A Few Words About A few words about...™ Blow-Up -- in Blu-ray (2 Viewers)

[Robert Harris]

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.

What would your guess be?

CA? Processing anomaly, as can be seen in Giant! Certainly, film related, and not digital.

 

[JoshZ]

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.

This disc is already distractingly soft and grainy. If that's truly representative of the camera negative, it's almost hard to imagine how poor a release print several generations down the line must have looked projected onto a large theater screen.

 

[Michel_Hafner]

What would your guess be?
CA? Processing anomaly, as can be seen in Giant! Certainly, film related, and not digital.

Does not look like a digital artifact to me. Film artifact (not lens CA). Processing, halation, some kind of diffusion filter. The 4K dpx would show a lot more than this low res jpg. Nothing that would bother me much when watching this, anyway. I'm more bothered by the grain in the UHD of "Crouching Tiger...".

 

[Robert Harris]

Does not look like a digital artifact to me. Film artifact (not lens CA). Processing, halation, some kind of diffusion filter. The 4K dpx would show a lot more than this low res jpg. Nothing that would bother me much when watching this, anyway. I'm more bothered by the grain in the UHD of "Crouching Tiger...".

I'm unable to post a 4k file.

 

[JoshZ]

RAH, may I cite you when discussing this haloing issue in my upcoming review of the disc?

 

[Robert Harris]

RAH, may I cite you when discussing this haloing issue in my upcoming review of the disc?

As saying what? That I'm not finding a problem with the release?

 

[Torsten Kaiser]

The ABOUT THE TRANSFER details of Criterion's BLOW-UP may hold the most likely answer.
It lists the following:
"This new digital transfer was created in 4K resolution on a Director film scanner from the 35mm original camera negative and a 35mm interpositive."
The sequences in question could very well stem from the used Intermediate Positive.
Certain scanners may pick up on this more than others and "highlight" the fringing a bit.
There are quite a lot of IPs I know of that bear exactly this problem - Preminger's ANATOMY OF A MURDER being one, his ADVISE AND CONSENT another, to name just a few. The IP of BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING has also similar "features" - the recent master made with the Camera Negative, on the other hand, is free of this problem entirely; except for the opticals.
A more recent example, where this is also an issue, is 187.

 

[JoshZ]

As saying what? That I'm not finding a problem with the release?

That you believe this is more likely a film artifact than a digital artifact.

 

[Robert Harris]

That you believe this is more likely a film artifact than a digital artifact.

Go for it!

 

[david hare]

Torsten, I don't know if you've ever seen a first gen or early reissiue Eastman 35mm of this but grain seemed to be much finer than what is reproduced on this new 4K master, and while the color timing and white levels look good there is still a small degree of underlying grayish "undercoat". The ten plus year old DVDs in PAL and NTSC both carried this "undercoat" heavily to the point of sometimes obscuring whites (like Thomas' jeans which are a constant throughout the film) to cream. I was never happy with the Warner DVD discs. I am guessing Criterion and MTI used the Scanity to perform the raw scan with HDR so they are maximising the Dynamic range and the color saturation benefits from this. But the coarse grain and "thickness" of the image still doesn't ring true (he admittedly said of a literally 50 year old viewing.) I refrained from being too negative about the PQ issues in my own review ad the BD is clearly a major, if not perfect
improvement. http://filmalert101.blogspot.co.nz/2017/03/on-blu-ray-david-hare-rediscovers-magic.html

 

[Torsten Kaiser]

David,

with regard to the stock(s) used - I have (and worked with these, and, of course, others, quite a bit in the last decades).
But there is (a lot) more to this as there are a number of ways the materials could be affected both during production (use of lenses and filters) and post, in analogue (photochemical) and digital realms.

