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

[snoopy28574]

How would Digital restoration be performed ?

 

[Dave Moritz]

Thank you Mr Harris for giving a great and honest review. I love reading your reviews and we all know that we can trust what you say about a release. It is very helpfull to know if a title has recieved a great transfer or has been botched. We all here at HTF appreciate your honest in reviewing this title and I for one would like to thank you.

I was looking foward to adding this title as it was one of a number of classic titles that I wanted to add to my collection. Ever since Bluray came out I have actually wanted to own classic films on video, Bluray HD has IMHO done alot for viewing films at home. The problem still remains with studios botching releases and there over use of DNR. I thought that maybe they would have learned there lesson with Patton but I guess not! I see the use of DNR as a way to cater to the average consumer to hopefully bring them into the HD market. I honestly think that is a huge mistake and I wish they would learn that and stop screwing up releases with heavy use of DNR. I will not buy this title on Blu-ray along with many others here, at least until the film gets a better transfer without DNR. I also will not get Patton until the transfer is corrected and will boycot any other title that uses heavy DNR to remove the natural film grain! It's really sad when a studio takes a newer film like Gladiator with Russell Crowe and use DNR to destroy the look and detail lf the film. Do these studios like throwing money down the toilet to do a new transfer only to have it look like hell and end up with poor sales?

Anyway thanks Mr Harris for the honest review, I look foward to reading many more of your reviews.

 

[PaulDA]

Originally Posted by Dave Moritz
Do these studios like throwing money down the toilet to do a new transfer only to have it look like hell and end up with poor sales?

I'm not convinced they end up with "poor sales" in general. Poor sales among those who care enough to frequent sites like this one, perhaps--but we are a tiny drop in the bucket. This is not to say it is not worth complaining, only that expecting redress on each title that does not meet the more exacting standards of enthusiasts is, sadly, not especially likely.

 

[GMpasqua]

DVD Beaver has screen shots comparing the Criterion with the new Blu-ray

The Blu-ray is sharper with more detail (not too much more, but more)
It does look good. It is more on the red side, but you can easily adjust the tint on your set to match the Criterion which is more blue.

 

[Torsten Kaiser]

Originally Posted by PaulDA

In fairness, I don't think Glenn Erickson is making such definitive statements. He is careful to note that he is reporting what he sees on his equipment and that he is not an expert on the technical side of things (he also offers links to why, for him, an improvement over DVD is often "enough"). I'm not saying his view of the PQ in this case should be privileged over that of RAH (I find myself in agreement more often with RAH than Erickson re: PQ, where they differ, by a wide margin) but I do think it unfair to characterize Erickson's comments as a claim of "absolute precision".

What I do value from Erickson are his discussions of the films themselves (the content, not the technical elements). That is his strength.
(...)

In all fairness, that [the highlighted part] is my view as well. But to clarify my point in a bit more detail, the problem with reviews re: technical quality rating and analysis is - his evaluations [just as those of others who write such reviews] carries weight. People are clicking on such websites to find out how good the quality is; and from here it is a matter of trust as for the "average" reader it is enourmously difficult to assertain the writer's technical background and/or experience in such matters, if any. Let's look at this in more detail a bit: to Glenn Erickson, SPARTACUS on Blu-ray "looked sharp and detailed". A comment that suggests a solid mastering. He also questioned upfront the criticism he foresaw re: "halo-ing as described by Mr. Harris." which he could not see. He surmised: "Perhaps I'll be told that I'm not looking at the BD on an approved monitor?" And that is indeed one of the key factors in the equasion. We do not even know what monitoring equipment was used for the review, or whether the performance or settings were up to specs. It could be (and very possibly was) a consumer television monitor that has some or all filtering setups switched on, drastically manipulating the picture signal of the source (in this case, the BD file).

