A Few Words About A few words about... ™ 12 Monkeys -- in HD-DVD (1 Viewer)

[Vincent_P]

Regarding the "look" of the film itself:

I recall from an old American Cinematographer article that the entirety of 12 MONKEYS was shot on the older Kodak 5298 500-ASA film stock, a fast stock which which is grainier than the newer 500 ASA "Vision" emulsions used today, and on top of that, the DP used "black net" filters over the lens to filter the image and give everything a somewhat soft/dreamish quality. The film was never meant to "pop" visually- it was designed in-camera to have a somewhat hazy, dreamy, filtered look from day one of shooting, and it sounds like the HD-DVD acurately reflects this stylistic shooting choice of Gilliam and the cinematographer.

Vincent

 

[Paul.S]

Thanks for that post, Vincent. It's important IMO to reconcile some of our videophile tendencies with that kind of production information.

 

[Chris*Liberti]

Everyone who loves this movie needs to see the movi it is based on "Le Jete." It is an awesome art school style movie. Similar theme, but on a smaller scale. The amazing thing with "La Jete" is that it is composed of all still images yet it is so well done that you don;t even think about it and you are totally drawn into the film.

 

[Citizen87645]

I also recommend watching La Jetée.I was lucky enough to be in Seattle when the Sci Fi Museum was doing a screening of it with 12 Monkeys.

 

[Robert Harris]

As has been noted by others in the past, still photography and cinematography are literally "painting with light."

RAH

 

[Kevin Roebuck]

I can't agree strongly enough with the point about double-dipping. I have about 1200 dvds in my collection and there is no way I will replace all of them on an HD disc format. I will however replace certain discs (not all) if they are superior to a significant degree over the sd version. This is EXACTLY the information that I do need......how does it differ from the sdvd version with respect to picture/sound/features.

 

[ppltd]

I could not agree more. We me, the 'Newness' factor of HD disks has worn off, and now I am in a more critical mode of purchases, so everyone's opinion is very valid. There are some movies I own in SD that will make so since to upgrade unless the HD quality warrants it (If you look at my collection, you will see that I have not been very discerning on my choices up to now.).

I am also tired of double, triple and sometime even quadruple dipping as I have previously done with my SD purchases, and really don't want to start again.

On a flight to Denver a few weeks back, I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman who stated is was from Fox (Sold rerun TV programs to local affiliates).

We got on the subject of the new HD formats, and after hearing of my collection, and my purchasing habits, he pretty much admitted that our type of purchasing is what drives the studios to continue this multiple release strategy. He also stated he didn't believe it would be any different with the HD formats, as there was too much money in releasing multiple copies of the same title. I am not sure how to get the studios to stop this type of releasing, probably none, but it means I must get much smarter in my purchases.

That being said, I look forward to all positive and negative comments on a release to help me make my decisions.

 

[Josh Lowe]

I purchased this disc yesterday and I'm currently viewing it. First of all, it's one of my favorite films. It's one of three films that came out in 1995 that together have had a significant influence on the way I see film and the way I create: Twelve Monkeys, Se7en, and The Usual Suspects. Third, Madeleine Stowe. Rowr.

Even though this is not going to be the first disc one reaches for when wanting to show their system off to friends and family, I think this is a landmark disc. Why? Because every flaw and every nuance of the original print is there. The HD format delivers far more bandwidth than the film utilizes, we see everything, both good and bad. I feel like I'm watching an original print of the film, not a DVD. And to me that's very exciting.

 

[Thane101]

My one chance to see Vertigo in HD. LOL

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Ron,

how large is the screen on which you're viewing? What's your "viewing angle" to it? (ie, how many screen-widths do you sit back from your screen)?

That can make a big difference with HD titles like this.... not just the screen-size but more particularly the ratio of image width to your viewing distance (viewing angle). From 2-3 screen-widths some HD transfers look very much like the DVD. But when you get closer in... like around 1.5 screen-widths, suddenly the subtlety of the real film print comes through the new HD transfer in a way it never did on the DVD... even though the HD image shows lots of grain and image softness comensurate with the limitations of the print.

A perfect example of this is the HD DVD/BD of "A Christmas Sotry". On the one hand, this soft-focus, grainy, low-budget 1980's film looks "barely better than DVD" if you casually glance at it. But on my 100" screen, the feeling you get watching the movie is very different because the film grain looks natural, there are no compression artifacts, and there is a subtle layer of textures that come through even though the image doesn't really look much sharper than the DVD.

Keep in mind these improvements really only come through if you're watching the material "wide angle" from about 1.5 screen-widths or less. Most viewers of Rear-projection and flat screens tend to sit more than 2 screen-widths away because of the way most rooms are set up with furniture etc.


Agreed, though I'd also add "exceesive high-frequency filtering" to the list along with "edge enhancement"... two things that can continue to plague HD media. And when those things affect the DVD but not the HD version, then the HD version is worth the purchase for a film you know and love. I sell my old DVD copied on Amazon to help off-set the cost of upgrading to HD as I know eventually every title I want to own, I'll want to own in HD.

