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

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/120#post_3628065
To sum up, it is quite right to seek Mr Harris' opinion, but unless a Blu-ray Disc is virtually no improvement at all over the DVD, the decision to buy or not to buy becomes a personal one.
Steve W

Actually, the decision to buy or not is always a personal one and it's a decision that can't be made by some other person despite what they have to say about a BRD or DVD presentation. Just about all of us have invested in this hobby for our own personal enjoyment and that's ultimately what most of us are concerned about in the first place.
I'll watch my BRD later today and will pay specific attention to some of the scenes mentioned in this thread.
Crawdaddy

 

[Yorkshire]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well, to be fair, he is not saying don't buy this disc. He is saying don't buy this disc if you want an exact reproduction of IaWL that looks like film. People keep using DVD as the datum for comparison; however, R. Harris has stated more than once that the datum for comparison should not be the DVD. His contention is that datum for a proper comparison is the actual film element. In that event, it doesn't matter how much better the BD image is than the DVD image. If it doesn't match a film element that has been properly cleaned up and/or restored then it is a job badly done. Still, you are right that it is a personal choice whether to buy or not. If a person is satisfied that the image is better than the DVD then by all means they should buy it; however, if a person cares that what they are watching actually looks like the film it was shot on then the decision should be easy: don't buy it.

Well, I have the DVD, and that is the only comparison for Blu-ray Disc in current home cinema. Obviously, if you have the DVD and are considering buying the Blu-ray Disc, one important question is whether it will give better results than the version you already own.
The top and bottom of it is that people are refusing to buy thus disc and saying "I'll stick with my upscaled DVD" because the Blu-ray Disc "isn't film-like" when the DVD is clearly less film-like.
That's completely illogical.
Steve W

 

[Josh Dial]

Originally Posted by Brian Husar /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/120#post_3628102

But if a "better than dvd image" is what you want by all means purchase the disc. I will wait for it to recreate the theatrical experiance.

You bring up an interesting point--one that has been made numerous times on this fourm, and other sites (such as The Digital Bits), and it still baffles me. Why do people--especially those using numerical review systems--keep comparing a blu-ray release to a DVD release, and say things like "well, it's not a very good blu-ray image at all, but it's better than the DVD!" Is that really where we want to place the bar?

Do studios (I'm using the word as a catchall term for whomever might be responsible for crap releases) truly deserve *any* kind words such as "well, it will look fine on 32" or smaller," or "it's still better than your DVD copy." I strongly dislike this trend in reviews where scores are given theoretical mimums, simply because of the format. For example, let's say on a review site, you see a BD get a 15/20 for video, with an explanation in the review itself saying that the image is marred with DNR, halos abound, inaccurate blacks, et cetera. However, comparing it to the DVD, the *best* a DVD could hope for is a 10 out of 20, so hey, this is better, right?

I'm pretty sure Blu-ray's slogan isn't "well, it's slightly better than DVD!"

I understand a lot of people are upgrading movies from DVD to BD, and are interested to see if specific releases are worth it. However, what does it take for a BD to get *lower* than a DVD score?

To cite the example of Steve "Yorkshire" above, why does the DVD score 50/100 while the BD scores 60/100? To me, a release that completely undermines a lot of the advantages of a format doesn't deserve a passing score.

When you write a research paper in university, but fail to do a proper job (weak thesis, zero actual research, no citations, writing on the wrong subject, et cetera), you don't get a C- from the professor because "well, it's better than a middle school student would do, and hey, the spelling and grammer are actually quite good!"

The prof fails your paper.

Poor releases should get a failing grade, not a mediocre score and paragraphs upon paragraphs of "it's a crap release, buuuuuuuut..."

 

[Robert Harris]

I've received reports of postings on other sites, which are apparently far more a "free for all" than the well administered HTF, that have taken this situation and somehow turned it on its head, so...
One more time, and hopefully my remarks, properly quoted and reported will fill the vacuum elsewhere:
The original 35mm elements of It's a Wonderful Life have never been in a state of heavy disrepair.
A decade or so ago, the UCLA Film & Television Archive did a full and complete archival preservation on the film, and the results are beautiful. The film has not been in need of any heavy restorative efforts.
My commentary is not part of any "grudge match" with the studio, for not having been awarded restoration work for a film that needed no restoration.
The problem that I'm seeing is digitally induced, having nothing to do with film elements.
While viewing the Blu-ray I was not under the spell of any drugs, inclusive of modern non-prescription medications, nor the 19th century favorite, Laudanum, nor any opiates of any kind.
At no time have I stated or in any way suggested that anyone not purchase this Blu-ray, which is a personal decision.
The new Blu-ray of IaWL should be fine for anyone with a smaller sized screen, but IMHO is not a suitable candidate for those who may move to a large screen as a future investment, and... caveat here -- care what their image looks like and wishes Blu-rays to have the appearance of film.
I do not know where the work was performed. My only interest in eventually finding out would be so as not to take my work there.
IaWL is a far different problem from Gangs of New York, Patton or The Longest Day, in that from a distance the Blu-ray looks quite nice and can get by.
As far as video is concerned, although I've chided about doing it "with my eyes closed," there would have been no need to bring me into the process. With beautifully produced film elements in hand, any competent individual versed in the creation of Blu-rays could have made this a stellar presentation. In the hands of the any best studio asset protection people in town, it could have been magnificent and totally film-like.
And lastly, the new Blu-ray is no more film-like than an upscaled standard def version. It is simply more detailed and prettier.
RAH

