American Graffiti Blu-ray DNR issues? (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK
I'm seeing plenty of grain here, and a wide range of color.

Grain that has been noised reduced and then re-sharpened into hail sized clumps.

 

[Kevin EK]

I'm sorry Scott, but that's just not correct. I'm not seeing that. And I strongly doubt that George Lucas would allow something like that to happen to his movie.

I've spent about 3 hours going through this disc. I need to ask if you've actually watched the disc or if you are basing this opinion on the screencaps.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK
I'm sorry Scott, but that's just not correct. I'm not seeing that. And I strongly doubt that George Lucas would allow something like that to happen to his movie.

I've spent about 3 hours going through this disc. I need to ask if you've actually watched the disc or if you are basing this opinion on the screencaps.

Why would you strongly doubt that? Like GL is some kind of purist when it comes to his films?

My assessment is based on the caps which look like most every other Universal title out there, many of which I have seen.

Fear & Loathing: noise reduced and sharpened
The Thing: noise reduced and sharpened
Back to the Future: noise reduced and sharpened
Apollo 13: noise reduced and sharpened
An American Werewolf in London: noise reduced and sharpened


How big is your screen? How far away were you sitting from the screen? Did you get up close? Like, within 2 feet?

 

[Kevin EK]

I don't know about the first two titles on your list there.

But I do know about the latter three, having reviewed them here. I did not find them to have been DNR'd in the way you are thinking.

I have a 40" Sony XBR2, which is an average size for most of us who enjoy home theater viewing. I'll be upgrading to a 65" current plasma, but this hasn't gone through yet. My couch is set back about 10 feet from the set. I wouldn't think about watching a movie from 2 feet away as that idea tends to be bad for your eyes.

As for George Lucas being a purist with his films - I'd say that he's always up for making changes. Even with American Grafitti, which has seen its iconic opening shot changed to add a cloudy sunset in the sky. But there's a difference between making creative changes and completely removing the detail from his movies by scrubbing all the grain off. He says that he participated in this transfer, and I believe him. He watched the movie again to confirm that the transfer and the color timing were to his liking, and he watched it one more time with the video cameras on so that he could do a commentary. I mentioned his notes about the focus issues because I think they inform this discussion. He was not using the highest quality equipment and he wasn't working in the best of conditions. Given that, I think this transfer is a good one - and I think the Blu-ray is a good one.

I do think there's a difference between evaluating screen captures and looking at a moving image. I would ask that you rent the title and take a look at it in motion before making a decision.

I also recognize there will be posters here who have much larger screens than I have at the moment, and they may see more than I do here. As I note in my reviews, if anyone is watching this disc and seeing something - a problem or a plus - I'm always happy when people post responses to update us.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK
I don't know about the first two titles on your list there.

But I do know about the latter three, having reviewed them here. I did not find them to have been DNR'd in the way you are thinking.

I have a 40" Sony XBR2, which is an average size for most of us who enjoy home theater viewing. I'll be upgrading to a 65" current plasma, but this hasn't gone through yet. My couch is set back about 10 feet from the set. I wouldn't think about watching a movie from 2 feet away as that idea tends to be bad for your eyes.

As for George Lucas being a purist with his films - I'd say that he's always up for making changes. Even with American Grafitti, which has seen its iconic opening shot changed to add a cloudy sunset in the sky. But there's a difference between making creative changes and completely removing the detail from his movies by scrubbing all the grain off. He says that he participated in this transfer, and I believe him. He watched the movie again to confirm that the transfer and the color timing were to his liking, and he watched it one more time with the video cameras on so that he could do a commentary. I mentioned his notes about the focus issues because I think they inform this discussion. He was not using the highest quality equipment and he wasn't working in the best of conditions. Given that, I think this transfer is a good one - and I think the Blu-ray is a good one.

I do think there's a difference between evaluating screen captures and looking at a moving image. I would ask that you rent the title and take a look at it in motion before making a decision.

I also recognize there will be posters here who have much larger screens than I have at the moment, and they may see more than I do here. As I note in my reviews, if anyone is watching this disc and seeing something - a problem or a plus - I'm always happy when people post responses to update us.

Of course you wouldn't watch the movie from two feet away but if we are going to talk about grain structure on a 40-inch set at a viewing distance of 10 feet we can go ahead and end the conversation now. No point. I have no doubt it looked fine to you, no wonder. That explains your assessment of Back to the Future as well.

