A Few Words About A few words about...™ Back to the Future -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool



While I understand what you mean, I'm not at all convinced about this last part of your thesis that filmmakers themselves do not draw any distinctions at all -- forget for the moment what "popcorn" or "classic" connotes. That may be true of many filmmakers, but I serious doubt that's true of all of them, particularly many of those who are considered great and/or art-house filmmakers or those who are strictly doing it for pure entertainment and $$$ (w/ no ego about "art" at all) -- or the many who might take on different projects to satisfy these differences. Surely, you would not, for instance, lump all the porn movies in the world (regardless of actual quality -- and putting aside any moral values for the moment) in w/ the rest of these movies?


If filmmakers really don't feel that way at all, surely, we would've seen more Oscars and other awards (and their nominations) go to "popcorn flicks", etc., instead of "serious" films. Afterall, many of these awards are voted upon by the filmmakers themselves.

Setting up a shot on the set of a "popcorn" movie is no less difficult that doing the same for an "art" film. Its not as though less care is put into each shot. In some cases I would suggest that MORE care is put into the image in "popcorn" films than in so called "art" films, because so much is riding on the image in that type of film. The visual image as effect is often more critical in a popcorn film than in an art film that often focuses more strongly on the performance of the actors than on the image. Of course there are art films where the image is paramount, it depends on the objective of the filmmakers.


What film gets an oscar is more often than not a factor of how important the academy voters seem to think a film is rather than its actual merits as cinema.


Doug

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Setting up a shot on the set of a "popcorn" movie is no less difficult that doing the same for an "art" film. Its not as though less care is put into each shot. In some cases I would suggest that MORE care is put into the image in "popcorn" films than in so called "art" films, because so much is riding on the image in that type of film. The visual image as effect is often more critical in a popcorn film than in an art film that often focuses more strongly on the performance of the actors than on the image. Of course there are art films where the image is paramount, it depends on the objective of the filmmakers.


What film gets an oscar is more often than not a factor of how important the academy voters seem to think a film is rather than its actual merits as cinema.


Doug

I agree w/ everything you said there. My response was actually aimed at addressing a (perhaps not so obviously) different aspect/sub-thread of these issues brought up by Bethany.


Also, in terms of the final images being presented and experienced on the BD itself, we should probably be more concerned w/ the final look of the images than how they were originally created in the filmmaking process (although the latter can be useful to inform about what to expect from the former). It matters little to the viewer how the film was shot if the presentation of the filmmaker's vision (whatever that may be) fails to be conveyed, and typically, the image fidelity (vs "pop" or whatever other mass appeal) of the final images do tend to matter a bit less for (most) "popcorn flicks" than for what many would consider "serious" films -- please note though that I'm just using a sort of shorthand w/ those labels (that were already in use in these discussions) and do not mean for them to encompass all movies that might be considered "popcorn" or "serious", especially those that are truly good films that tend to transcend genre.


Of course, personally, I would probably consider the original BTTF to be a "minor classic" of sorts, not just an average "popcorn flick" -- probably partly why I only "sorta" agreed w/ RAH and continue to be skeptical about the "ok enough" quality of these BDs. And in the end, if the BTTF makers think these BDs are as-faithful-as-possible representations of their vision, then it's kinda hard to argue w/ the look we're getting (unless we have very good reasons to doubt the filmmakers)...


_Man_

 

[Jonathan Kaye]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool /forum/thread/305298/a-few-words-about-back-to-the-future-in-blu-ray/120#post_3746194

 

[Paul_Warren]

Hi Guys,


Thought you would like to see some pics of my UK Ultimate Tin packaging to help those decide if its worth importing or not. The studios should make the packaging the same worldwide its stupid how different regions get better packaging than others!

 

[Michael Rogers]

Man, why the hell couldn't we get this in the US?

Originally Posted by Paul_Warren

Hi Guys,


Thought you would like to see some pics of my UK Ultimate Tin packaging to help those decide if its worth importing or not. The studios should make the packaging the same worldwide its stupid how different regions get better packaging than others!