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/120#post_3628153
Well, I have the DVD, and that is the only comparison for Blu-ray Disc in current home cinema. Obviously, if you have the DVD and are considering buying the Blu-ray Disc, one important question is whether it will give better results than the version you already own.
The top and bottom of it is that people are refusing to buy thus disc and saying "I'll stick with my upscaled DVD" because the Blu-ray Disc "isn't film-like" when the DVD is clearly less film-like.
That's completely illogical.
Steve W

I'm not sure that I'd agree with that assessment. I bought the original "Star Trek" films on blu before bothering to read all the negative reviews. In some ways they look arguably "better" than the DVDs - that is, they are cleaner and clearly more detailed - but I find the DVDs actually look more film-like despite the lower resolution.
The same is true of Paramount's face off HD-DVD. It's sharper than the DVD, but the gross misuse of digital processing makes it appear far less film-like.

 

[Cees Alons]

Robert,

It is still amazing how people who apparently have no, or hardly any, arguments on the level of the real substance of a discussion flee to trying to bad-mouth the motivations of the author. Or first distort the points he's making and then proudly fight the reasoning he never had in the first place.

It's amazing, yes, but also sad. Thank you for a very clear "abstract" of what you have been saying on this subject all the time, and which must have been very clear to almost all of our members and interested posters here.

But if it helps, as you say, filling the vacuum elsewhere? I wonder if they even really want that to happen.



Josh,

Great post! Written as a worthy scholar, and 100% on the heads of all the applicable nails.


With posts like these two - RAH's and Josh's latest - I'm proud, but most of all happy to be a member of this forum.


Cees

 

[Brian Husar]

It seems like people are afraid of you Robert because you know what your talking about and they discredit you. You have a deep knowledge of what should be, and that drives them nuts when all they want to do is move product. You know all of us value what you say and trust it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I've received reports of postings on other sites, which are apparently far more a "free for all" than the well administered HTF, that have taken this situation and somehow turned it on its head, so...

Apparently, some people have to justify their stated opinion or purchase of this BRD release by wanting to shoot the messenger for giving his personal and professional opinion regarding this release. Also, you have the studio plants that have their own agenda.

The new Blu-ray of IaWL should be fine for anyone with a smaller sized screen, but IMHO is not a suitable candidate for those who may move to a large screen as a future investment, and... caveat here -- care what their image looks like and wishes Blu-rays to have the appearance of film.

After viewing this BRD from beginning to end on my 64" screen, I can see why others will have a different opinion about the quality of the video presentation than RAH. I had to get up from my sitting position and played back certain scenes to actually see some of what RAH was talking about, but the video presentation does have a lot more detail than the previously released DVD.

And lastly, the new Blu-ray is no more film-like than an upscaled standard def version. It is simply more detailed and prettier.

This is where I somewhat disagree with RAH, as somebody that has used VP-50 video scaler and then my Denon top of the line receiver for upscaling the standard definition dvd of this title, I think this BRD looks much better in my "less than expert" opinion. For the most part, I think people in general will be very happy with this BRD release while the level of enjoyment will depend on the size of their screen and expertise of their viewing eyes. However, with that said, I can see why purists will have difficulty with this release because it goes against the basic principle of home theater viewing which is to capture as closely as possible, the movie theater experience in their own home. In short, viewing a BRD like you're actually watching a film in a movie theater. Without question, this BRD could be better by giving you the sense you're watching a film and not a disc.

Again, the choice of buying or not buying this release is a very personal decision and people need to make up their own mind in that regard.





Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

I didn't watch the colorized version, but I might do so closer to the holiday season just for kicks because this is a very personal favorite film of mine and I try to watch this film every chance I get. It's a film that tears my eyes up every viewing, particulary, the last scene in the Bailey home. Yes, I'm a sentimental fool.





Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Harris]

Robert,

Pleased that you were able to view.

The bottom line for me in all of these discussions, is that they should be unnecessary. It would have been no more expensive and taken no more effort to create a perfect Blu-ray, and I would have been thrilled to give it a highest rating. The pity is that time and effort are taken in a thread which should not have needed to exist.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/120#post_3628214
Robert,
Pleased that you were able to view.
The bottom line for me in all of these discussions, is that they should be unnecessary. It would have been no more expensive and taken no more effort to create a perfect Blu-ray, and I would have been thrilled to give it a highest rating. The pity is that time and effort are taken in a thread which should not have needed to exist.

I have no disagreement there. Certain people in the industry are doing a great disservice by approving certain work when it comes to these blu-ray presentations.
Crawdaddy

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/120#post_3628169
While viewing the Blu-ray I was not under the spell of any drugs, inclusive of modern non-prescription medications, nor the 19th century favorite, Laudanum, nor any opiates of any kind.

