What's new

A Few Words About A few words about...™ It's a Wonderful Life -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

Worth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
5,230
Real Name
Nick Dobbs
I can see why this release is going to be one of those divisive titles that people will either love or hate.

The disc looks quite "good" - that is to say, it's very detailed and very clean and is a clear upgrade over any other previous video version of the movie. But anyone who knows what projected 35mm film is supposed to look like will probably be disappointed.

This disc makes "It's a Wonderful Life" look like it was shot in HD video, not 35mm film.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,558
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Eric,

I don't mean to pick on you but your opinion seems to
be in the minority here.

Very interested to know what your setup is. For instance,
the kind and size of your display and the viewing distance.

Also, what is your previous knowledge of how this film
should look?
 

Sure, Ron. I am watching on a Sony Bravia KDLXBR5 52" LCD monitor, Blu Ray: Sony550. I have owned this film on every format since 1988. I know how bad the pd copies looked. I know that the 45th Anniversary Edition from Republic set the modern standard for this film (splices and audio dropouts notwithstanding.) The 1995 remastering effort from Republic was horrible. You can still see it every year on NBC. Frames were frozen to cover up damage, the image was soft and blurry...just a mess. The film looked good on SD in 2006, but I did a side by side comparison last night and the film looks beautiful. I found it to look very filmlike. The bright sections of the film (particularly in the early sections) sparkle without blown-out contrast, while the darker sections have the right amount of inky blacks in the darker areas. I did not see any DNR artifacts. There is minor damage on a few frames, but it is nowhere near the problem that it was on previous versions. I feel that if you are a fan of this film, then you should check this out for yourself. I have no agenda. I don't work for Paramount. I don't work for a rival studio. Anyone who reads my posts on the HTF know that I am a perfectionist (i.e. The Wizard of Oz Blu-ray). I don't say something looks great to me when it doesn't. My eyes are very sensitive to flaws. And I am saying without any reservations that if someone passes this up because they read bad reviews, then they are doing themselves a disservice where this release is concerned. They will miss out on a great looking (and sounding) presentation. Just my two cents.
 

Josh Dial

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2000
Messages
4,504
Real Name
Josh Dial
Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/60#post_3627378
I found it to look very filmlike...My eyes are very sensitive to flaws.
(edits mine)
I don't think they are. How can something show on 35mm film be scrubbed so clean, so as to look like it was shot last year on HD video, yet still retain a film-like look? Even worse, it looks like a recent movie that was overly-dnr'd to the point that the crispness was forced and unnatural.
As a lark, I ventured into a video rental store for the first time in literally 10 years (other than to buy pre-owned discs), and dropped 2 bucks on a rental of this blu-ray, just so I wasn't "that guy" who complains about something without seeing it. The comment about the forcefield pushing the grain away from the actors is spot-on. It looks like everyone is suspended in a viscous liquid like oil, and any remaining grain particles are being shunted aside as they move through the world.
All of the joy of this film, sans the actual dialogue and plot, has been sucked out of it by way of over-processing. It's a shame, really. I can't see how any true lover of this film (or films in general) could accept this release at all, regardless of screen size. Just watch the last dvd release up-converted. It may not have the same level of detail, but at least it's honest.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
Originally Posted by Josh Dial /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/60#post_3627424
All of the joy of this film, sans the actual dialogue and plot, has been sucked out of it by way of over-processing
Obviously nobody was able to enjoy the film in the 1980s or 1990s, either, since the film was presently so horribly. Alas, there was no joy in Bedford Falls then, nor is there any now. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,312
Real Name
Robert Harris
I thought it time for a bit more background.
I've now spent some additional quality time with the Blu-ray of It's a Wonderful Life, and I can see why a number of people like it.
It's clean. It has a wonderful contrast level and a terrific gray scale.
But the more closely I look, the less I like it, and here is my reasoning.
There is a simple purity to film.
Going back 105 years the motion picture film base, be it nitrate, acetate or paper, has been a device that holds grain, which is the source of an image.
When the film is run through an appropriate device, we get "movies" or "flickers."
In its purest form, the image is controlled by the grain.
As film is duped (and this is era dependent) we get added softness, sometimes objectionable grain and a myriad of analogue artifacts -- some from the dupes, others caused by processing problems.
When a film is prepared for standard definition DVD, grain has a problem for proper compression, and the grain "problem" has been affected in various ways. In the most simplistic form, the entire image is slightly softened and then edges are sharpened to provide a less grainy image, but with a perception of sharpness.
One of the wonderful attributes of the Blu-ray system is its ability to reproduce film as it would be viewed projected in a theater -- grain and all. If there are multi-generational offending dupes, damage or other problems, these can all be attended to in the digital realm, and without any damage to the image quality.
However...
And this is a huge however, and in this case the 800 pound gorilla in the room...
When one has a film element that is not problematic, or with only occasional problems, it is relatively simple to reproduce as it is without a great measure of digital image management or "enhancement."
If one wishes to change that image for whatever reason, and if that reason is to lessen the grain structure, one may move in one of three directions -- and I'm being simplistic here. Throw the image slightly out of focus, use a higher degree of digital functionality and go the spatial route, or move in a temporal direction.
What appears to have occurred with It's a Wonderful Life is that it has been through the digital ringer.
It appears that grain has been removed, and the image may be slightly artificially sharpened, but whatever vendor did the work was not able to handle the tools they set in motion. Digital work generally functions in blocks. Computers determine what they're seeing or are told to see in blocks of different sizes. The smaller the block, the more processing power necessary, and obviously the higher cost of processing in a monetary sense.
The main problem that I'm having with It's a Wonderful Life is that I don't believe, with extremely high quality film elements in hand, that it needed any of this processing.
And it is the processing, and controlling the image that came out the other side which must have gone through at least two levels of QC, that I'm finding highly offensive because of the total loss of a film-like image. There is absolutely no reason that when Mr. Stewart or others walk across the frame, that because of poor processing, that the blocks of pixels mentioned above are unable to determine what is Mr. Stewart's head...
and what is wall.
Bringing It's a Wonderful Life to Blu-ray should have been an extremely easy affair, and someone, somewhere has complicated it to a point where it is no longer a film, but rather a digital image masquerading as film.
What might have been something beautiful, reproducing the look of this wonderful film, is simply not what it should or could have been.
And this is not about budget.
Properly scanning and down-rezzing these elements should have been far simpler than what has been done, and I would bet, at a lower price.
I'm not saying that people cannot enjoy this Blu-ray, either in B & W or colorized.
My point is very simple. That those who wish to own It's a Wonderful Life on Blu-ray should be able to add the disc to their collection, and that disc should live up to the dynamic capabilities of the Blu-ray system. Those with smaller image environments should be able to enjoy it today without considering what it might someday look like on a screen ten feet high by eighteen feet wide.
This Blu-ray has a troubled image, created not out of technical necessity, but for other reasons that I cannot fathom.
And that
is why I'm suggesting that the work be performed again, in a simpler and more direct way, toward the creation of what can easily be a perfect Blu-ray disc.

