A Few Words About A few words about...™ Laurel & Hardy: The Definitive Restorations - in Blu-ray (4 Viewers)

[sbeamish]

You're certainly welcome to disagree, but what I'm describing is not about the L&H "mythos". It's a matter of reality. These were shot on film, and L&H's images and the essences of their gags were captured and preserved by film grain. Take away the grain and you're taking away the essential record of their performances which is on the grain.

It's the same as transferring analogue sound, which is a sign wave, with lots of high and low range information, to the digital realm, which is a square wave, which only preserves the middle range, and then using an overly aggressive cleaning tool to get rid of the tape hiss. Yes, you can hear the voices and instruments without any impediment, and it may sound "better" to an untrained ear, but there's very little information left. What remains is a pale shadow of the original performance, so that many people hearing Maria Callas for the first time on CD might think her voice isn't all that impressive, because so much of what made that voice great is missing.

You talk as if there is only a choice between dupey, contrasy images and the overly clean ones, denuded of grain and reality, that are on this set. But it would have been easy, if perhaps a bit more time consuming, to use a cleaning program carefully, and preserve the grain while leaving the images even more crystalline and easy to see, as the grain would still be there, for taking out the grain softens the image considerably. That's the point Mr. Harris and others are trying to make.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I sometimes get the feeling we're having two different conversations; that we're speaking two different languages. (And, believe me, if you're going to throw tech talk at me, it WILL be read as a foreign language.)

Essentially, and simply, Mr. Harris is saying that the transfer from restored elements to Blu-ray could have been handled more effectively and that we'd have a better looking product heading to the homes of collectors as we speak.

I get it. And I have no reason to doubt him, you or anyone else on this site.

I'm referring to the statements you made along these lines...

"Without grain, Laurel and Hardy do not exist. Their sight gags are no longer funny, as the glow and essence that illuminates them is gone."

And I'm not saying you're wrong about that. You spoke of a film grain effect that might impact my perceptions even though I might not be consciously aware of it. That's entirely possible. I related how the introduction of additional music had spoiled my enjoyment of some of these films. That was very especially true of THE MUSIC BOX, and for more than 30 years I couldn't put my finger on the reason behind it. Now, after listening to Richard Bann's commentary on this new set, I understand. There was a central truth of Stan's original intent that I had picked up on without knowing it. So, maybe I've been picking up on some essence of reality from the grain in the flawed prints I've been watching most of my life.

I'm saying that, yes, we do only have two choices. We have what came before, and we have this new set. We do not have the set that Mr. Harris hoped to see, because it was not mass produced by his preferred method for the home market. Period.

AND, having watched nearly all of the films in this new collection, I say that I'm seeing the same Stan and Ollie I've always loved. To me the gags ARE just as funny. Their essence IS still there. If you say that grain is lacking, I believe you. If you say the "gags are no longer funny," well, that's where you lose me.

You can wax poetic on the virtues of film grain. More power to you.

You may consider my tastes to be plebeian; that I'm an "untrained ear" at a film grain concert.
That's okay. I've said that I'm no film student. I'm not an aficionado.

I'm a fan in an organization of buffs. John McCabe said I was welcome. I can appreciate a non-pristine print of COME CLEAN. Well, William K. Everson would surely understand.

Hell, even Mr. Harris said that I would love this set, because I'm a truly passionate fan... and nothing wrong with that. Isn't that enough of an endorsement?

 

[Robert Harris]

Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I sometimes get the feeling we're having two different conversations; that we're speaking two different languages. (And, believe me, if you're going to throw tech talk at me, it WILL be read as a foreign language.)

Essentially, and simply, Mr. Harris is saying that the transfer from restored elements to Blu-ray could have been handled more effectively and that we'd have a better looking product heading to the homes of collectors as we speak.

I get it. And I have no reason to doubt him, you or anyone else on this site.

I'm referring to the statements you made along these lines...

"Without grain, Laurel and Hardy do not exist. Their sight gags are no longer funny, as the glow and essence that illuminates them is gone."

And I'm not saying you're wrong about that. You spoke of a film grain effect that might impact my perceptions even though I might not be consciously aware of it. That's entirely possible. I related how the introduction of additional music had spoiled my enjoyment of some of these films. That was very especially true of THE MUSIC BOX, and for more than 30 years I couldn't put my finger on the reason behind it. Now, after listening to Richard Bann's commentary on this new set, I understand. There was a central truth of Stan's original intent that I had picked up on without knowing it. So, maybe I've been picking up on some essence of reality from the grain in the flawed prints I've been watching most of my life.

I'm saying that, yes, we do only have two choices. We have what came before, and we have this new set. We do not have the set that Mr. Harris hoped to see, because it was not mass produced by his preferred method for the home market. Period.

