Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Harris, Mar 9, 2012.
Is this how they are also showing Ben-Hur?
It's great to read that what we are seeing in the new To Catch a Thief blu-ray is "similar" to what we would have seen in a good theater back in 1955.+++
I can't say for sure but I'd imagine so. The times I've seen a Fathom event, I went with the idea that I was getting to see the movie with an audience (which is usually fun) and not as much for the presentation.
What does the term "Fathom" mean?
The showing I'm seeing of Ben-Hur is at Cinemark:
Fathom is the name of the company that usually does those 'one-night only events' (like the upcoming Casablanca). I've never heard of Cinemark's handling of movies but I would expect the same as what Fathom does. That being said, I have no basis for saying that other than if other chains do it, why wouldn't they?
Fathom Events: http://www.fathomevents.com/
1080i presentations via the cheap slideshow projector.
What a sickening prospect. So, now, people can go to these things and come out saying how lousy the old movies actually look on the big screen.
Thanks for the link. I may have missed it, but I did not see Ben-Hur there.
Maybe Ben-Hur is not part of this and is getting a better presentation?
About 8 years ago I went to a Hitchcock film festival at the beautiful Palace theater in Louisville. They were showing DVDs. I kid you not. As long as you sat up on the balcony of that beautiful baroque place it actually looked sort of ok. Mediocre, really, but still the audiences really enjoyed Hitchcock's films in spite of the poor presentation.
And so if the worst case for Ben-Hur is that they are showing the blu-ray--well, that's still 6 times better than a DVD...
Mr. Harris, with all due respect, I hope you are not honestly trying to sell digital audio compression as some kind of sonic benefit. The only benefit to be had is a reduced file size. If there is enough space for a lossless file, then there is no benefit.
Shouldn't this lossless debate have occured during the last Casablanca release? The new one is lossless, so I'm not understanding the discussion in this thread.
You would be incorrect.
The discussion is in response to Mr. Harris's assertion regarding the inclusion of a lossless track : "But it doesn't really matter that it does. There is little to be gained."
Now with these latest comments, it appears that the inclusion of a lossless track has gone from a negligible gain to actually being detrimental....
Hopefully studios will stop including lossless tracks on all of their vintage films.
How can lossless be detrimental? And I still don't understand how I'm able to see the wires in The Wizard of Oz on a 1985 vhs version that is blurry, soft, and no detail, but audiences couldn't in 1939? I know that the dye transfer prints were softer, but detail is clearer on a vhs copy? Sorry, but I don't buy that.
Nowhere have I called for "bigger and louder" audio. I believe that the audio reproduction should simply be given the same high-quality treatment as the video.
I DO believe that uncompressed audio can have EVERYTHING to do with "faithful reproduction."
Robert, if you can believe that Blu-ray can provide a more accurate reproduction of the original film experience in the home due to its higher video resolution, I believe it is legitimate for me to believe that Bu-ray can also provide a more accurate reproduction of the film experience in the home due to its higher audio resolution.
It's really all about smoke and mirrors.
The rush toward 4k projection. But to what end? We never had 4k quality in 35mm projection. Properly set up 2k theatrical is just fine, unless one wishes to test the limits of 70mm.
Same thing with audio. Uncompressed is nice for those who have very high end systems. For everyone else, it serves no purpose.
There are distinct differences between the visual and the aural.
While one generally needs every bit of resolution that the Blu-ray format can provide for image, audio is another matter.
Especially when dealing with older, optically based tracks, the added dimension that uncompressed audio can add for high end systems, simply isn't there in the original recordings of many older (pre-50s) tracks. One can take advantage of having uncompressed audio, but no difference will be heard, and if not processed properly, the uncompressed format can be detrimental, ie. revealing too much of what's behind the curtain, ie., splices, dirt and bloops.
Robert: Thanks for engaging in this side discussion.
Why not strive for that high-level of audio excellence? Doesn't the HD video benefit those with higher-end displays?
Restoring audio has little to do with what is heard that should not be heard. Preparing a old track for uncompressed reproduction will take more effort and expense than delivering compressed, but to what advantage?
This is what you're hearing:
This example is 1/8 of a second of Vertigo.
Which is a copy of a copy of a copy. If one is hearing a reproduction of an analogue image, that has been digitized, unlike a modern soundtrack, it is still no better than the black and white image seen at the left. That image is turned back into sound waves as it is projected on to a cell via light from an exciter lamp. That impulse then goes through various amplification and filtering toward a final result, as it travels through wires, and generally into speakers coated with dust. In the final analysis, the difference between the compressed and uncompressed information on a Blu-ray disc is zero.
I find this sort of thing fascinating, and it's great that we've got a true expert like RAH on board. I suspect there are few places in cyberspace where such expertise is so readily available to the average ounter.
Robert, moving back to picture quality, you noted that:
"...classic films were not meant to be viewed from their camera negatives, which in many cases reveal far too much within the image, that would be hidden in original multiple generations."
If a Blu-ray Disc goes back to the original camera negatives and shows up detail the director never hought would be seen at the cinema (poor make-up, or whatever), do you think the picture quality can ever be I]too[/I] good?
If we can see things which suddenly cause us to stop suspending disbelief, isn't that a bad thing?
Yes. Going back to an original element is sometimes problematic. And you deal with it, shot by shot, and frame by frame.
An example: In GF2, during the murder of Fanucci, in a 4k scan of the camera original, tiny wires attached to squibs in the actor's face became visible. These had to be digitally removed. They were not visible in final prints.