 

[Kevin EK]

Scott, I'm sorry that you seem to have an issue with my home theater setup. But this doesn't change the facts that you've thrown some pretty angry rhetoric around without having actually seen the Blu-ray in question.

I should note that Back to the Future did not receive the kind of reception that hit Spartacus, and with good reason. Trying to rewrite that history doesn't change the record here. Please look back and check it yourself, and particularly the "A few words about..." posting.

As I've stated, if there are posters who have seen the title on a larger screen, I'd be very happy to read their positions, particularly after the review is posted. It's one of the reasons I've always enjoyed being part of this forum. But if the intention is to dismiss my work here and to rely solely on screencaps rather than the movie itself, I honestly don't know how to respond.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Thanks for the early thoughts Kevin. Looking forward to your full review.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK
Scott, I'm sorry that you seem to have an issue with my home theater setup. But this doesn't change the facts that you've thrown some pretty angry rhetoric around without having actually seen the Blu-ray in question.

I should note that Back to the Future did not receive the kind of reception that hit Spartacus, and with good reason. Trying to rewrite that history doesn't change the record here. Please look back and check it yourself, and particularly the "A few words about..." posting.

As I've stated, if there are posters who have seen the title on a larger screen, I'd be very happy to read their positions, particularly after the review is posted. It's one of the reasons I've always enjoyed being part of this forum. But if the intention is to dismiss my work here and to rely solely on screencaps rather than the movie itself, I honestly don't know how to respond.

I don't mean to put your setup down but if you are going to be reviewing bluray discs in an "official" capacity that are going to be read by lots of people then at least sit close enough to try to fill your field of view. 10 feet from a 40 inch screen is way too far away to see any kind of transfer flaw that is not related to the source.

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

I don't mean to put your setup down but if you are going to be reviewing bluray discs in an "official" capacity that are going to be read by lots of people then at least sit close enough to try to fill your field of view. 10 feet from a 40 inch screen is way too far away to see any kind of transfer flaw that is not related to the source.

I "simulate" high definition on my 42" 480p by sitting 13 feet back. It works, too!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Kevin EK
Scott, I'm sorry that you seem to have an issue with my home theater setup. But this doesn't change the facts that you've thrown some pretty angry rhetoric around without having actually seen the Blu-ray in question.

I should note that Back to the Future did not receive the kind of reception that hit Spartacus, and with good reason. Trying to rewrite that history doesn't change the record here. Please look back and check it yourself, and particularly the "A few words about..." posting.

As I've stated, if there are posters who have seen the title on a larger screen, I'd be very happy to read their positions, particularly after the review is posted. It's one of the reasons I've always enjoyed being part of this forum. But if the intention is to dismiss my work here and to rely solely on screencaps rather than the movie itself, I honestly don't know how to respond.

Don't sweat it Kevin!






Crawdaddy

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

Regarding other reviews, someone else said that, not me. The only review I know if is the one on bluray.com which is generally positive, as per usual.

And The Horse Soldiers is a fantastic transfer. A transfer is simply that, a transfer. What people have issues with are the source elements. They are several generations removed from the original elements. But the transfer is completely transparent and sharp as a tack. MGM could'v'e chosen to drastically denoise it and they didn't. Maybe they should've transferred on a decade old telecine and added artificial sharpening and noise reduction. I can just see all the "stunning!", "great transfer!" comments that would follow.

But doesn't a fantastic transfer have a lot to do with source material that is used?

 

[Kevin EK]

My understanding of the method of viewing any HDTV set is that you should sit far enough back that the image does NOT completely fill your view. Doing so is very bad for your eyesight. I've been advised this both by the cameraman I work with and by people dealing with home theater setups. Sitting too close to a television is never a good idea.

When I see something that needs to be checked out more carefully, I will move closer to try to see what the problem is. For example, on the HD transfer of 2001, I noted what looked like dirt on the screen during the "Dawn of Man" sequence and so moved up to check if I needed to clean the TV. Then the problem disappeared on the next shot, even with bright colors. Then it popped up again on the next wide shot. I realized I was looking at the shadowing of the lighting and grip equipment behind the projected background, which was now visible due to the higher resolution of the transfer. By the same example, I was also able to easily see that the CGI gantry shots for Apollo 13 have CGI astronauts walking around in them. And in the new Beverly Hills Cop Blu-ray, it is now screamingly obvious that the stunt truck driver in the opening melee looks nothing like the actor he's doubling. (The fact that the actor is balding and the stunt driver has a full head of black hair really doesn't help this situation...)