My point is: He made an evaluation and comments on the quality, but - like so many other writers - makes his comments based on (his own) subjective guessing, not on a basis of reference, knowledge and/or experience. He does not know how much sharpness and detail has been lost prior from the Restoration Intermediate Positive to the reduced rubble that is presented on Blu-ray. He does not know how the elements registered originally, did not see the various manipulations (several attempts in noise reduction, coring and other ways of sharpening the digital master post transfer, and de-noising all over again) that left a maze of artifact patterns behind. Yet, ironically [and here is where it gets problematic], his comments are rated highly by the "average" reader because of his good background in writing about the films and the productions themselves. Reviews [re: technical evaluation] are, as I said, to a certain degree a matter of trust, since the reader wants to know whether the disc would be a good buy. The problem is that most writers do not have the background to substantiate the readers trust, which would be okay if the reader would be informed - yet all to often writers suggest they do have knowledge or background by the way of suggestive writing, which is not. To be fair again, Glenn Erickson did not do that. And to be perfectly clear, I am not suggesting or saying he could not learn. And perhaps, if he's interested, he'll gain insight into this area of expertise as well. I would welcome this very, very much. This is what is needed. In the meantime, Glenn's plot summaries is what I will stick to. Maybe he will too.

 

[John Hodson]

To re-iterate, Glenn, more than anybody I suspect, is well aware that a man has to know his limitations; he's not attempting to fool anyone that his area of expertise lies in technical minutae, though as an experienced film editor he's not exactly chopped liver.

It's down to the reader to sort the wheat out from the chaff if the intricacies of film restoration and video transfer are vital to them; there are many, many internet reviewers out there who haven't the slightest idea of what constitutes a 'good' restoration and who haven't a scintilla of the insight or critical faculties Glenn possesses. People read Savant for exactly the kind of review he delivers, if they want a hardcore technical review they go elsewhere.

With respect, give the chap a break.

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
There are others, myself included that are happy with the Zulu BRD, but there are other people that feel the complete opposite. We've had this same discussion beforehand when the disc first came out. Anyhow, no use discussing Zulu in a Spartacus thread.

But this is at the heart of RAH and others' argument, regarding Spartacus, Zulu, and many other films on Blu-ray, isn't it? Should the minimum standards for Blu-ray be a pleasing digital presentation, or an accurate reflection of the way the film looks, which at film resolution was good enough for 50 foot screens? And when the film is a large format film, should the minimum standards reflect that, or is that not important, as long as it looks good on YOUR tv? Didn't we have this same conflict years ago, when 50" tv owners complained about DVD video quality, only to be scoffed at by 32" tv owners? But hey, I just made a point for some of you-in ten years, when you have upgraded your display, then you can also upgrade your movie collection to the latest and the greatest. After all, it's not like these Blu-ray releases are the last optical disc versions we will have of these movies...

 

[Robert Harris]

Jarod gets it.

I'm going to say it again. For the second time in the same thread.



I'm going to bring something up once again, that was discussed over a year ago -- the propriety of assumption by the Blu-ray purchasing public that what they're buying will meet their needs regardless of the current parameters of their home theater screening environment.



With most every product sold there is an assumption of quality. Larger purchases -- cars, ovens, cameras, all come with warranties.



When Blu-ray packaging is emblazoned with the words "The perfect hi-def MOVIE experience," the images and sounds encoded to the disc contained within had better be precisely that.



People buy Criterion Blu-rays and DVDs, and earlier purchased their laser discs, because there was an assumption that what they were purchasing could not be technologically better.



Look at the disparity between distributors. Take Universal, or Paramount (with some of their original HD product derived from film), or product from any of the other studios, as this is not about Universal -- and compare it to the Blu-rays placed into the marketplace by filmmaker William Lustig's Blue Underground. Yesterday I previewed City of the Living Dead, and as anyone who is familiar with his product might assume -- it looks like film. He has gone to the expense of harvesting an image from the original negative in Rome.



The fact that someone is viewing their Blu-rays on a 42" monitor could not be more irrelevant to the point. There are many young people starting out, in their first apartments or starter homes, that are INVESTING in the future of their entertainment systems by purchasing Blu-ray product, fully aware that the full impact of the technology will not be visible on their present system. I had a discussion with a young lady at Borders last week as she was ringing up my Blu-ray purchase. She informed me that she and her boyfriend had just bought the same disc in SD. When I asked her why not Blu-ray, she explained that they could not yet afford an HD monitor.



By the time I left, she was considering the purchase of a Blu-ray player which would be connected to their present (non-HD set), now aware of the concept of purchasing software ONCE, as opposed to upgrading when they had the funds to make a larger investment.

Many people have no idea that Blu-rays can be played on older TVs, even if the unit is black & white and has rabbit ears. Yes, Blu-rays can be played on a 1948 Dumont.



The concept here is that every Blu-ray disc should meet certain technical standards, and by that I do not mean 1080p.