 

[Lidenbrock]

I have some BTTF III frames from a 35mm print that I´d like to share with you. I thought someone might want to have them. I scanned them at 4K using a professional scanner with color management and a hardware calibrated professional monitor. The images represent the frames accurately. They are resized at 1080p. The images are cropped to match the blu-ray but they don´t match horizontally since there is more information on the Blu-ray than in the print.


http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7798/bf0036r1080.jpg


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/8679/bf0037r1080.jpg


http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/4773/bf0014r1080.jpg


http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7624/bf0015r1080.jpg


http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2246/bf0020r1080.jpg


http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/8721/bf0021r1080.jpg


http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/1113/bf0022r1080.jpg


http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/5433/bf0023r1080.jpg


http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/7254/bf0024r1080.jpg


http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6399/bf0025r1080.jpg


http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1310/bf0026r1080.jpg


http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/6268/bf0027r1080.jpg


http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/5130/bf0028r1080.jpg


http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3639/bf0029r1080.jpg


http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7922/bf0035r1080.jpg

 

[OliverK]

Thanks a lot! These caps are impressive, now please go ahead and do the whole movie for us and release it on Blu-Ray


Somebody should show these to the people at Universal and tell them that this is the look they should strive for with their BTTF release. Scanning from the negative might allow for more resolution but what can be seen here is the look of film that imo completely eludes the trilogy as we have it on Blu-Ray now.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Has anyone seen side by side screen shots between the dvd and bluray? I was really thinking about picking up this trilogy and a few other titles because I am getting an extra check in December. I have enjoyed this movies ever since they came out and was one of the many people who sent there misframed dvd's in for replacement. I have seen video on youtube and while I do not own this set yet, I can honestly say I do not like the packaging! The packaging is cheap and embarasing! It is amazing that Universal sent this trilogy out with that kind of packaging, what where they thinking?


While I am viewing HD content on a 50" screen for now, eventually I would like to get a 100" - 120" projection screen sometime after finances will allow. But for the past few years money has been very tight and I have to be very selective about what titles I buy and what ones I do not. How good is this transfer realy? Is it good enough and does it look like an HD transfer or is it just a little better than the dvd which I allready own? I have never liked the Dolby Digital audio on the dvd version, heck to be honest there are very few Dolby Digital tracks I can really live with just to be honest, LMAO.

Should I pick up BTTF on Bluray or get Alien Quadrilogy on Blu-ray to replace my dvd version?

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Dave,

I would get the Alien Anthology BD set before the BTTF set, if I were you. If $ is tight, go for the UK import from Amazon UK instead -- last I checked, that can be had easily for under $60 shipped. Only diff from USA version is the packaging.

Actually, if $ is really tight, maybe you should just wait until BF next year to get the set. Maybe the USA version could be had for

 

[OliverK]

Originally Posted by Lidenbrock

I have some BTTF III frames from a 35mm print that I´d like to share with you. I thought someone might want to have them. I scanned them at 4K using a professional scanner with color management and a hardware calibrated professional monitor.

May I ask which scanner make and model you used?

 

[Lidenbrock]

Originally Posted by OliverK /forum/thread/305298/a-few-words-about-back-to-the-future-in-blu-ray/120#post_3754719


May I ask which scanner make and model you used?

Of course! An Epson V700. Although it is not a top professional scanner ( I mean a film dedicated scanner) but a flatbed, certainly it isn´t a cheap one, and it hasn´t been used at all in an amateurish way. The software used for calibration was Silverfast and XLProfiler. The monitor is a NEC SpectraView 2490 with hardware calibration. I guarantee that the images match accurately the frames regarding the color, shadows, contrast and detail. I also used a microscope and a magnifying glass to compare, and only the golden hues are a bit different. I know that my scans (and the original frames) can´t compare to the BDs in terms of colors and intended look of the film as well as detail (I´m not that sure about this one though, at least for BTTF III and its heavy dose of DNR but I don´t have the blu-rays to compare). Anyway, there is something that the blu-rays lack, and that´s the cinematic look that blu-rays can offer and Universal has denied us. The blu-rays just look like video.

What I found strange is that the print is full frame (except for the special effects) and it´s cropped. The film was shot soft matte, and there is a lot of image left out, but even so, the print is cropped because the DVD (and the BD I guess) shows more information on the left side.

 

[OliverK]

First off, I was of course not serious asking you to scan all of the film, but this is what essentially is done when preparing a movie for Blu-Ray in the best possible way: To scan each frame in a resolution of 4k or above.