RAH
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Josh Dial

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2000
Messages
4,504
Real Name
Josh Dial
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/60#post_3627431
Obviously nobody was able to enjoy the film in the 1980s or 1990s, either, since the film was presently so horribly. Alas, there was no joy in Bedford Falls then, nor is there any now.
Was it? Really? Was the processing so distracting on even the broadcast TV versions that all you could do stare in wonder at the train wreck in front of your eyes? Really? Really?
It's like that Farside comic with "Raymond's last day as the band's sound technician," where he's turning up the "suck" dial. Someone consciously made a choice to do what was done with this release, and that, in my opinion, is worse than anything (short of colourization) I've seen in any other version of the film. As I said, previous releases may not have been perfect, either, but at least they were honest.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
Originally Posted by Worth /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/60#post_3627344
I can see why this release is going to be one of those divisive titles that people will either love or hate.
Unfortunately that seems to be the choice people are positing, but it isn't what a careful reading of RAH's comments should lead you to.
I tried to strike the appropriate balance in the title of my HTF Review, when I said "not recommended". I didn't say "Do Not Buy!" I also made it clear in the body of the review that the Blu-ray has a lot of detail and that it's entirely possible to watch it and have a fine viewing experience.
But that doesn't mean it's everything it should be or could be, and sites like this one have long been devoted to demanding the best from visual media (audio too, but that's a whole different can of worms). We all know that images can look great and yet still not be accurate, and RAH has one of the best eyes for detecting inaccuracy that I've ever encountered. I knew something was off, and said so. He's the who figured out what and why.
Does this make the Blu-ray unwatchable? I don't think so. And if someone who didn't already own IaWL asked me what version to buy today, I'd say the Blu-ray, because, on balance, it's the best version currently available. But as I said in the conclusion of my review, if you're satisfied with your DVD, upconvert it and wait a while.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,623
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
My point (made in the spirit of light humor) was that for 99.99999999% of viewers of this film for the last 30 years the story has trumped the presentation quality. I know the bar has been raised about 100 fold over what it was 10-20 years ago, but I find it hard to get the pitchforks out over these issues. I appreciate Mr. Harris' efforts to steer the industry into better standards, and his insight is quite valuable. However, given the choice between watching this new Blu-ray or any other previous home video release, I think the decision is hardly difficult. When the choice becomes available between this Blu-ray and a newer Blu-ray without this additional digital processing/manipulation I will gladly endorse the latter.
 

