What's new

A Few Words About A few words about... Unforgiven -- In High Definition (1 Viewer)

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318
A couple random moments in UNFORGIVEN with visible compression ringing, selected with about three minutes of effort:

00:00:18s-Ringing on tree trunk, left edge of roof of cabin, porch beam

00:08:18s-Ringing on tree trunk, house

00:08m:32s- ringing on all vertical fence posts

00:08m:37s-serious ringing on centermost fence posts

All at 1080i on a Toshiba 65H80 RPTV (1080i native).

On the other hand, all of these scenes have shots before and after where you would expect to see ringing on a standard DVD, and it isn't there.

While home video of course isn't going to be perfect, the promise of HD has been a lot closer to perfection than this, I think. Just as in the early days of DVD, there's a learning curve. Just to be clear, I expect the same learning curve (if not worse) from Blu-Ray. I say worse because Sony/Columbia's SD DVDs have been among the worst offenders for edge enhancement/compression ringing consistently and I fear they may carry those habits over to the HD realm as well. We'll see.
 

Ron-P

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
6,300
Real Name
Ron
I picked up Unforgiven a couple days ago at BB. I noticed several times during scenes with yelling a crackle from the center channel. I am running the audio via a coax connection. Anyone else notice this? I may excange the disk and try again.
 

Chauncey

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 26, 1999
Messages
67
Location
Greater Boston MA
Real Name
Chauncey
Steve,

South Irving on the West Airport Freeway. I had to prod them to get the "Unforgiven" and FMJ discs out of the back as well.

Chauncey
 

Mark Zimmer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1997
Messages
4,318


The coax connection on my A1 is a little dodgy I think (or the cable itself is); sometimes it doesn't seem to connect up right and there is crackle on a few occasions that doesn't come over the optical. Try switching to optical and replay the scenes and see if you still have it.
 

Paul Borges

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
141
Mr. Harris said it somewhere on another post. HD will make flaws in a transfer stand out alot more. Maybe it isn't fair to critique HD-DVDs the same way as DVDs. Maybe the reviewers need a learning curve too ;)
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,312
Real Name
Robert Harris
While I can't speak for others, and have no idea what they might perceive as "acceptable," what I'm seeing is incredibly more than acceptable.

I'm not seeing what some others are. Whether this is a matter of player / projector interface or something else, I have no idea.

But what I'm seeing as sent via HDMI from the Toshiba player to the Sony 2k is nothing less than extraordinary.

My expectations have been more than met.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Don't you realize that you just don't have a critical enough eye? ;)
 

Michel_Hafner

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 28, 2002
Messages
1,350

Sure one has to adapt to the new medium. It started with VHS tapes, then Laser Discs, then DVD, now HD. The quality went up and so did the expectations. The reference stayed the same: high quality film prints. With HD for the first time home cinema technology is quite close to good 35mm prints (in some ways better, in some worse).
A reasonable goal for HD-DVD is to look virtually identical to the master tape it was made from and the master tape to look very much like a top print. Failure of either is grounds for justified criticism. We are in the very early days of HD discs so to expect perfection would be naive. But even now feedback about what's not yet how it should be is needed so 'we' climb the learning curve quickly and even better discs are ahead.
What's released is coming from master tapes that are anywhere between some months and some years old. The state of the art of 2 years ago is better than 4 years and less than today. The quality will vary. Overall new films will likely have less and less issues as digital intermediates become the norm and the HD is a downfiltered digital clone of them. That does not mean DIs will all be great (some have really bad issues) and there are not lots of possibilities to screw up somewhere in the chain, but with the HD coming from director approved digital masters some sources of problems are gone (later telecine sessions, color correction by third parties etc.). Older films will create a lot of challenges as the expectations of the audience need to be met (Eeek! Look that soft and grainy film!) but the films also need to be restored to an authentic look that is true to their history. Commercial and other needs have to find a balance here while dealing with a rapidly changing technological background.
 

JohnPM

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
274
Very good summary, Michel. If the source materials for these HD-DVD's were prepared four, or even two, years ago, I would expect to be dissappointed with the final product today. With techicological progress in this area coming at the rate that it is, I should think that much of what's being today will be somewhat obsolete a year from now. How long will our new HD-DVD players be current? Will this new software format continue for another five years? The mind boggles at all these developments ...

http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.com/
 

Paul Borges

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
141
I get concerned when I read some reviews (I don't know which, I just remember reading a few) that say 'there is still grain visible' or 'there's too much grain' as a sign its a bad transfer. Hopefully the movie studios don't decide its best to make films look like airbrushed photos and remove all signs of grain.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Amen to that Paul. An awful ot of people get caught up in the trees and completely disregard the forest. I suspect Robert Harris has greater understanding of the entire process than anyone even remotely involved with this forum. I think of how great the SE of Unforgiven looks. I can only imagine what the HD version looks like. I'll take Mr. Harris' feedback over anyone who seems to be doing nothing but pressing their face to the screen looking for the slightest thing they consider a flaw any day.

It isn't film, and it won't look like it. Even if it was, I suspect there would be still plenty of complaints.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,312
Real Name
Robert Harris
Film grain is going to be more evident in HD.

The thing to keep in mind is that, within reason, and based upon the specificities of the various film elements and their age, it is supposed to be there.

RAH
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I had never thought about it, but I expect that is true.

I'll apply some fairly detached math to the issue. I often scan the high end Architecture shots I do at 3,000 dpi, and that comes out distinctly beyond the resolving power of any film I use. Consider that this is typically 120 Astia F, which not only has a thinner base than 35mm stock, but has higher resolving power and lower grain than (I suspect) basically anything use for feature films. Now, I realize people often interchange dpi and grain in ways that are not realistic in real-world applications, but I'll try to apply the figures as best I can. I am also just going to consider 35mm stock, for the sake of simplicity. So, I expect that under even the best of circumstances, any resolution above 2,000 dpi is going to be beyond the actual resolving power of virtually any film stock. Considering that the 35mm film frame must be about 18x24mm (please correct me if this is not right, Mr. Harris) which is roughly 3/4x1" (smaller considering the actual image area used for widescreen) the maximum resolving power of the source film would only be roughly 1,125 x 2,000 on a 1.78:1 movie. Of course, the vertical resolution should be higher with anamorphic. Throw into the mix the fact that the actual final resolving ability of the film will be less due to less than ideal situations, pushing, pulling, at least a couple generations of duplication in editing & due to timing and who knows what else, and the result should be that the capabilities of HD are greater than what most features can provide.

"Problems" with the image seem inevitable.
 

Larry Sutliff

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
2,861
Jon,
I do remember thinking that the scene near the end where Clint returns to the saloon was a bit dark.
 

Mark Bendiksen

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
1,090
I referenced this HD DVD briefly in my review of the Toshiba A2 player. However, I must add a comment to this thread to say that this transfer is absolutely top-notch and gorgeous in every sense imaginable.

Show this HD DVD to any of your friends who might be on the fence about taking the plunge into the new format. I think you'll probably find yourself a few converts in the process.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,788
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top