You were referring to a "small degree of underlying grayish "undercoat" ". This is primarily a color timing issue, in this case most likely a digital one. It is not necessarily tied to the film elements used at all except to account for differences between the two generations in gradation and color rendition when the minting (of the IP) was made. These generations are, of course NOT identical nor are they supposed to be. Each generational stage has its own tasks and inherent attributes. However, IPs - just as any other generational copy in the photochemical realm, can be made extremely well, and not. Many things depend on it.
However, the video mastering that follows is quite another can of worms: it can change the look of a film dramatically and with it the perceptions of whole generations if these (older) video masters are being continuously used as references when new video masters are made - and that, although the original looks perhaps absolutely different. It is like a constant loop, which, when broken, can cause quite a stir when people are confronted with (the correct) image that they simply are not used to having grown up with the video releases. This also "works" the other way around, of course. Taking the DVD issues as comparisions, however, is also not really helpful; there are a huge number of stages that can affect the "visual performance" of a film on this format either way, the compression being just one of them, which also affects the colors quite a bit (pun intended).

Perhaps a few things that are known and how things work down that line to analyze what would explain this "effect" discussed here:

• For this re-master, Warner Bros scanned both the first generation OCN entirely and a second generation IP at least in segments on a Lasergraphics Scanner. I will get to that a bit later.
  
• The Intermediate Positive used by WB's MPI (Motion Picture Imaging - WB's in-house mastering facility, not to confuse with MTI who manufacture and design digital correction and restoration tools) for scanning is very likely a newly or at least recently minted one and on a different stock than the original pre-print production line would have (been able to) use(d) on the original IPs made that could be subject to degeneration problems by now. This can affect the image. Evidently, the IP was used to compensate for "troubles" (scratches or tears, perhaps missing/replaced footage) on the OCN, otherwise the use makes little to no sense since no substantial color processing was made on this film.
  
• Re: scanning: as said earlier, some scanners pick up on aberrations more than others making them more visible in the process. But perhaps a point just as important with regard to this issue: A very dynamic color correction, using the gradation curve as basis to adjust contrast, highlights, midtones, shadows and gamma instead of the global values first can make the appearance of both the grain and the image in general substantially more "coarse". It also would bring up the aberrations with it even more. The intention to make the image appear more detailed and with more depth can, if not done right, backfire this way. Note that this is NOT in any way meant to comment in relation to the master of BLOW-UP at all, it is a general "pitfall" during color timing photochemically, photo-optically (during scanning) as well as digitally (color re-timing/corrections/restoration).
• For a more definitive answer, one would have to see the scan of the OCN sections to compare, or even better, for an "absolute" - the neg and the IP itself.

 

[JoshZ]

A couple of points. Make of them what you will.

1) This haloing issue is present all throughout Blow-Up. I can plug in any random time code, and within no more than two minutes of screen time be guaranteed to find a shot with haloing. If the halos were an artifact specific to the IP, that would suggest that the IP was the primary film element used for the master, with little to no use of the OCN.

My assumption here is that this issue is either present on the OCN, or else it's not a film issue at all, but a digital issue with the scan or later processing. I'm not going to pretend to be an authority, so someone can feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but those seem to be the directions where the evidence is pointing.

2) Out of curiosity, I pulled out the Criterion Blu-ray for Red Desert, released in 2010. Yes, I realize it's a different movie, made in a different country, probably with different equipment and a different crew. It doesn't conclusively prove anything about Blow-Up. For what it's worth, watching the first five minutes of that movie, there are some truly ghastly halos. The liner notes for the disc claim that it was a 2k scan of the 35mm OCN, and make no mention of using an IP.

 

[Robert Harris]

A couple of points. Make of them what you will.

1) This haloing issue is present all throughout Blow-Up. I can plug in any random time code, and within no more than two minutes of screen time be guaranteed to find a shot with haloing. If the halos were an artifact specific to the IP, that would suggest that the IP was the primary film element used for the master, with little to no use of the OCN.

My assumption here is that this issue is either present on the OCN, or else it's not a film issue at all, but a digital issue with the scan or later processing. I'm not going to pretend to be an authority, so someone can feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but those seem to be the directions where the evidence is pointing.

2) Out of curiosity, I pulled out the Criterion Blu-ray for Red Desert, released in 2010. Yes, I realize it's a different movie, made in a different country, probably with different equipment and a different crew. It doesn't conclusively prove anything about Blow-Up. For what it's worth, watching the first five minutes of that movie, there are truly ghastly halos everywhere. The liner notes for the disc claim that it was a 2k scan of the 35mm OCN, and make no mention of using an IP.

You are not incorrect.