AND, having watched nearly all of the films in this new collection, I say that I'm seeing the same Stan and Ollie I've always loved. To me the gags ARE just as funny. Their essence IS still there. If you say that grain is lacking, I believe you. If you say the "gags are no longer funny," well, that's where you lose me.

You can wax poetic on the virtues of film grain. More power to you.

You may consider my tastes to be plebeian; that I'm an "untrained ear" at a film grain concert.
That's okay. I've said that I'm no film student. I'm not an aficionado.

I'm a fan in an organization of buffs. John McCabe said I was welcome. I can appreciate a non-pristine print of COME CLEAN. Well, William K. Everson would surely understand.

Hell, even Mr. Harris said that I would love this set, because I'm a truly passionate fan... and nothing wrong with that. Isn't that enough of an endorsement?

Let me try to explain what I’m reading.

Finstead, and most important, without silver grain, there is no image. Period.

But important in another way, is that generational loss does affect performance, and here’s a perfect example.

In the original dupes of the restaurant assassination sequence in GF, There’s a MCU of Michael, as he sits and waits - sounds on track - extremely tense situation. He’a about to pull the gun.

When we were able to locate the original mis-processed negative and scan it, something interesting came to the fore. In that shot, you can now very clearly see the stress in Michael’s face - in his jaw and facial muscles - and it affects the performance.

 

[mark brown]

...their gags are no longer funny... You have not seen the state of some of the 16mm transfers we laughed at over the years when those transfers were the most common way to view L&H!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I love my C6!

I don't know what the heck I'll do when it dies, as I want the 3D capability.

I get that 3D didn't do as well as hoped, but I still can't figure out why TV manufacturers won't make it available on high-end models.

I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the 3D chip doesn't add that much to the cost to make the TV. I can see wanting to save that expense on cheaper TVs, but if someone's paying $2000+ for a TV, they can toss in the damned 3D chip!

It doesn't but it depends on the 3D tech being used in a given TV. The OLEDs were passive 3D displays, which meant they have the equivalent of a Real D Z-Screen overlay on top of the OLED, which adds to the cost of the panel.

It's not just a chip. The TV's panel has to support 3D. Regardless of brand, most television panels are manufactured by LG, and LG does not make 3D panels anymore. Even if, say, Samsung or Sony wanted to make a new 3D model television, they couldn't get a panel for it.

Yes and no. Active 3D displays just had a chip, or two, because there was no polarisation tech in the display itself; the display just had to sync its frame rate with the active LCD shutters in the 3D glasses, which in the case of plasma displays was done via RF [possibly Bluetooth]. DLP Link, I believe used IR for sync. See above re: passive displays, which used a rapid switching polarised overlay with passive glasses to create the stereoscopic illusion.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

It doesn't but it depends on the 3D tech being used in a given TV. The OLEDs were passive 3D displays, which meant they have the equivalent of a Real D Z-Screen overlay on top of the OLED, which adds to the cost of the panel.
Yes and no. Active 3D displays just had a chip, or two, because there was no polarisation tech in the display itself; the display just had to sync its frame rate with the active LCD shutters in the 3D glasses, which in the case of plasma displays was done via RF [possibly Bluetooth]. DLP Link, I believe used IR for sync. See above re: passive displays, which used a rapid switching polarised overlay with passive glasses to create the stereoscopic illusion.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Just a note: Many projectors still support 3D; and the 3D actually looks better (and is more effective) on projectors anyway.
With all the new short throw and ultra short throw projectors now available it's no longer a hassle to set a projector up; and you get a high impact 120" viewing area to boot!

 

[OLDTIMER]

"to look just right." To whom? What is right?

What is right? (Regarding a displayed picture.)
I’m sure that most people can tell a good picture from a bad. It would be great if disc production companies produced discs to a “standard”. All too often they don’t, and the picture looks “wrong” on a calibrated display. Why would you watch a whole movie without an adjustment if, say the blacks were abnormally high (or crushed) or the color saturation was glaringly too high.

I’m happy to say that most modern Blu-rays get it right. But some of my DVDs!!!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It doesn't matter. It's not possible to get a 3D panel anymore. Nobody makes them.

Yeah, I know. I just wanted to find out how much it would cost LG to make them vs. 2D panels.

One assumes they discontinued 3D panels due to cost, so I was curious to learn how much they saved per panel...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It doesn't but it depends on the 3D tech being used in a given TV. The OLEDs were passive 3D displays, which meant they have the equivalent of a Real D Z-Screen overlay on top of the OLED, which adds to the cost of the panel.

I get that now - but what's the added cost?

 

[OLDTIMER]

Grain? Here are 2 screen shots from the MUSIC BOX, 2011 Essential Collection. I seem to see high frequency grain (more evident in the moving image). How does the new Blu-ray compare?

