snoopy28574
Stunt Coordinator
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2009
- Messages
- 84
- Real Name
- Stephen Batchelor
How would Digital restoration be performed ?
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.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?
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).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.
(...)
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...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.
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.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).
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.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...
RAH,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]
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.Originally Posted by Robert Crawford
RAH,
Jarrod isn't the only one that gets it!
Crawdaddy
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.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.
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?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?
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.
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."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,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.