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

[Robert Harris]

This is all very film quality dependent. There may be circumstances in which a lossy track is all that is necessary to reproduce the full quality of audio. There may also be circumstances in which problems which may remain a bit better hidden in a lossy state will appear front and center in a lossless configuration. There is no answer here. Testing is generally inexpensive or free, and I recommend it highly.

As a general rule, one would wish to reproduce original audio in its finest possible quality state. Lossless would generally be the best means of doing this, unless it creates problems. Rather like getting too close to pointillist art, and seeing only the dots. I can only once again relate to the magnetic sounded 70mm print of "Vertigo," which to my ears, and those of others sounded, far better than a print running in sync with a digital DTS disc. The analogue helped to smooth out problems.

RAH

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon

I'm sorry, Robert. The last thing I want to do is misrepresent anyone's position.

So you support the use of lossless audio tracks on all Blu-ray discs--even if they expose more than what might have been originally intended? Or, might contain flaws that cannot be removed/restored?

That's what seems to make sense to me. This has been a very educational discussion for me.

 

[David Weicker]

To further the 'guaze/Playboy' analogy from several posts before, there have been times when Blu-Ray and even DVD have been criticized for their increased clarity in the picture arena. When it comes to Costume and Makeup design, the older films sometimes depended on a less-is-more scenario. I'm not saying that we should take a step backwards, but we need to realize that in some cases the technology is not recreating the original theatrical experience

The same may be the case for audio designs. We don't know. (we already know that a large group of enthusiasts get upset in a similar manner to this when they don't get a 5.1 remix for some mono film)

And as for the quality of lossless vs. lossy - while from a technical standpoint, there is a difference, it doesn't mean that aurally there is a difference. The human ear is incapable of hearing the full range of sound that our technology can produce.

All I was attempting to say in my previous post is that there seemed to be a lot of criticism directed at the Blu-Ray producers over their decision to use lossy instead of lossless without knowing that the result was truly inferior.

David

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by David Weicker ).

 

[Nelson Au]

David and others,

I wasn't going to get into this Viet Nam topic of sound, I don't know enough about it! But the example of Playboy and gauze isn't apt here exactly in my mind regarding the video side of any film. What we see now on BD, I believe the audiences saw on the silver screen when first shown.

This is my theory, if you take the example of The Wizard of Oz, when it was filmed and exhibited originally, at the best movie houses at the time, the film was so sharp and clear, you would see the painted sets back then. And you would have seen the wires that held up the martian machines in the 1953 The War of the Worlds.

They were not seeing The Wizard of Oz or The War of The Worlds on a Blu Ray on a flat panel screen, they saw the real film, in full resolution. So my guess is that the best printed film as exhibited then would reveal all the warts.

Just wanted to toss that in.

And the example of make-up or sets that were not perfect because the audience would never see it applies more for TV shows. As we know. TV shows in the 1960's for example were likely on 19" screens and low resolution with static and black and white. So the seams on Spock's ears on Star Trek, or the wood grain of the sets would not be visible. But is now visible on the blu ray.

What do you think?

 

[Robert Harris]

No.

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

David and others,

I wasn't going to get into this Viet Nam topic of sound, I don't know enough about it! But the example of Playboy and gauze isn't apt here exactly in my mind regarding the video side of any film. What we see now on BD, I believe the audiences saw on the silver screen when first shown.

This is my theory, if you take the example of The Wizard of Oz, when it was filmed and exhibited originally, at the best movie houses at the time, the film was so sharp and clear, you would see the painted sets back then. And you would have seen the wires that held up the martian machines in the 1953 The War of the Worlds.

They were not seeing The Wizard of Oz or The War of The Worlds on a Blu Ray on a flat panel screen, they saw the real film, in full resolution. So my guess is that the best printed film as exhibited then would reveal all the warts.

Just wanted to toss that in.

And the example of make-up or sets that were not perfect because the audience would never see it applies more for TV shows. As we know. TV shows in the 1960's for example were likely on 19" screens and low resolution with static and black and white. So the seams on Spock's ears on Star Trek, or the wood grain of the sets would not be visible. But is now visible on the blu ray.

What do you think?

 

[Worth]

Actually, with blu-ray and digital projection, you're seeing much more detail than audiences would have seen when these films were first released.

While it's true that 35mm negative has more detail than 2K digital or 1080p blu-ray, a 35mm release print does not. It's three generations or more removed from the camera original. I posted this in another thread, but it probably bears repeating:

http://www.filmschooldirect.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm

Film is analog so there are no real "pixels." However, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD.