I know a gentleman who has made an incredible investment in his home theater. Blu-ray players with a signal going through HD, as well as 2k and 4k projectors. His screen is 10 x 18 feet. FEET. That's a bit larger than 108". His audio system is likewise incredible.



And the resultant image from Blu-ray?



Looks very much like film.



Reviewers of Blu-ray discs should not need to deal with resolution, black levels, color, noise and overall quality characteristics.



When someone purchases a Blu-ray disc, they should KNOW that it will service their needs as THE PERFECT HI-DEF MOVIE EXPERIENCE in their home theater today, as well has when they buy a home and have their own home theater with a 108" or 10x18 foot screen.



The concept, in 2010, of attempting to make do by digitally scrubbing and thereby destroying the look of old video masters that were created to service the SD world, is the antithesis of what should be occurring.



Warner Bros. has an HD master of Singin' in the Rain.



Why don't we have a Blu-ray?



Because they refuse to release it based upon a 1080i master that otherwise looks gorgeous.



George Feltenstein and others at Warner refuse to knowingly give the public anything less than as perfect a product as they can. When Singin' in the Rain passes muster for quality, then they'll release it, and you can bet that Ned Price will pull out all the stops.



Consider buying that nice new car.



Pretty paint. Great brochure. The salesman tells you that the muckmobile that he's trying to sell will outperform a Porsche, give you fuel economy somewhere between a Prius and a Telsa, and a full leather interior unheard of this side of a Rolls-Royce. But the moment you try to drive it away from the dealership -- it fails. Sorry. No warranty.



The perfect Hi-def MOVIE experience.



Anything that is not up to the full potential of industry standards should be returned to the vendor.



Anything less than the quality that one receives from Blue Underground should be impermissible.



No excuses.



RAH

 

[AlenK]

Originally Posted by Torsten Kaiser
We do not even know what monitoring equipment was used for the review, or whether the performance or settings were up to specs. It could be (and very possibly was) a consumer television monitor that has some or all filtering setups switched on, drastically manipulating the picture signal of the source (in this case, the BD file).

Mr. Erickson's review says "On my 67" Samsung rear-projection DLP LED (I think I got that description right) I noticed no halo-ing as described by Mr. Harris." So, yes, he uses a consumer television, and one based on a display technology that I know from direct experience to be fairly forgiving, especially since it is "only" 67 inches diagonal. While that's on the large side for a TV, it's actually small for a home "theater." It's also true that recognizing the flaws in an image takes education and experience. I teach this sort of thing at my company, for what it's worth.

I don't usually have a problem when a reviewer says an image looked good on their equipment, as long as he or she also tells us what that equipment is. They are expressing a personal opinion and as an educated reader I can judge that opinion for what it is worth. Thankfully in this case, by describing the scrubbed-smooth-as-a-baby's-bottom BD of Zulu as "eye-popping," Mr. Erickson gives us a huge clue about his personal standards of image quality. ;->

PS. On the issue of BD image quality in general, I side with Mr. Harris: "No excuses."

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Jarod M

But this is at the heart of RAH and others' argument, regarding Spartacus, Zulu, and many other films on Blu-ray, isn't it? Should the minimum standards for Blu-ray be a pleasing digital presentation, or an accurate reflection of the way the film looks, which at film resolution was good enough for 50 foot screens? And when the film is a large format film, should the minimum standards reflect that, or is that not important, as long as it looks good on YOUR tv? Didn't we have this same conflict years ago, when 50" tv owners complained about DVD video quality, only to be scoffed at by 32" tv owners? But hey, I just made a point for some of you-in ten years, when you have upgraded your display, then you can also upgrade your movie collection to the latest and the greatest. After all, it's not like these Blu-ray releases are the last optical disc versions we will have of these movies...

I'm not talking about minimum standards, I just made a point that I'm happy with the Zulu disc, but this thread isn't the one to discuss that specific title because it's been discussed in a prior thread about Zulu. Furthermore, I acknowledged that others feel quite differently because they have better trained eyes than myself in regard to observing the defects on that disc's video presentation. Other than that, let's continue the discussion about Spartacus which I haven't seen so I'll defer any further comment about it.




Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Jarod gets it.

I'm going to say it again. For the second time in the same thread.