How can you be sure Mr. Gower put the right stuff in the pills? He's been pretty upset lately.

 

[Yorkshire]

Originally Posted by Worth /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/120#post_3628177

 

[Robert Harris]

I question if you're playing a game here, especially in the reworking of my comments. If you properly report what I've written, you'll find the point that because of its far higher resolution, the BD looks less film-like than the SD. In no way equal to the image of lower resolution, which is able to hide the flaws.
One can accept an SD disc for what it is, as it makes no pretense toward reproducing the the look of actual film. While the BD has the capability to do so, it fails.
And the addition of a clearly damaged frame from another transfer hardly moves things along, unless there is a missing emoticon. This appears to be a perfect example of selecting an incorrect film element for transfer, unless one is seeking emulsion scratches.
The entire point of the IaWL BD is that whomever was responsible for the final product began with a superior piece of film, and failed miserably.

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /forum/thread/294790/a-few-words-about-it-s-a-wonderful-life-in-blu-ray/150#post_3628385

 

[Yorkshire]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /img/forum/go_quote.gif

I question if you're playing a game here, especially in the reworking of my comments. If you properly report what I've written, you'll find the point that because of its far higher resolution, the BD looks less film-like than the SD. In no way equal to the image of lower resolution, which is able to hide the flaws.

Hi Robert. I'm not playing a game here, and would not want to misrepresent your comments - that was how I read what you've said. I cannot find the part that says the extra resolution makes it worse than the DVD, I can only find the parts which discuss improved contrast and detail.

Just to clarify, once and for all, are you saying that the BD looks worse and less film-like than the DVD?

Or, put another way, if you owned neither, what would you do - buy the BD, the DVD, or neither (leaving aside the price difference)?

Many thanks.

Steve W

 

[Robert Harris]

While I try to refrain from offering buying advice except in the case of "must owns," if I owned neither, and was set up for Blu-ray, I'd wait until the release is done properly. There are some very talented technical people at the studio, and I'd place a wager on this problem stemming from an executive bean-counter extraordinaire sending a message of "Don't spend money on a new master. This one is fine."

Then the disc enters the marketplace and when the problem is finally acknowledged, not a single finger points in the direction of bean-counter. Everyone is glaring at the individual who approved what the techs must have known was a flawed older transfer. In this case all transfers are handled by outside vendors.

RAH

Originally Posted by Yorkshire /img/forum/go_quote.gif




Hi Robert. I'm not playing a game here, and would not want to misrepresent your comments - that was how I read what you've said. I cannot find the part that says the extra resolution makes it worse than the DVD, I can only find the parts which discuss improved contrast and detail.

Just to clarify, once and for all, are you saying that the BD looks worse and less film-like than the DVD?

Or, put another way, if you owned neither, what would you do - buy the BD, the DVD, or neither (leaving aside the price difference)?

Many thanks.

Steve W

 

[Mark-W]

Thank you for the review.
I will be voting with my wallet and not purchasing this film on Blu-Ray until it gets
the transfer it deserves. Sad.

 

[Torsten Kaiser]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris /img/forum/go_quote.gif

(...) Everyone is glaring at the individual who approved what the techs must have known was a flawed older transfer. In this case all transfers are handled by outside vendors.

RAH

As far as I can make it out, the transfer master itself should be/is good/very good. Having the transfer made outside was not the problem. It is the post (de-noising tool that was used for cleanup) that has caused the flaws. That decision was not well advised; and the QC and acceptance was not, either.

 

[Robert Harris]

I've had a chance to re-check the last standard definition release, which appears to be from the same master -- grain reduced, sharpened, and with "force fields." Because of the far lower resolution it is, to my eye, a more pleasing and honest representation of the film.
Interestingly, the SD packaging uses the verbiage "brand-new color version as well as the beautifully restored black & white version."
And from the look of the image, I buy it, and I'm fine with it.
The new Blu-ray has dropped the word "restored" and changed it to read "pristine," which better suits the release, as it hardly matters if something is "restored," if layers of digital garbage are encoded along with the image to hide the restoration. It is however, clean.
RAH

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif
As far as I can make it out, the transfer master itself should be/is good/very good. Having the transfer made outside was not the problem. It is the post (de-noising tool that was used for cleanup) that has caused the flaws. That decision was not well advised; and the QC and acceptance was not, either.

 

[Mike Frezon]

FWIW (and for the reasons I am about to post it's probably not worth much) I just watched my new BD of IaWL from start-to-finish last night and thought it was beautiful.
But here's the caveat. I use a pair of untrained eyes to make that determination AND am watching on a very small display (26" 16:9 HD CRT).
So, I fit an audience that should not have any problems with this disc (as the reviewers here--RAH & Michael Reuben have clearly noted). Even if I can upgrade sometime to a 32" LCD, I'm sure it will still look terrific.
As has been noted over and over again, the film looks completely clean and in perfect shape. It is a joy to watch and I still get choked up at the reading of Sam Wainwright's telegram from London.
I was left wondering about the audio...if a lossless track might've made some difference. While I have no complaints at all about what I listened to last night, I will wonder if the presentation might have been even a little bit better with an uncompressed track.