Larry Sutliff

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
2,861
If you are a serious collector, why not spend the $$$ for an original print?
Because I don't have five hundred bucks for every movie I want. Nor the room to store prints. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif But we shouldn't have to. As Martin Scorcese recently pointed out, a good Blu-ray is very, very close to a nice 35mm print. A classic film like this deserves to be released with the best possible transfer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,312
Real Name
Robert Harris
And the industry is well aware that this will be the position taken by the majority. The unfortunate reality is that if the public accepts mediocrity the industry will continue to supply it. If a problematic master sitting on the shelf will serve a purpose and the public will be accepting of it, why not use it, and not spend dollars to make it correct.
There have been comments that a new "fully restored" edition (for a film that needs no further restorative efforts) may appear in the future, and the public will upgrade.
My point is that the public should not need to upgrade. The product should be top quality on day one. There are neither technological nor financial barriers preventing a perfect Blu-ray. But if the industry can get away with some less...
The decision is not whether to purchase now and then again later. A well informed buyer has the option to not purchase until the product is proper quality.
I see no difference between the purchase of a Blu-ray disc and a new car.
If one arrives at a automobile dealership ready to take delivery, and the vehicle has problems, will the check pass from one hand to the next. Doubtful. There is no reason in 2009 why a Blu-ray should not be up to the quality of the film elements from which it is sourced.
RAH
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I appreciate Mr. Harris' efforts to steer the industry into better standards, and his insight is quite valuable. However, given the choice between watching this new Blu-ray or any other previous home video release, I think the decision is hardly difficult. When the choice becomes available between this Blu-ray and a newer Blu-ray without this additional digital processing/manipulation I will gladly endorse the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMF

Josh Dial

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2000
Messages
4,504
Real Name
Josh Dial
Originally Posted by Brandon Conway /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/60#post_3627471
However, given the choice between watching this new Blu-ray or any other previous home video release, I think the decision is hardly difficult.
Indeed it isn't. Pass on the current BD of "It's a Wonderful Life." :)
 

That's how I feel about the glitches on the new Oz set, along with the altered dialogue. I shouldn't, in five years or so, have to re-purchase the title again because the studio made errors on this release.
 

Steve Christou

Long Member
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2000
Messages
16,333
Location
Manchester, England
Real Name
Steve Christou
Originally Posted by Robert Harris /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/60#post_3627433

My point is very simple. That those who wish to own It's a Wonderful Life on Blu-ray should be able to add the disc to their collection, and that disc should live up to the dynamic capabilities of the Blu-ray system. Those with smaller image environments should be able to enjoy it today without considering what it might someday look like on a screen ten feet high by eighteen feet wide.

RAH
Since I don't have a wall sized screen and have no plans to own one in the near future, I will be buying the blu-ray of Capra's classic after all. Thank you RAH.
I remember back in the early 80's when I recorded this film off the BBC in long play mode (all BW films were relegated to long play mode by foolish young Steve back then, even my favourite, Casablanca) the film looked fuzzy and I still enjoyed watching it in that condition. Never knowing that one day I'd consider not buying it because it was less than perfect. /img/vbsmilies/htf/smiley_wink.gif
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,312
Real Name
Robert Harris
Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard /img/forum/go_quote.gif
That's how I feel about the glitches on the new Oz set, along with the altered dialogue. I shouldn't, in five years or so, have to re-purchase the title again because the studio made errors on this release.
Agreed. Simple answer. Return the Oz set, as I've done with mine.
I cannot and will not view the Oz Blu-ray knowing that Toto's lines were lip-sync'd.
 

It's not that. It's the altered Garland line. My point isn't just these particular mistakes, but it seems as if with every new release of a film, something is changed or a mistake is made in parts of the film that were never problematic to begin with. And I would take it back, were it not for the fact that stores won't do that.
 

Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/60#post_3627528
It's the altered Garland line. ...And I would take it back, were it not for the fact that stores won't do that.
So you weren't bothered by the fact that Oz is one of the most beautiful blu rays ever made?
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,312
Real Name
Robert Harris
This is what occurs when people who don't know the films touch them.
I'd return to Paramount with a nasty letter.
Originally Posted by Eric Scott Richard /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It's not that. It's the altered Garland line. My point isn't just these particular mistakes, but it seems as if with every new release of a film, something is changed or a mistake is made in parts of the film that were never problematic to begin with. And I would take it back, were it not for the fact that stores won't do that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,752
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top