 

[JoshZ]

Red Desert screencap:

 

[Robert Harris]

Red Desert screencap:

Seems that x/z axis is affected equally.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The caps from Blow-Up look just like the usual halos you seen on dupes and opticals through the 50s and 60s, though looking way better than expected. Check out Doctor Zhivago, released a year earlier by MGM, and the same issue pops up on all the opticals and dupe shots. A Man for All Seasons was released the same year as Blow-Up and also has the same halos on the same sort of shots.

 

[JoshZ]

The caps from Blow-Up look just like the usual halos you seen on dupes and opticals through the 50s and 60s, though looking way better than expected. Check out Doctor Zhivago, released a year earlier by MGM, and the same issue pops up on all the opticals and dupe shots. A Man for All Seasons was released the same year as Blow-Up and also has the same halos on the same sort of shots.

As mentioned earlier, the problem in Blow-Up is present throughout the entire movie, not just in opticals or dupes.

 

[david hare]

Not to do the last word thing but there are practically no opticals by way of cross fades, lap dissolves, process, etc. Antonioni was determinedly a montage based director - many writers describe him as a mise en scene director like Preminger, and he hardly moves the camera unless within the confined axes of long medium takes - all his cutting is hard edit he virtually never resorts to dissolves or opticals for transitions. So the issue of optical shots being more prone is redundant, apart from the credit sequence which looks bloody awful.

 

[M90GM]

Possibly you had to be there, when Blow-Up opened in the winter of 1966.

I was firmly ensconced in college / film school, and viewing the film was as if a door was opening. After being weaned on the works of Bergman, and the earlier works of Antonioni, Blow-Up was a natural extension.

It's a film about a photographer, who sees or possibly doesn't, photographs, and searches for the truth in super hip London of the '60s.

It's a film of gorgeous imagery, color, and very specific sound, especially the wind through the trees and bushes in the park.

And it needs to be presented correctly.

Fortunately, as a part of the WB/Criterion deal, access was provided to the original negative, as well as an IP, and the resultant 4k scan is almost never less than gorgeous. I use the word "almost," as the main title sequence is a bit soft, but a dupe is a dupe.

Color is superb, along with a magnificent original patina of grain.

Audio is what it was, and is accurately represented.

A major plus here, as if it was needed, is a superb collection of extras, inclusive of interviews and films on the film. And I'm not referencing sweet little 2-3 minute pieces here. These are serious featurettes.

For those who have never seen this film, I'm jealous at thought of your initial experience.

For those who have, your memories are safe with this Blu-ray.

"I thought you were going to Paris."

"I am in Paris."

Image - 5

Audio -5

4k Up-rez - 5

Pass / Fail - Pass

Highly Recommended

RAH

 

[M90GM]

Possibly you had to be there, when Blow-Up opened in the winter of 1966.

I was firmly ensconced in college / film school, and viewing the film was as if a door was opening. After being weaned on the works of Bergman, and the earlier works of Antonioni, Blow-Up was a natural extension.

It's a film about a photographer, who sees or possibly doesn't, photographs, and searches for the truth in super hip London of the '60s.

It's a film of gorgeous imagery, color, and very specific sound, especially the wind through the trees and bushes in the park.

And it needs to be presented correctly.

Fortunately, as a part of the WB/Criterion deal, access was provided to the original negative, as well as an IP, and the resultant 4k scan is almost never less than gorgeous. I use the word "almost," as the main title sequence is a bit soft, but a dupe is a dupe.

Color is superb, along with a magnificent original patina of grain.

Audio is what it was, and is accurately represented.

A major plus here, as if it was needed, is a superb collection of extras, inclusive of interviews and films on the film. And I'm not referencing sweet little 2-3 minute pieces here. These are serious featurettes.

For those who have never seen this film, I'm jealous at thought of your initial experience.

For those who have, your memories are safe with this Blu-ray.

"I thought you were going to Paris."

"I am in Paris."

Image - 5

Audio -5

4k Up-rez - 5

Pass / Fail - Pass

Highly Recommended

RAH

AS USUAL, AN EXCELLENT PACKAGED RELEASE BY CRITERION - WB SUPPLIED BLOW-UP WITH THE M-G-M LOGO REPLACED BY A WB LOGO...strange decisions continue at Warner....