[COLOR= #f00]I'm going to bring something up once again, that was discussed over a year ago -- the propriety of assumption by the Blu-ray purchasing public that what they're buying will meet their needs regardless of the current parameters of their home theater screening environment.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]With most every product sold there is an assumption of quality. Larger purchases -- cars, ovens, cameras, all come with warranties.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]When Blu-ray packaging is emblazoned with the words "The perfect hi-def MOVIE experience," the images and sounds encoded to the disc contained within had better be precisely that.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]People buy Criterion Blu-rays and DVDs, and earlier purchased their laser discs, because there was an assumption that what they were purchasing could not be technologically better.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Look at the disparity between distributors. Take Universal, or Paramount (with some of their original HD product derived from film), or product from any of the other studios, as this is not about Universal -- and compare it to the Blu-rays placed into the marketplace by filmmaker William Lustig's Blue Underground. Yesterday I previewed City of the Living Dead, and as anyone who is familiar with his product might assume -- it looks like film. He has gone to the expense of harvesting an image from the original negative in Rome.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]The fact that someone is viewing their Blu-rays on a 42" monitor could not be more irrelevant to the point. There are many young people starting out, in their first apartments or starter homes, that are INVESTING in the future of their entertainment systems by purchasing Blu-ray product, fully aware that the full impact of the technology will not be visible on their present system. I had a discussion with a young lady at Borders last week as she was ringing up my Blu-ray purchase. She informed me that she and her boyfriend had just bought the same disc in SD. When I asked her why not Blu-ray, she explained that they could not yet afford an HD monitor.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]By the time I left, she was considering the purchase of a Blu-ray player which would be connected to their present (non-HD set), now aware of the concept of purchasing software ONCE, as opposed to upgrading when they had the funds to make a larger investment.[/COLOR]

[COLOR= #f00]Many people have no idea that Blu-rays can be played on older TVs, even if the unit is black & white and has rabbit ears. Yes, Blu-rays can be played on a 1948 Dumont.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]The concept here is that every Blu-ray disc should meet certain technical standards, and by that I do not mean 1080p.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]I know a gentleman who has made an incredible investment in his home theater. Blu-ray players with a signal going through HD, as well as 2k and 4k projectors. His screen is 10 x 18 feet. FEET. That's a bit larger than 108". His audio system is likewise incredible.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]And the resultant image from Blu-ray?[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Looks very much like film.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Reviewers of Blu-ray discs should not need to deal with resolution, black levels, color, noise and overall quality characteristics.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]When someone purchases a Blu-ray disc, they should KNOW that it will service their needs as THE PERFECT HI-DEF MOVIE EXPERIENCE in their home theater today, as well has when they buy a home and have their own home theater with a 108" or 10x18 foot screen.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]The concept, in 2010, of attempting to make do by digitally scrubbing and thereby destroying the look of old video masters that were created to service the SD world, is the antithesis of what should be occurring.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Warner Bros. has an HD master of Singin' in the Rain.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Why don't we have a Blu-ray?[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Because they refuse to release it based upon a 1080i master that otherwise looks gorgeous[/COLOR].



[COLOR= #f00]George Feltenstein and others at Warner refuse to knowingly give the public anything less than as perfect a product as they can. When Singin' in the Rain passes muster for quality, then they'll release it, and you can bet that Ned Price will pull out all the stops.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Consider buying that nice new car.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Pretty paint. Great brochure. The salesman tells you that the muckmobile that he's trying to sell will outperform a Porsche, give you fuel economy somewhere between a Prius and a Telsa, and a full leather interior unheard of this side of a Rolls-Royce. But the moment you try to drive it away from the dealership -- it fails. Sorry. No warranty.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]The perfect Hi-def MOVIE experience.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Anything that is not up to the full potential of industry standards should be returned to the vendor.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]Anything less than the quality that one receives from Blue Underground should be impermissible.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]No excuses.[/COLOR]



[COLOR= #f00]RAH[/COLOR]

RAH,

Jarrod isn't the only one that gets it!





Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
RAH,

Jarrod isn't the only one that gets it!

Crawdaddy

I'm fully aware. My assumption is that with at least 75% of those who tune in at HTF, I'm preaching to the choir. I want to make certain the the other 20% gets it. Last final 5% may be impenetrable.

RAH

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by PaulDA
I'm not convinced they end up with "poor sales" in general. Poor sales among those who care enough to frequent sites like this one, perhaps--but we are a tiny drop in the bucket. This is not to say it is not worth complaining, only that expecting redress on each title that does not meet the more exacting standards of enthusiasts is, sadly, not especially likely.

