Blu Rays That Made You Go Wow! (1 Viewer)

[WillG]

To be honest I think it has a great deal to do with the fact that cinematographers back then just knew how to light. I'm afraid that the advent of fast film, and soft lighting has made modern DP's lazy. When you are shooting all your lights through soft boxes, you don't have to be so careful about your key to fill ratio. It seems as though no one today knows how to use hard light. Of course its partly from the desire in the late 60's and early 70's to create a more natural look, but I say now its just pure laziness.

Yeah, I also think by and large cinematography is a dying art. Too much consideration for how it will look on Home Video, and while in a way that philosopy makes sense, a lot of the time the product looks like something that was made for television. Hardly anyone shoots in Anamorphic anymore. I do agree there does seem to be a laziness about it, not from everyone of course, but I think you would probably find more examples of great cinematography from older days than you would find in moder times.

Yes, John Williams at his prolific best. This score ranks among his most memorable IMHO. Timeless, classic music. In lossless audio? Amazing.

I don't believe that the current BD of Superman has a lossless track.

 

[Carlo_M]

Can't believe no one's brought up The Godfather blu ray, a restoration by our own esteemed Mr. Robert Harris. It's meticulously restored, the transfer is magnificent. I can't imagine that the movie has looked that good even when it was out in the theaters in the seventies (maybe the first showing or two of the film before film wear would start to appear). For the purists it even has the original mono soundtrack...even the recent fantastic transfer of Taxi Driver has only a 5.1 soundtrack option--a tastefully done mix but not the original stereo track.


I do agree with those who have said older, classic titles done right provides as much (and in the case of The Godfather I and II more) "wow" than well done current titles.


Other "wow" titles for me: Taxi Driver, North by Northwest, Psycho, Avatar EE, all of the Pixar films...

 

[GMpasqua]

While "The Godfather" is well done, it is by no means a blu-ray image to make you go wow!


Even though "The Godfather" may look yards better than prior versions, and even though it may be a true representation of the theaterical run, when compared to the best looking blu-rays, "The Godfather" doesn't cut it. Much of the reason lies in the way the film was originally shot. As I have said before, films like "The Godfather", "All The Presidents Men" "Excalibur" will never be in the same league as the best looking blu-rays - because their original photography/film stock was never in the top league. They are good transfers, and the films look about as good as they probably can


They're not bad blu-rays, but they are not WOW. See a clean 70MM print of "Lawrence of Arabia" in a theater and you will go "WOW"

And just because a film is great doesn't mean it looks great





(remember when everything was awesome???? really, most of those things were never awesome)

 

[GMpasqua]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cinescott There are several standouts in my collection that sparkle when comparing standard def to Blu Ray. It's a great experience to see a beloved film for the first time with an outstanding transfer to 1080p. Bravo to the studios that took the time and effort to make their films shine on Blu! The most notable for me are:


The Ten Commandments

Saturday Night Fever

Doctor Zhivago

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Braveheart

Star Trek, The Original Series


Wow moments for me, hopefully more to come.






I forgot about [COLOR= #ffa500]"Braveheart"[/COLOR] This film was definately a Wow film, so much so that I bought the corrected "Gladiator" blu-ray (as a blind buy) based on Paramount's [COLOR= #ffa500]"Braveheart" [/COLOR]picture image


In fact, [COLOR= #ffa500]"Braveheart" [/COLOR]had so many moments when I actually said "wow" aloud - I would rate it one of the top Blu-ray's released to date


Though I did not find "Close Encounters" to be a wow. It looked good (probably as good as it did in the theater) but I found the image soft at times and the blacks were not always very inky - but much of that was due to the way the film was originally shot and all the special effect overlays.
Though, the entire package was well put together


Also "The Untouchables" had me saying wow quite a few times, I thought that film really popped on blu-ray

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

Also "The Untouchables" had me saying wow quite a few times, I thought that film really popped on blu-ray

Now I'm saying "wow" again, but with a different meaning -- as in, "wow! this is someone whose idea of a good-looking Blu-ray so radically differs from mine that we'll probably never agree on much".

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

While "The Godfather" is well done, it is by no means a blu-ray image to make you go wow!


Even though "The Godfather" may look yards better than prior versions, and even though it may be a true representation of the theaterical run, when compared to the best looking blu-rays, "The Godfather" doesn't cut it. Much of the reason lies in the way the film was originally shot. As I have said before, films like "The Godfather", "All The Presidents Men" "Excalibur" will never be in the same league as the best looking blu-rays - because their original photography/film stock was never in the top league. They are good transfers, and the films look about as good as they probably can


They're not bad blu-rays, but they are not WOW. See a clean 70MM print of "Lawrence of Arabia" in a theater and you will go "WOW"

And just because a film is great doesn't mean it looks great





(remember when everything was awesome???? really, most of those things were never awesome)

I most strongly disagree with this! Lawrence of Arabia does make me go Wow, but so does The Godfather.