-dave

p.s. the closes tie of an HD to DVD image that I've seen so far is "A Room With A View". Barely sharper than the DVD. But the freedom from compression noise and improved subtle textures gives the film a sense of grace that the DVD lacks... though the two are still objectively pretty close. I'll have to compare 12 Monkeys to see how it looks against the DVD... but I can right now that the DVD I have has been a dissappointment bcs of the plethroa of MPEG noise.

 

[Jim_K]

Aint that the goddamned truth.

 

[PaulDA]

I've read this thread with some interest and I have to say I'm torn between the two camps. I got this as a Christmas present and it was among the first HD DVDs I watched (fifth one, I think). On the one hand, I agree with those who see it as bringing us closer to the original (while it had been some time since I'd viewed it, I saw it many times at the cinema at its release and for a few years later at rep theatres). I would say to anyone who is a fan of cinema in general (and not just this film) that it is a must-have. However, as I've noticed with other films on HD DVD (I'm sure the same holds true for Blu-ray, but I don't have a player yet), when I've made direct comparisons, there are certainly some titles where one might hesitate to make an "upgrade" (at least at current prices for many discs). In each case, I've seen improvement over the SD DVD (it should be noted that I've only done this with about 8 or 9 movies--I'm no expert) but on a few occasions, the improvement has been subtle enough that I have not rushed out to "upgrade" (Serenity is one example--I saw the improvement, but my SD DVD looks very good and I prefer to focus on films I don't already have when the SD DVD looks that good. I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually but I still have films on VHS that I've yet to upgrade. For those, however, an HDM version, when available, will certainly be purchased with relative alacrity.)

Ultimately, anyone who doesn't already have this film and is HD DVD capable should definitely snap this up. IMO, though, a rental is in order for comparison for anyone who already has it, just for peace of mind, if nothing else.

 

[Peter Neski]

Gee I just watched the HD DVD and didn't think the transfer looked better
then the dvd which I watched a couple years back,But thats not the piont
The transfer might be better,but its not very good at all ,I can't belive
you think this is a good transfer

 

[PaulDA]

I'm curious as to the basis for this judgement. Are you saying the HD DVD does not reflect the original very well or that the original was not that aesthetically pleasing and thus not your first choice for a candidate for HDM?

 

[Peter Neski]

"I'm curious as to the basis for this judgement. Are you saying the HD DVD does not reflect the original very well or that the original was not that aesthetically pleasing and thus not your first choice for a candidate for HDM?"

I can't say it looked like that in the Theatre,Many films look different in different theatres in different cities.Many look better on video.I saw
Out of Africa in the Theatre at afirst run theatre in Manhattan,and
it was much better looking on dvd,at least the version I saw.

Saying you don't like 12 Monkeys transfer is not saying the film is not
good looking,it just isn't a great transfer,maybe thats the way it always
looked,
I can't see people putting on 12 monkeys to show off what HD can do.

" aesthetically pleasing " has more to do with the film makers ,but has
some to do with the lab,and the Transfer.For example new episodes
of Boston Legal have fantastic tranfers,but the the show is hardly
aesthetically Pleasing.

 

[Michael Reuben]

After re-reading your answer several times, I can't tell whether you've answered the question. Let's try it a different way.

What, in your view, are the criteria that determine whether a transfer is good? RAH has made his criteria clear in numerous posts, but it appears from the comments quoted above that yours are different.

M.

 

[Peter Neski]

Gee all I can do is tell you what I think is a good transfer,Like the HD version
of "Agatha"Which was shown last night on HDNet Movies ,Thats a fantastic
transfer,

 

[Michael Reuben]

But you came into this thread saying more than that -- not only that you didn't think 12 Monkeys was a good transfer, but that you "can't belive [sic]" RAH thinks otherwise.

On the basis of that comparative judgment, which you initiated, several of us have asked what your criteria are, a not unreasonable question. Citing Out of Africa, Boston Legal and Agatha is not an answer. Some might even call it evasive.

M.

 

[OliverK]

Michael,

it seems to me that Peter has certain expectations about how HD has to look and 12 monkeys does not fulfill them.

I think that 12 Monkeys probably looks close enough to as good as it can on HD and I am perfectly happy with what I consider a very filmlike presentation. It would be unreasonable if not stupid to expect more as the movie never "popped" nor was it "razor-sharp" to begin with, an HD release cannot (and should not) fix that.

Oliver

 

[Ray_R]

I agree whichever HD transfer should look as how the film is intended to look. I don't agree with Ron's assessment due to the fact as mentioned before this was purposely shot with older film stock and lens filters.
Case in point, this is an HDDVD I can't wait to upgrade from my DVD version due to the following links. Look at all the increased resolution/detail in comparison to the DVD!

HD / SD Vergleiche (beta)
HD / SD Vergleiche (beta)

I suggest looking and browsing both links and dare I say you that there's not a significant increase in fine detail.