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

[Alan Tully]

Well it's certainly a few notches up from the DVD:

http://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=10049&d2=10050&c=4033

I'd like it, but no great rush, I'll wait for a region B release, maybe Criterion UK or even Warner, they've started releasing catalogue titles in the UK.

 

[JoshZ]

This...?

I will note that what I'm seeing does not look like color fringing. It's a white halo around edges.

 

[Robert Harris]

Here, for your delectation, courtesy of Criterion, is a raw scan with base LUT. Chromatic Aberration.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Here, for your delectation, courtesy of Criterion, is a raw scan with base LUT. Chromatic Aberration.

I think this post by Mr. Harris may be the very first in the history of the internet to use the words delectation, chromatic, and aberration in the space of just two sentences. I'm a fan of any post that uses the word delectation.

 

[PMF]

I think this post by Mr. Harris may be the very first in the history of the internet to use the words delectation, chromatic, and aberration in the space of just two sentences. I'm a fan of any post that uses the word delectation.

You may be right.
The closest experience I ever had to this was when sleep-walking with a fever rheumatic and swore I saw a delicatable aborition.

 

[Mike Frezon]

a delicatable aborition.

A delectable apparition?

 

[PMF]

A delectable apparition?

Correct.
But also remember that there is no spell-check available, while sleep-walking.

 

[JoshZ]

Here, for your delectation, courtesy of Criterion, is a raw scan with base LUT. Chromatic Aberration.

Thanks, RAH. This is very helpful.

Question: Antonioni was making a movie about photography, and by all accounts was a meticulous perfectionist. How did he not notice this? Was there anything he could have done to prevent it?

 

[Alan Tully]

Well no such thing as an HD scan in those days, would it show up on a contact print?

 

[haineshisway]

Here, for your delectation, courtesy of Criterion, is a raw scan with base LUT. Chromatic Aberration.

View attachment 37549

And there you have it - I tell you a lot of what people accuse transfers of is a product of the original photography, how light hits film, lenses, etc. I'm really glad Mr. Harris went to the trouble of getting the raw scan and proving this.

 

[dpippel]

Wait a sec. Is that a... a... SCREENSHOT???

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks, RAH. This is very helpful.

Question: Antonioni was making a movie about photography, and by all accounts was a meticulous perfectionist. How did he not notice this? Was there anything he could have done to prevent it?

From reports, his team raided the M-G-M UK camera dept. Who knows?

I was also thinking that this might have an odd processing processing problem.

Totally understandable, btw, that you might proffer the opinion that you did. No harm, no foul.

"There are more things in heaven and earth..."

 

[Robert Harris]

Wait a sec. Is that a... a... SCREENSHOT???

Compressed .dpx file with base color.

 

[dpippel]

Compressed .dpx file with base color.

Just checking.

 

[JoshZ]

From reports, his team raided the M-G-M UK camera dept. Who knows?

I was also thinking that this might have an odd processing processing problem.

Totally understandable, btw, that you might proffer the opinion that you did. No harm, no foul.

Let me ask this: The haloing is present in the original scan. Are you certain that means it must be chromatic aberration from the camera? Could it be an artifact introduced during the scan itself?

The thing that's hanging me up here is, if this were CA, wouldn't it have more color fringing than a pure white halo?

Watching the bonus features on the disc, it's reiterated time and again how much research Antonioni did into photography and how meticulous he was about every aspect of his images - going so far as to paint a street because he didn't think the pavement was the right shade of gray he wanted. It just seems bizarre to me that he'd shrug his shoulders and let something like this slide.

 

[JoshZ]

And there you have it - I tell you a lot of what people accuse transfers of is a product of the original photography, how light hits film, lenses, etc. I'm really glad Mr. Harris went to the trouble of getting the raw scan and proving this.

My interest here is getting to the bottom of this. I don't take it for granted that what I see on the disc must be correct because Criterion can do no wrong.

 

[haineshisway]

Who said anything about Criterion can do no wrong?

As to Mr. Antonioni, perhaps he wasn't bothered by it and perhaps he didn't notice it - you must understand this film under a microscope thing is a product of the Blu-ray generation and analyzing (or overanalyzing) everything. I don't think this is a one-off occurrence in movie history.

 

[Robert Harris]

Keep in mind, that what we're seeing is derived from a 4k scan of the camera original. It would not have been nearly as noticeable in projection, even in second generation.

If there is a real desire to figure this out, I'd seek out the daily camera reports, which would detail cameras and specific optics.

And, no, i can't imagine that being introduced by the scanner. But it's in the .dpx files.

Hopefully, people realize how transparent Criterion is being with this question. They went through the effort of bringing data back on line, to try to help.

 

[haineshisway]

I think this is great of Criterion to share this stuff, and great to try and have actual facts. And correct, release prints hid many, many things. I should have the disc tomorrow and will check it out in the evening.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

Here, for your delectation, courtesy of Criterion, is a raw scan with base LUT. Chromatic Aberration.
View attachment 37549

A downsampled jpg not even 1080p. Chromatic aberration is not causing this. I bet 5 dollars it isn't. But I'm not even sure Mr. Harris is claiming this. These days you never know when he's serious and when he's not.