Doug

 

[Carlo_M]

I can understand people's differing opinions, and if the Godfather didn't make him say wow, then it didn't. But I'm in the same boat as you MIchael. I think Greg's opinions on A/V quality and mine will rarely mesh given his comments.


Godfather I and II were shot in three strip technicolor which was considered top-notch at the time, here's a blurb from Wikipedia re: GFII

And while dye-transfer printing yielded superior color printing, the number of high speed prints that could be struck in labs all over the country outweighed the fewer, slower number of prints that could only be had in Technicolor's labs. The last new American film released before Technicolor closed their dye plant was The Godfather, Part II (1974).

Now if Greg's criticizing the choice to, in some darker scenes of GF1, crush some of the blacks, or perhaps using the overall sepia tone as a criticism of the picture, then I wholeheartedly disagree that this takes away from the wow factor. It's like critiquing the flare effects in Saving Private Ryan. Or saying that the purposely overblown look on Three Kings is a detrimental effect. Or saying Hitchcock using "haze" effects in certain dream sequences detracts from the picture quality. Not everything is meant to be shot in perfect lighting, in perfect focus, with perfect clarity and true to life colors. What makes me go Wow is when a Blu Ray takes me back to the original look of the film, in a way that couldn't be matched except for perhaps seeing a first-run, first-generation print.

 

[Cinescott]

Originally Posted by WillG
Though I did not find "Close Encounters" to be a wow. It looked good (probably as good as it did in the theater) but I found the image soft at times and the blacks were not always very inky - but much of that was due to the way the film was originally shot and all the special effect overlays.
Though, the entire package was well put together

Agreed. CE3K doesn't have the visual "pop" that so many modern films do. The image is soft at times, doesn't have the deep blacks, and can be a bit heavy on the grain in a few scenes. However, this is how I remember it from 1977, with the exception of the grain. Considering all the iterations of Close Encounters I have purchased over the past 20 years (including VHS, Criterion Laserdisc, and DVD), this is the best. The image quality seems spot-on with the source material. I could never say that before and it impressed me.


After all the times I have watched CE (and it's been a lot), I noticed so many new details on the blu ray. That's what gave it a Wow factor for me. For example:


I've never had a video version where the font in the opening sequence is stable. Before blu ray, there was always, always some noise that was distracting. Now it's perfect.

I could never see the detail in the rock on Devil's Tower when Richard Dreyfuss and Melinda Dillon first set eyes on it; now I can.

There's always been a sort of video "bleeding" surrounding the camera flares from the lights on the alien ships; that's gone.


It's been disappointing to me that Steven Spielberg has distanced himself from CE, saying that it "dates him" and that he wouldn't make it today, since I consider it a masterpiece.

 

[cineMANIAC]

At the risk of incurring people's wrath here I thought Echo Bridge's From Dusk till Dawn Blu-ray looked great, even if the aspect ratio is wrong. I'm also one of those people who aren't too fussy about things like DNR so I won't get into argument about grain vs. no grain. Suffice it to say the picture quality is very good and, as it seems this is the best we're gonna get for now, this will have to do for fans of the movie.

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben



Must have been a figment of my imagination, then, when I was watching the Blu-ray and going, "Wow!" Repeatedly.



I remember when nothing was "awesome".




Now I'm saying "wow" again, but with a different meaning -- as in, "wow! this is someone whose idea of a good-looking Blu-ray so radically differs from mine that we'll probably never agree on much".

Michael, we probably have totaly diferent set ups. I'm watching these on a Pioneer 52" Plasma Set. I will note some films look better on my smaller 42 set. But when a film looks good on the 52" it really looks like I'm watching a film on a high end theater screen. "The Godfather" did look good, but so much of the film is soft and grainy and when compared to "Braveheart" - well you couldn't compare them.

 

[GMpasqua]

What makes me go Wow is when a Blu Ray takes me back to the original look of the film, in a way that couldn't be matched except for perhaps seeing a first-run, first-generation print.

That's where we differ. If a film made me say Wow in the theater and at home that's great.
If a film did not make me say wow in the theater - it usually will not make me say wow at home (unless the home version is so much better than he theatrical version)


But I'm kind of spoiled, I see many films in single screen theaters with big screens and top audio - usually with the best prints available here in Los Angeles.


