A Few Words About A few words about...™ CE3K -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Felix Martinez]

Sam, this was in fact the first Blu-ray I ever bought and the reason I jumped into the Blu-ray camp. I was fully prepared to remain with my player and this title alone had the other side won the format war.

 

[Cinescott]

^Ditto for me. CE3K was the very first Blu-ray for me. Given that I had paid $120 for the Criterion Laserdisc, the $40 price tag (at that time) seemed pretty attractive to me, especially given the deluxe treatment it received.

 

[Scott Calvert]

With Mr. Zsigmond's penchant for flashing and pushing/forcing (referring to photography, of course), I don't believe glossy is an adjective I would describe his work during that era.

Yeah, the photography here isn't even half as extreme as some other Zsigmond films of the era. He was not afraid of film grain, that's for sure. I have a hard time believing that this film, which was shot by Vilmos on 35mm, would have looked anywhere near glossy especially blown up to 70mm. I just don't believe it. As far as opticals go yeah they were done 70mm and then combined with negative but still you are going to have some degradation. As far as color goes I see nothing wrong with the colors here. Everything looks very natural with frequent pops of brilliant color....Neary's red shirt comes to mind.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Another aspect of this Blu-ray release worth revisiting/appreciating is the absolutely FABULOUS audio. Much has been said of the excellent mix, dynamic range, etc.; however, for me, the mid-range in the CE3K soundtrack is the Achilles Heel of the mix. It's always been edgy in that freq. range - at least in any home video and audio release I've come across. I was recently listening to the late-90s CD of the remastered soundtrack (no slouch in the audio dept. that one) and the Blu-ray manages to make the mid-range even smoother.

 

[Worth]

Regarding grain, this title has a lot of it. It's not all on night shots or shots that are optically composited, either. There are some broad daylight scenes where the background of the shot appears to be crawling. I find it hard to believe that a theoretical Blu-ray struck from a print in 1977 would have looked like this and if not, by definition it must have gotten worse over time. It's not a significantly detracting factor for me, but it's undeniably there.

Colour can certainly fade and shift over time, but I've never heard of film becoming grainier as it ages. I can't claim to remember exactly what the film looked like in 1977 - I was nine when it came out - but I've seen it projected theatrically many times over the years since and it's always struck me as a grainy film. I think the sharpness and stability of blu-ray (or digital cinema in general) has a tendency to exacerbate grain more than a film print, which is softer, smoother and less harsh.

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by Worth



Colour can certainly fade and shift over time, but I've never heard of film becoming grainier as it ages. I can't claim to remember exactly what the film looked like in 1977 - I was nine when it came out - but I've seen it projected theatrically many times over the years since and it's always struck me as a grainy film.

I think the sharpness and stability of blu-ray (or digital cinema in general) has a tendency to exacerbate grain more than a film print, which is softer, smoother and less harsh.

First off, I am not a chemist, nor do I pretend to be one on TV. I have no issue with Blu-rays accurately presenting what's on the source material. If there's grain there, so be it. I am not in the "let's get rid of it at any cost" camp. I did, though, read a piece recently on the digital bits that was interesting. Here's a quote:


"Film grain is an inherent part of the texture and character of older movies, which of course were shot on photochemical film stock (see Wikipedia's entry on the subject). The grains are tiny bits of metallic silver that are part of the actual physical structure of a piece of film. The amount of grain you see in the image may be the result of a stylistic choice by the director and cinematographer, as determined by their selection of film stock used during the production, or it's the product of the aging process of the film itself, the chemical composition of which changes over time. Often, it's a little of both."


Therefore, given Close Encounters was filmed on a stock known to be problematic, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe the amount of grain has increased over the 33 years since its release.

 

[TonyBouchard]

I recently saw Super 8 and the amount of grain looks very similar to or perhaps more than the CE3K BD. In fact it reminded me of CE3K. The dark scenes are particularly grainy. I wonder if this was accomplished through use of vintage film stock or was digitally 'enhanced'?

 

[Felix Martinez]

Originally Posted by TonyBouchard ...

“We pushed it a stop for all the night scenes because we needed the stop with the long lenses. We did a test and it looked great. The grain holds up. In fact I wouldn’t have minded more grain. I’m not afraid of grain at all.”

 

[Scott Calvert]

The Close Encounters BD isn't really any grainier than Taxi Driver, All The Presidents Men, The Exorcist, Blow Out, One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest, The Godfather, Superman, or any other of the 70's films I have on BD. The grain is not in those films because of aging. It's always been there.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Colour can certainly fade and shift over time, but I've never heard of film becoming grainier as it ages. I can't claim to remember exactly what the film looked like in 1977 - I was nine when it came out - but I've seen it projected theatrically many times over the years since and it's always struck me as a grainy film. I think the sharpness and stability of blu-ray (or digital cinema in general) has a tendency to exacerbate grain more than a film print, which is softer, smoother and less harsh.

I think maybe 35mm projector focus might have more to do with the softening effect more than the actual prints themselves. With a bluray it's like having just about 100% perfect focus, and stability (no gate weave) like you said.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Here's an audio interview with Mr. Zsigmond about the experience of filming CE3K. And in another print interview he calls CE3K "Steven Spielberg's Heaven's Gate," referring to the difficulty and budget disputes with the producers and studio. Fortunately for CE3K there was a happy ending.

 

[Cinescott]

Next week I am going to be attending a 35mm theatrical screening of CE3K at the Milwaukee Film Festival, followed by a Q&A with Vilmos Zsigmond who will be in attendance. Given I have not seen one celluloid-projected frame of this classic since 1977, it ought to prove a very interesting and fun experience.

I'd very much like to ask Mr. Zsigmond if he is pleased with the Blu-ray for Close Encounters as well as his work represented on other Blu-rays, most notably Deliverance and The Deer Hunter.


Maybe I'll be lucky and get an autograph on the CE3K set; that would be very cool for me.

 

[Felix Martinez]

That is awesome, Mr. Scott! Looking forward to reading about your experience.


P.S. I just got this and it's wonderful. True labor of love:


On The Set of CE3K