the same way about Grease which is a Paramount release.

 

[GMpasqua]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cinescott


why do studios add digital manipulation if people do not like it? It's not making the image better, so why do it at all?

 

[GMpasqua]

Quote: Originally Posted by FoxyMulder Yes ok but, is the gritty look due to real film grain and real detail underneath the film grain OR have the studio removed all the film grain with dnr and then put some fake grain back on top, with An American Werewolf In London it looks like there is no fine detail underneath the grain, the grain looks fake, i felt the same way about Grease which is a Paramount release.



I saw "Grease" on openng day at the Loews State 1 in NYC in June of 1978. It was a 70MM blow-up. It looked incredible - no film grain was apparant. Just a smooth sharp clear image.


I saw "Grease" a few weeks later at my local multiplex in July of 1978. It was a 35MM print. It looked awful. Heavy grain, and dark gritty look.I couldn't believe how bad it looked


Every print I've seen since has been the dark grainy mess that I saw in the mutliplex. Even the 70MM blow up in 1978 at the Mann's Chinese in Los Angeles was a dark grainy mess



The letterboxed laserdisc came closest to approximating the clean look of the 70MM print. The DVDs and Blu-ray are very soft and the brightness is gone giving the film a flat look

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua why do studios add digital manipulation if people do not like it? It's not making the image better, so why do it at all?

I think in lieu of a remaster, studios feel that pumping up contrast and sharpness electronically makes users feel they received a better transfer. Sort of a cheap and dirty way to bring out more detail. As we all know, the results are usually not what was intended.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Slightly off-topic here..... But anyone who is a fan of John Landis really needs to download his recent appearance on Kevin Pollak's Chat Show Podcast. It's nearly 3 hours long and it's mostly Landis telling stories from his entire career and other assorted celebrity stories.....and it's free! It's on Itunes or you can get it at his website http://www.kevinpollakschatshow.com/. There aren't many times where we get the opportunity to hear a filmmaker tell stories for nearly 3 hours, so I thought I'd pass that along.

 

[WillG]

why do studios add digital manipulation if people do not like it? It's not making the image better, so why do it at all?

We don't like it. But regular consumers want something to look pristine. They don't understand, or think about what a film is supposed to look like, or detail lost through digital manipulation. They just want it to look nice and shiny

 

[Scott D S]

Slightly off-topic here..... But anyone who is a fan of John Landis really needs to download his recent appearance on Kevin Pollak's Chat Show Podcast. It's nearly 3 hours long and it's mostly Landis telling stories from his entire career and other assorted celebrity stories.....and it's free! It's on Itunes or you can get it at his website http://www.kevinpollakschatshow.com/. There aren't many times where we get the opportunity to hear a filmmaker tell stories for nearly 3 hours, so I thought I'd pass that along.

It's also on YouTube I watched it and it was excellent, especially his Larry King story at the end. I admit I was a little disheartened to see him advertise the Animal House Blu-Ray release. I wanted to yell at him, "Give that transfer another look!"

 

[Jeff Robertson]

Thanks for just for introducing me to this! I didn't know it existed. Kevin Pollak doing an interview show in a Charlie Rose-style format. Great guests.


Too bad about the Hulu-like commercial breaks though.

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins

Slightly off-topic here.....

But anyone who is a fan of John Landis really needs to download his recent appearance on Kevin Pollak's Chat Show Podcast. It's nearly 3 hours long and it's mostly Landis telling stories from his entire career and other assorted celebrity stories.....and it's free! It's on Itunes or you can get it at his website http://www.kevinpollakschatshow.com/. There aren't many times where we get the opportunity to hear a filmmaker tell stories for nearly 3 hours, so I thought I'd pass that along.

 

[Derrick King]

Go here: http://feeds.feedburner.com/KevinPollaksChatShow-Audio?format=xml to download Kevin Pollak's Chat Show as either video or an audio only podcast