This is the argument most film purists use. The truth is, pixels are not the way to compare resolution. The human eye cannot see individual pixels beyond a short distance. What we can see are lines.


Consequently, manufacturers measure the sharpness of photographic images and components using a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF). This process uses lines (not pixels) as a basis for comparison. Notice the lines in this resolution chart:

Part of a Standard Resolution Chart


There is an international study on this issue, called Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation. It was conducted by Hank Mahler (CBS, United States), Vittorio Baroncini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Italy), and Mattieu Sintas (CST, France).


In the study, MTF measurements were used to determine the typical resolution of theatrical release prints and answer prints in normal operation, utilizing existing state-of-the-art 35mm film, processing, printing, and projection.


The prints were projected in six movie theaters in various countries, and a panel of experts made the assessments of the projected images using a well defined formula. The results are as follows:



35mm RESOLUTION Measurement

Lines

Answer Print MTF 1400 [COLOR= rgb(255, 255, 255)]Release Print MTF[/COLOR] 1000 Theater Highest Assessment 875 Theater Average Assessment 750
Of course, film has other advantages - greater dynamic range, colour depth, no compression etc. But strictly in terms of detail, blu-ray usually wins out.

This is from the cinematographer of Jennifer's Body:

http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=43683

This isn't accurate or even provable, but my mental checklist is that 35mm negative is 4K at best (3K on average) whether or not you want to argue for even higher scanning resolutions, and that 35mm answer print resolution is 2K at best, and a 35mm release print from an IP/IN is less than that, let's say 1K.

 

[Nelson Au]

I stand corrected!

From someone who is not working in this industry, I was making an assumption based on the idea that a piece of film would be higher resolution then the scanned version on Blu Ray. But you're right that the final film that we see in theaters will be removed a few times. Like a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy.

Thanks!

 

[Jeff Adkins]

I have no doubt that the analog mag track of Vertigo could sound better than the DTS. That's the same reason why many people still prefer LPs to CD. However, I've never, ever heard of a case where anyone said an MP3 sounded better than the same track on CD. What we've been given with TAQ is essentially MP3 quality audio.

I just think it's a step backward when the laserdisc has CD quality and the Blu-Ray has MP3 quality.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins

I have no doubt that the analog mag track of Vertigo could sound better than the DTS. That's the same reason why many people still prefer LPs to CD. However, I've never, ever heard of a case where anyone said an MP3 sounded better than the same track on CD. What we've been given with TAQ is essentially MP3 quality audio.

I just think it's a step backward when the laserdisc has CD quality and the Blu-Ray has MP3 quality.

I don't quite understand your analogy, can you please explain it?






Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Harris]

Nelson,

Not attempting to be cryptic with you...

You're selecting examples of film that were printed in dye transfer, which had far less real resolution that the
original three-strip negatives. Liquid metal dyes, mordant, optical printing to matrices, etc. all yielded a
far softer image than many would expect. The image was gorgeous, and appeared sharp based upon the
contrast boost, which was a part of the system.

Far more here than meets the eye.

RAH

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

I stand corrected!

From someone who is not working in this industry, I was making an assumption based on the idea that a piece of film would be higher resolution then the scanned version on Blu Ray. But you're right that the final film that we see in theaters will be removed a few times. Like a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy.

Thanks!

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

I watched The African Queen for the first time ever on blu yesterday.

Loved the film and the presentation.I have to say I didn't imagine the opening titles would have looked as good as they did. Sometime the opening titles are never as detailed as the films are for some instances. I don't have an example right now but some would agree. The transfer exceeded any expectation I had for the film. I can't imagine it would be topped.

I felt the audio was perfectly fine. Dialog was strong and clear to my ears and sounded fine thru my sound system even in mono.

If they would have upgraded the soundtrack to even a 5.1 mix I would guess all that you may get would be the films score coming from the other channels. That being said, I am a avid film score collector and I must say this score aside from one cue was really obtrusive! That cue when Katie and Bogie are leaving on the boat, I turned to my friend and simply said that was really not needed. You almost expected a cut to germans chasing them. It just seemed way to strong.

Most reviews and criticism from most 5.1 mixes on these type of films are usually the same score is seperated maybe some slight low end sub activity.

I really wish Paramount could have secured the usage of the Jack Cardiff commentary track that is found on a specific Region 2 DVD release. Also no original trailer either.