Originally Posted by Lidenbrock

Of course! An Epson V700. Although it is not a top professional scanner ( I mean a film dedicated scanner) but a flatbed, certainly it isn´t a cheap one, and it hasn´t been used at all in an amateurish way. The software used for calibration was Silverfast and XLProfiler. The monitor is a NEC SpectraView 2490 with hardware calibration. I guarantee that the images match accurately the frames regarding the color, shadows, contrast and detail. I also used a microscope and a magnifying glass to compare, and only the golden hues are a bit different. I know that my scans (and the original frames) can´t compare to the BDs in terms of colors and intended look of the film as well as detail (I´m not that sure about this one though, at least for BTTF III and its heavy dose of DNR but I don´t have the blu-rays to compare). Anyway, there is something that the blu-rays lack, and that´s the cinematic look that blu-rays can offer and Universal has denied us. The blu-rays just look like video.

What I found strange is that the print is full frame (except for the special effects) and it´s cropped. The film was shot soft matte, and there is a lot of image left out, but even so, the print is cropped because the DVD (and the BD I guess) shows more information on the left side.

The V700 seems to be a nice flatbed scanner and while it may not be as good as dedicated film scanners it clearly gets good results together with Silverfast - well done!


You are right about the cinematic look and I look forward to your scans from BTTF1 and 2!

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OliverK


First off, I was of course not serious asking you to scan all of the film, but this is what essentially is done when preparing a movie for Blu-Ray in the best possible way: To scan each frame in a resolution of 4k or above.

While one can scan at 4k, there is no real necessity. Scan at 4, down-rez to 2 for all clean-up would work nicely.


"Above?" No. A waste of time, space and effort.


RAH

 

[OliverK]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Quote:



While one can scan at 4k, there is no real necessity. Scan at 4, down-rez to 2 for all clean-up would work nicely.


"Above?" No. A waste of time, space and effort.


RAH

Well, I was not sure if 4k was enough in cases where work has to be done from separations, I am sure that in all cases where a Blu-Ray is derived from a single film element 4k will be enough.


With regard to down-rezzing to 2k I would think that with the capability for complete 4k workflows these will become more common as costs go down and the resulting 4k masters might be used for 4k DCI projection, The Bridge on the River Kwai is one example of this.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by OliverK

Quote:



While one can scan at 4k, there is no real necessity. Scan at 4, down-rez to 2 for all clean-up would work nicely.


"Above?" No. A waste of time, space and effort.


RAH

Well, I was not sure if 4k was enough in cases where work has to be done from separations, I am sure that in all cases where a Blu-Ray is derived from a single film element 4k will be enough.


With regard to down-rezzing to 2k I would think that with the capability for complete 4k workflows these will become more common as costs go down and the resulting 4k masters might be used for 4k DCI projection, The Bridge on the River Kwai is one example of this.

[/QUOTE]

Your comment was aimed specifically at Blu-ray, not restoration, preservation or DCPs.


RAH

 

[Lidenbrock]

Back to the future II:


http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9489/bf0045r1080.jpg


http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3500/bf0044r1080.jpg


http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/762/bf0046r1080.jpg


http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/1153/bf0041r1080.jpg


http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/2093/bf0040r1080.jpg


http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/1104/bf0039r1080.jpg


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/770/bf0038r1080.jpg


http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/770/bf0038r1080.jpg


http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7691/bf0034r1080.jpg


http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/8760/bf0032r1080.jpg


http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/1783/bf0031r1080.jpg


http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9995/bf0030r1080.jpg


http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/2094/bf0012r1080.jpg


http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8983/bf0001r1080.jpg


http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4489/bf0047r1080.jpg

 

[OliverK]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris




Your comment was aimed specifically at Blu-ray, not restoration, preservation or DCPs.


RAH

You are right that I should not get the restoration and preservation confused with the Blu-Ray and working with separations would certainly qualify.

 

[OliverK]

Thanks for taking the time - when you are done posting these I will have to rent the trilogy on Blu-Ray and compare it to your scans!

Originally Posted by Lidenbrock

Back to the future II: [....]

 

[Lidenbrock]

Originally Posted by OliverK , at least I and II.

 

[OliverK]

Not that bad imo is not good enough for a high profile catalog release like this one, but I will have a look for myself to see them in motion.

Originally Posted by Lidenbrock , at least I and II.

/forum/thread/305298/a-few-words-about-back-to-the-future-in-blu-ray/150#post_3755451