 

[OliverK]

Unprocessed 2k Scan from Duplicate Negative derived from 35mm Print

View attachment 74793

Thanks a lot for all those scans, saving to hard drive now. That is a really nice assortment of film elements. What is impressive is the strong variation in visibility of film grain. While it is always there this frame of the duplicate negative looks almost devoid of grain by comparison with a frame of the OCN.

 

[OliverK]

It looks very much like the caps. Image is clean and two steps above being waxy.

It looks VERY clean but I just checked and the faces of our two friends indeed still look better than they do at the Hollywood wax museum:

 

[Robert Crawford]

Just a note: Many projectors still support 3D; and the 3D actually looks better (and is more effective) on projectors anyway.
With all the new short throw and ultra short throw projectors now available it's no longer a hassle to set a projector up; and you get a high impact 120" viewing area to boot!

Due to various circumstances, many people are unable to have a projector in their place of residence.

 

[OliverK]

Due to various circumstances, many people are unable to have a projector in their place of residence.

I would say that with short distance projectors and ambient light rejecting screens that come out of a case that sits on the floor this is a rather small number of people compared to let's say 10 years ago.

But of course there are other reasons why people do not want projectors like no perfect blacks compared to higher end displays or lower maximum light output or less than true 4K resolution. And in most cases a TV is also easier to install and use than a projector so I can understand how people would be reluctant to go that route.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I would say that with short distance projectors and ambient light rejecting screens that come out of a case that sits on the floor this is a rather small number of people compared to let's say 10 years ago.

But of course there are other reasons why people do not want projectors like no perfect blacks compared to higher end displays or lower maximum light output or less than true 4K resolution. And in most cases a TV is also easier to install and use than a projector so I can understand how people would be reluctant to go that route.

IMO, most people don't want to do that much research nor go through the trouble of properly installing a projector. I love the blacks on my OLED so I'll never buy a projector because I would have to invest too much money into an high end projector to make me happy.

 

[OliverK]

IMO, most people don't want to do that much research nor go through the trouble of properly installing a projector. I love the blacks on my OLED so I'll never buy a projector because I would have to invest too much money into an high end projector to make me happy.

Indeed, that also seems to be the most common reason to me with the other being a certain scepticism as to how good a screen works with the lights on or during the day. I also think that you got to be a bit more obsessed than others to even think about a picture that is significantly larger than a common TV. To most people it is just not that important to have a very big (100 or 120" or more) picture.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I get that now - but what's the added cost?

I wish I knew, but I can't imagine a rapid switching LCD film costing more than $100.

 

[OliverK]

I wish I knew, but I can't imagine a rapid switching LCD film costing more than $100.

The cost is also in light output, I seem to remember that this added film reduces light output by about 15%.
Not good in times of HDR.

That being said if LG introduced a single line of mid to high end 3D OLED's in two or three screen sizes (55, 65, 77?) it would probably sell very well. Many people would get it just to future-proof and it would be the only game in town and I can see them do it this year or next year.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The cost is also in light output, I seem to remember that this added film reduces light output by about 15%.
Not good in times of HDR.

That being said if LG introduced a single line of mid to high end 3D OLED's in two or three screen sizes (55, 65, 77?) it would probably sell very well. Many people would get it just to future-proof and it would be the only game in town and I can see them do it this year or next year.

Agreed. I don't know if it's a 15% light reduction, but if you compare to active shutter 3D glasses, this reduction in light output manifests as a change in tone more than anything. I would love nothing more than to be able to get a mid-priced OLED passive 3D display to replace my Panny plasma, which I still love, but is showing its age [2012 model].

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The cost is also in light output, I seem to remember that this added film reduces light output by about 15%.
Not good in times of HDR.

That being said if LG introduced a single line of mid to high end 3D OLED's in two or three screen sizes (55, 65, 77?) it would probably sell very well. Many people would get it just to future-proof and it would be the only game in town and I can see them do it this year or next year.

That's been my feeling, I get dropping 3D from cheaper TVs, but like I said, if this was part of sets that cost $2000+ anyway, I think it'd make sense.

Did prices for higher-end LG OLEDs decline after they removed 3D?

 

[warnerbro]

SONS OF THE DESERT looks like a sparkling diamond. There's the silver sparkle and fine grain. The set seems to have been put together very lovingly. We have interviews with everyone they could find. They pieced together THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY the best they could with surviving elements. The first reel is tinted and looks very sharp. You can actually see a very young Lou Costello on the front row of the boxing match whistling and cat calling. The pie fight scene which was presumed lost is in 16mm and a bit muddy, but we're lucky to have it. They gave us two versions of BERTH MARKS which I couldn't really tell the difference between, but apparently they added some extra sound effects to the 1936 reissue and it's included here. They also give us commentaries that actually outlast some of the films and go on for ten more minutes because they have so much information to share. If you love L&H I think you'll be thrilled to have this.