The making of is informative and nice that it is in HD.

The only reason for another Blu release would be more extras.

 

[Robert Harris]

Although I haven't handled these specific elements, it would not have been unusual for the main title to be made up of background negatives and a hi-con title, as opposed to the Eastman system of going to a dupe. If this was the case, then both background and title would have been original photography.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Powell&Pressburger

I watched The African Queen for the first time ever on blu yesterday.

Loved the film and the presentation.I have to say I didn't imagine the opening titles would have looked as good as they did. Sometime the opening titles are never as detailed as the films are for some instances. I don't have an example right now but some would agree. The transfer exceeded any expectation I had for the film. I can't imagine it would be topped.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

Thanks for the Reply, I never knew what caused that issue with title sequences, so that explains a lot. I felt the transfer was amazing over the titles and the jungles/ animal sudio was spot on even in mono.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris


Although I haven't handled these specific elements, it would not have been unusual for the main title to be made up of background negatives and a hi-con title, as opposed to the Eastman system of going to a dupe. If this was the case, then both background and title would have been original photography.

 

[PaulDA]

Originally Posted by Powell&Pressburger

I watched The African Queen for the first time ever on blu yesterday.

Loved the film and the presentation.I have to say I didn't imagine the opening titles would have looked as good as they did. Sometime the opening titles are never as detailed as the films are for some instances. I don't have an example right now but some would agree.

The Searchers comes to mind.

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

I stand corrected!

From someone who is not working in this industry, I was making an assumption based on the idea that a piece of film would be higher resolution then the scanned version on Blu Ray. But you're right that the final film that we see in theaters will be removed a few times. Like a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy.

Thanks!

I saw a vintage 35mm print of The Spy Who Loved Me not long ago, a film I also had at home on my PVR from a 1080i broadcast, and on DVD. I was shocked at how much more detail was visible in the HD version, and even on DVD version. The DVD may have less resolution than the film print, but it's much closer to the original source.

Going from negative to interpositive to internegative to release print really softens and blurs the film image. And you have film grain, projector gate weave, and often imperfect focus on top of that.

 

[Robert Harris]

Kodak's film stocks are superb. Going from OCN to IP to dupe today creates a final product that is in many ways indistinguishable from the original. Film grain is irrelevant, but focus and weave do come into play. Theater dependent.

I've a feeling that in a very short time we'll no longer have 35mm projection.

RAH

Originally Posted by Worth

Going from negative to interpositive to internegative to release print really softens and blurs the film image. And you have film grain, projector gate weave, and often imperfect focus on top of that.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Kodak's film stocks are superb. Going from OCN to IP to dupe today creates a final product that is in many ways indistinguishable from the original. Film grain is irrelevant, but focus and weave do come into play. Theater dependent.

I've a feeling that in a very short time we'll no longer have 35mm projection.
RAH

After spending four days with digital projection manufactures at Showest and also talking to theatre chains, I agree that within three years 35mm projection will be a thing of the past.

 

[Nelson Au]

Thanks for your reply RAH, yes more then meets the eye here.

 

[bugsy-pal]

A well encoded 320kbps MP3 is pretty hard to distinguish from CD quality on anything but a top end audio playback system, in my experience. Of course, as the bitrate is lowered, audible artefacts become apparent. But I tend to think that even at 224kbps, you wouldn't notice any degradation - especially on audio such as that for the African Queen.

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins

I have no doubt that the analog mag track of Vertigo could sound better than the DTS. That's the same reason why many people still prefer LPs to CD. However, I've never, ever heard of a case where anyone said an MP3 sounded better than the same track on CD. What we've been given with TAQ is essentially MP3 quality audio.

I just think it's a step backward when the laserdisc has CD quality and the Blu-Ray has MP3 quality.

 

[Mike Frezon]

In another thread, HTF owner Adam Gregorich got us the answer about why there's a lossy soundtrack on the Blu-ray of The African Queen. We don't get a name for the source...but it's somebody in-the-know at Paramount:

The African Queen is presented with its original English mono audio track encoded at 224kbps Dolby Digital. It was encoded at a higher bit rate (224 vs. 192) than most other classic titles and has plenty of space for peaks encoded at 224kbps to cover the relative static dynamics of its range audio. Just to give this context, you wouldn’t construct a 100 gallon tank for 5 gallons of gas, there is no benefit in doing so and a higher bit rate ceiling provides zero benefits to the audio experience.