A truly great film will make me say wow, even if the picture quality isn't up to my standards, but I'm just going by picture quality here, and "The Godfather" wasn't the tip of the top (Neither was "Saturday Night Fever" or "Grease"*** as I guess this list was meant to be (otherwise everyone would just be entering their favorite film as long as it looks good) But I will give these film another look just to comfirm based on everyone's responses



*** I saw "Grease" opening day June 1978 at the Lowes State 1 in Manhattan in 70MM - I have seen the film many times since in theaters video etc. but never has the film ever looked as good as did that 70Mm print - even the restorations and Paramount lot screenings could not compare with that print - and that was a 35Mm blow up - not an ounce of grain - and Grease has become a very grainy film, don't know what happened, even seeing the film at local theaters a few weeks later never looked anything like it, even the 20th anniverary 70Mm print at the Mann's Chinese Theater looked awful

 

[GMpasqua]

I will say ALL the films I have watched on blu-ray are better looking than the DVD or any other video transfer from the past - and in many instances I have said WOW over the improvements


But really only three films made me stand with my month hanging open over image quality: "Braveheart" and "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang".


The 3rd "The Greatest Story Ever Told" for a totally different reason (quite possibly the worse tranfser I have seen on Blu-Ray to date)

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce



I couldn't agree with you more. In fact my goal on some shorts that I've been doing is to reproduce the look of Technicolor prints from an Eastman negative ala the 1950's and 60's. I much prefer a full color pallet.


Of course there is a time and place for everything. Gordon Willis’ brassy color scheme for the 1900s sequences in The Godfather part 2 is the perfect counter point to the 1950’s sequences. Again the man knew what he was doing. Today they just think lets slap a color on it. 10 years ago everything was tented green because of The Matrix, now its teal and orange! UGLY!


Just because you have a tool, doesn’t mean you should use it.


Doug

As someone who has worked on both sides of the camera and is studying to become a professional photographer, I must say amen to that. I also prefer the 1950s/1960s Technicolor look to what we have now. Still, the joy of Blu-Ray is seeing one of your favorite films rendered accurately, however they may be intended to look, in a high-quality, high-definition master that never degrades for the life of the disc.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

Michael, we probably have totaly diferent set ups. I'm watching these on a Pioneer 52" Plasma Set. I will note some films look better on my smaller 42 set. But when a film looks good on the 52" it really looks like I'm watching a film on a high end theater screen. "The Godfather" did look good, but so much of the film is soft and grainy and when compared to "Braveheart" - well you couldn't compare them.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but my setup is listed on every disc review I've done at HTF (currently 150).

 

[JeremyR]

Mine are probably


The Wizard of Oz


The Princess and the Frog (I'm still a sucker for this traditional animation)


Star Trek: TOS


Michael Jackson: This Is It


The Incredible Hulk (2008 version)

 

[trajan]

PATTON- I know alot will disagree with this, but I think it looks great on my 37" sony.

 

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by trajan

PATTON- I know alot will disagree with this, but I think it looks great on my 37" sony.

I think it looks great on my 42" plasma set as well....as does ZULU...and... A PASSAGE TO INDIA and KING OF KINGS.

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben



I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but my setup is listed on every disc review I've done at HTF (currently 150).

We have different equipment/set ups. Not everything is going to look the same. (and you always seem to attack me, plus I not do read the reviews at HTF).


You know this, images on smaller sets shows less difference in PQ. "Patton" looks great on a smaller screen, but when you put it on a 52 -62 screen all of a sudden the faces look like they're made of wax.


Images on a Plamsa set look very different than a LCD - so much so that you really can not compare the images


I will add - "on my Plasma set these titles have blown me away" I may not feel the same if I viewed them on a LCS screen

 

[cineMANIAC]

The difference between the DVD and Blu-ray for How the West Was Won is mind-boggling. Talk about Wow! It wouldn't be so shocking if we were comparing old vs. new transfers but this was the recent restoration. Amazing.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua

While "The Godfather" is well done, it is by no means a blu-ray image to make you go wow!


Even though "The Godfather" may look yards better than prior versions, and even though it may be a true representation of the theaterical run, when compared to the best looking blu-rays, "The Godfather" doesn't cut it. Much of the reason lies in the way the film was originally shot. As I have said before, films like "The Godfather", "All The Presidents Men" "Excalibur" will never be in the same league as the best looking blu-rays - because their original photography/film stock was never in the top league. They are good transfers, and the films look about as good as they probably can


They're not bad blu-rays, but they are not WOW. See a clean 70MM print of "Lawrence of Arabia" in a theater and you will go "WOW"

And just because a film is great doesn't mean it looks great

I don't share that philosophy, which, to me, is no different from the "eye candy" school of judging Blu-rays. I judge films by their narrative and emotional impact, not by whether the pictures are "pretty".

Did you look at my equipment list? I'll bet not. When you switched over to comparing setups, you commented:

I will note some films look better on my smaller 42 set. But when a film looks good on the 52" it really looks like I'm watching a film on a high end theater screen.

. . . as if to suggest that maybe I need a bigger screen to understand your point. I don't.