I was also able to see that in the Spartacus Blu-ray transfer, something looked wrong on the actors' faces. And that problem wasn't an issue on the SD Criterion transfer. The over-application of DNR explained this quite well.

So even with a 42" screen and sitting at the proper distance, it is quite possible to see whether or not you're looking at a decent transfer or not. It absolutely helps to have a larger monitor, but most people neither have this nor can afford it. I'm thankfully in a place where I can finally address this year, but I would take issue with the idea that my reviews or opinions are invalid.

For the record, I have asked two others to look over this Blu with much larger monitors than I, and we'll know by tomorrow if I have somehow missed a significant picture transfer issue.

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by ahollis

But doesn't a fantastic transfer have a lot to do with source material that is used?

I don't think so. The transfer itself is separate from the source materials The best transfers are the ones that most accurately replicate the source materials, whatever they may be. You can have a fantastic transfer of crappy source materials, just like you can have a crappy transfer of great source materials.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

KevinEK - just wanted to pass on a quick word of support. I think you've been doing a great job with your reviews; I've been enjoying them for some time, and will continue to do so. As a reviewer and judge of quality of discs, you have my trust. Your write-ups are always well-reasoned, clearly written, and in reading them, I always understand not only what you think of the disc, but how you arrived at that conclusion. In terms of reviews, that's really all I can ask! I look forward to your official review of this disc, as well as many titles to come in the future.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by JohnMor
I don't think so. The transfer itself is separate from the source materials The best transfers are the ones that most accurately replicate the source materials, whatever they may be. You can have a fantastic transfer of crappy source materials, just like you can have a crappy transfer of great source materials.

I hear you, but I am not sure I totally agree with that. For a good Blu-ray or DVD all elements must come together. Two reviews I have read including one in this forum for THE HORSE SOLDIERS indicate that it is the best it is going to look but the Blu-ray is only acceptable due to the condition of the source material. In my book this would be an acceptable transfer.

 

[JohnMor]

Originally Posted by ahollis

I hear you, but I am not sure I totally agree with that. For a good Blu-ray or DVD all elements must come together. Two reviews I have read including one in this forum for THE HORSE SOLDIERS indicate that it is the best it is going to look but the Blu-ray is only acceptable due to the condition of the source material. In my book this would be an acceptable transfer.

I see, but now we're talking about 2 different things: the transfer and the end result. They're not the same thing. The end result dvd or blu-ray is MORE than just the transfer. It's the combination of transfer quality and elements quality. That's different from whether the transfer itself was done well and accurately reflects the source materials as they are.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by JohnMor
I see, but now we're talking about 2 different things: the transfer and the end result. They're not the same thing. The end result dvd or blu-ray is MORE than just the transfer. It's the combination of transfer quality and elements quality. That's different from whether the transfer itself was done well and accurately reflects the source materials as they are.

Exactly. Could MGM create better source elements? I have no idea. The elements they used could be the best materials that exist, or not. Maybe Mr. Harris will chime in regarding that. One thing is for sure, it looks like a 35mm print, with the best color I have ever seen for this title. Considering what they could've done with all the "bells & whistles" in the digital workstation, they did the right thing. They presented the element they had accurately with a minimum of BS.

I want my films to look like films. Not video.

 

[JoHud]

KevinEK, it's good to hear that this film is not quite as bad as the topic indicated. I was most worried about the transfer quality, which seems very acceptable by your review. I am personally not nearly as annoyed with edge enhancement (so far) as I am with DNR abuse. Though I imagine something larger than a 50'' might be more intrusive.

Like many, I'm worried about another potential Spartacus mash-up with each upcoming blu-ray from Universal. Releases more in line with this one are more within my purchasing parameters.

 

[Mark-P]

Kevin, while I am certainly dubious about the slanderous title of this thread from a poster who has not even yet viewed the Blu-ray, I do agree that 10 feet is much too far away from a 40-inch screen. That's a distance of about 3.5 screen-widths, where the recommendation is that you sit 1.6 screen-widths away for a proper theatrical experience. I also sit 10 feet away, but my 2.35:1 contant-image-height screen is 105 inches wide. I look forward to owning AG on Blu-ray as I'm sure it will look very good projected large. I'm just waiting for the price to drop to $15 or less.

 

[DaveM4964]

There's a good review up over at Dvd Verdict.

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/americangraffitibluray.php