I would argue that for many classic films like Spartacus, enthusiasts make up a good percentage of their target demographic. "Joe Sixpack" is probably a lot less likely to drop $20 on a Blu-ray release like this.

 

[dpippel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarod M
But this is at the heart of RAH and others' argument, regarding Spartacus, Zulu, and many other films on Blu-ray, isn't it? Should the minimum standards for Blu-ray be a pleasing digital presentation, or an accurate reflection of the way the film looks, which at film resolution was good enough for 50 foot screens?

More to the point, shouldn't an accurate reflection of the way the film looked when projected in a theater produce a pleasing digital presentation?

Absolutely.

Even on smaller screens. The irony of all this egregious digital scrubbing and processing is that it's ostensibly being done for smaller displays, where video issues are much less of a concern. It makes no sense. It seems to me that if you shoot for the most accurate, film-like presentation on HD video that you can achieve within your budget then you make everyone happy.

 

[OliverK]

Very true, a Blu-Ray that looks great sitting 20ft away from a 15ft screen will also look great at a distance of 20ft from a 42" LCD.

Originally Posted by dpippel
The irony of all this egregious digital scrubbing and processing is that it's ostensibly being done for smaller displays, where video issues are much less of a concern. It makes no sense. It seems to me that if you shoot for the most accurate, film-like presentation on HD video that you can achieve within your budget then you make everyone happy.

 

[Robert Harris]

I'm going to throw one additional point into the mix.

With Blu-ray marketing, and much of the packaging heralding a true cinema-like experience as something that the buyer receives for their price of admission, the public should have no qualms about returning Blu-ray discs which do not fit the attainable mold to vendors. I'm not referring here to a bit of dirt, or an occasional dupey shot, but rather those discs for which either no attempt has been made toward proper quality, or alternatively, those which have been so scrubbed of any look of the cinema that they fall of the chart for other reasons.

Do not be shy about this. Read your reviews, and if something has been pre-ordered and it doesn't hold up, return it.

This does leave those with smaller screens in a bit of a bind, as they may not be able to see the problems until they've upgraded their systems, and are awakened to a nasty surprise. My advice there, is not to pre-order from those publishers with a checkered quality record.

At this moment, those publishers which fall into the no problems category are few. Off the top of my head, I'm coming up with Sony, Blue Underground and HBO.

RAH

 

[Robert George]

RAH, there is another point that may not have been considered. That being the majority of the disc buying public will either not know what a given transfer should look like, or may actually prefer the look that people like you and that relative handful of film enthusiasts out here despise.

 

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Robert George
RAH, there is another point that may not have been considered. That being the majority of the disc buying public will either not know what a given transfer should look like, or may actually prefer the look that people like you and that relative handful of film enthusiasts out here despise.

This is very true. Go into any B&M store that has a Blu-Ray display and more often than not they will be showing a digitally animated movie like UP or a movie filled with digital animation like AVATAR. The idea is that such sampling presents the most expressively clear and detailed appearance of Blu Ray at its finest and, presumably, most marketable. Unfortunately all this ultimately yields in the eyes of most consumers is an expectation that every film, regardless of when or how it was made, should come with the same "sheen."

Even a friend of mine, a theater projectionist for over 30 years, someone who, of all people, certainly should know better, exclaimed after seeing PLANET OF THE APES in Blu: "It looked like live TV! It was spectacular!"

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Robert George
RAH, there is another point that may not have been considered. That being the majority of the disc buying public will either not know what a given transfer should look like, or may actually prefer the look that people like you and that relative handful of film enthusiasts out here despise.

Robert,

Always a pleasure to see you visit. I'm certainly aware. For those with smaller screens, it probably doesn't matter, as the image isn't fully resolved anyway. For those who actually prefer a soft, contrasty image with no detail, I would heartily recommend that they not purchase Blu-ray discs, but rather screen DVDs and up-rez where practicable. I'm never been a believer in pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Give people high quality. If they choose to turn down their sharpness, raise their contrast, and push brightness to the hilt, this is a free country. However, everyone should be able to find satisfaction when beginning with a the highest quality image attainable via the Blu-ray system.

And that is extremely high.

RAH

 

[Tom Scholfield]

This is such a shame.

One of my most memorable cinema experiences was seeing Spartacus and Lawrence of Arabia, both in 70MM, at the Senator Theatre in Baltimore, MD, both in the same weekend.

Afterward there was a Q & A session with Robert, it was such a wonderful experience.