Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The World at War (1 Viewer)

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by cafink forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751355

If the producers' handling involved removing parts of the image, then I disagree...it was not handled well at all.

Which is invalid since you haven't seen it. I can understand saying your not interested because it's not OAR, but you can hardly make criticism of footage you have not seen. If they stretched it, it would be ok? they had to do something with it since this is a side release of something created for the HDTV broadcast market. Based on some other quoted post in this very thread.

 

[cafink]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russell G http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751358

Which is invalid since you haven't seen it. I can understand saying your not interested because it's not OAR, but you can hardly make criticism of footage you have not seen.




That's simply not true. I don't have to see this particular example, because I don't like cropping films from their original aspect ratio in principle.






Quote:


[FONT= 'Times New Roman'] If they stretched it, it would be ok? [/FONT]



No.



Quote:


[FONT= 'Times New Roman']they had to do something with it since this is a side release of something created for the HDTV broadcast market. Based on some other quoted post in this very thread.[/FONT]




Yes, they had to do something. They could have, for example, have preserved the original aspect ratio (by windowboxing the 4:3 image within the 16:9 frame). You know, like has been done with virtually every other Blu-ray release of non-16:9 programming. And like virtually everyone at the HTF has traditionally expected studios to do when presenting widescreen material on standard DVD. I don't understand why, now that the cropping is to 16:9 instead of 4:3, some folks are suddenly okay with it.

 

[Paul Penna]

I dunno; it just seems ironic to me that here, of all places, the concept of "formatted to fit your screen" isn't being given anything but an instant no-pass.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by cafink forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751362Yes, they had to do something. They could have, for example, have preserved the original aspect ratio (by windowboxing the 4:3 image within the 16:9 frame). You know, like has been done with virtually every other Blu-ray release of non-16:9 programming. And like virtually everyone at the HTF has traditionally expected studios to do when presenting widescreen material on standard DVD. I don't understand why, now that the cropping is to 16:9 instead of 4:3, some folks are suddenly okay with it.

It was done this way at the request of the cable networks, and the releasing company decided to go cheap and release the same version instead of the preferred 4:3. And the result is that no one is all that ok with the original program being cropped (which I have already stated is my reason for avoiding this release). Which is why I'm not sure where arguments like yours are coming from. If the argument is "Real World War 2 footage is holy and should not be appropriated in anyway by any documentary", then it's a delusional argument that has no bases in any documentary context.

If anyone is bent out of shape due to actual world war footage being cropped or appropriated, then I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is no current documentary available to you, in the world, for you to watch. As amazing as "World At War" is, even in it's original 4:3 OAR, the producers still played with that footage as they seemed fit, just as Ken Burns and every other documentary production house in the world has done with any type of archival footage.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Russell G /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751349

 What was the point of all that?
 

I stated my expectations for the bluray medium and the people who review it. It's been my experience that people who don't have respect for the incredible accomplishments of the "Great Generation" are usually ignorant of those accomplishments. Youth is a valid excuse for ignorance. Both ignorance (and youth!) are curable.I'm not angry at the reviewer. I'm angry at the ignorance that would result in this sort of cultural vandalism for no good reason.The World at War was a massive accomplishment. I happened to be around when it was first released. It's not just a TV show. It occupies a place alongside Nanook of the North, Triumph of the Will, Olympia, Why We Fight and Harvest of Shame as a significant part of our cultural history.Is altering it the same as altering Citizen Kane? Hell, yes. Documentary film is just as important as narrative film. It deserves the same respect. My passion is based on experience. Don't mistake my post for just another example of Internet argumentativeness. I've seen these films and I care how they're presented. It's a shame that the producers of this bluray set don't feel the same way.As for your most recent post, you're building straw men. No one says historical footage can't be edited for presentation as a part of a documentary film. We are saying that documentary filmmaking is an art and documentary films that have achieved as much as The World at War should be respected and not monkeyed with.The argument that the producers of this bluray *had* to crop it is just plain wrong. They state in their publicity material that they *chose* to present it that way, knowing there would be complaints. They are morons.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by bigshot
I stated my expectations for the bluray medium and the people who review it. It's been my experience that people who don't have respect for the incredible accomplishments of the "Great Generation" are usually ignorant of those accomplishments. Youth is a valid excuse for ignorance. Both ignorance (and youth!) are curable.

I agree with you that they shouldn't crop this but when you say things like that you come off as extremely condescending and holier than thou.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by bigshot forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751382
. Don't mistake my post for just another example of Internet argumentativeness. I've seen these films and I care how they're presented. It's a shame that the producers of this bluray set don't feel the same way.

That's exactly how your post read, especially in a review thread where I feel that the reviewer is getting a bit of a kicking for something he didn't really say. Thanks for clarifying.

And I agree, World At War deserves better then a release that not only is non-OAR, but apparently lacking in colour and detail compared to previous versions.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by TravisR /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751385

  I agree with you that they shouldn't crop this but when you say things like that you come off as extremely condescending and holier than thou.

I'm 51 years old and I'm still ignorant when it comes to a lot of things. But one thing I do know... I'll never become informed if I don't admit my ignorance first. I didn't know that when I was a kid. I thought I had to defend every stupid thing I said. I didn't start learning things from people who knew things that I didn't until I set my ego aside and listened. All opinions are not created equal. The trick is to figure out who knows what they're talking about and listen to them.Just a general observation...

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Russell G
And the result is that no one is all that ok with the original program being cropped (which I have already stated is my reason for avoiding this release). Which is why I'm not sure where arguments like yours are coming from.

What? Have you even been reading this thread? Several people have expressed the opinion that they're okay with the cropping. Here are some examples, from this thread and from the Digital Bits' review, linked above:

"The decision to convert the original 4:3 television image to the 1.78:1 aspect ratio...is less problematic than I had anticipated."

"I do not find [the conversion from 4:3 to 1.78:1] to be objectionable."



[COLOR= rgb(24, 24, 24)]"If you are going to crop if going through shot by shot is the way to do it."[/COLOR]

"The zooming/cropping isn't terribly destructive of the framing."

 

[Josh Dial]

Worthless release. Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves, especially the film-makers who claim they are "fine" with the cropping (yes, I am indeed implying that they are lying to get money).

No OAR? No Sale.

(remember when this was a common statement, here at the HTF?)

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Josh Dial
No OAR? No Sale.

(remember when this was a common statement, here at the HTF?)

Yes!

My feelings exactly!

 

[Ruz-El]

"The zooming/cropping isn't terribly destructive of the framing."

Which are all valid criticism of the cropping, without being an endorsement. You'll note that the reviewer addresses the cropping in his conclusion, admitting that it will be an instant deal breaker for some (I'm part of the some).

Just because people don't think that cropping is as bad as it could of been, doesn't mean they think it's better then OAR. You'll also note that despite being a highly regarded, must see documentary, nowhere in the review will you find "Recommended" or "a must buy." The reviewer fairly reviews the product presented him, in a non-biased way so people can make up their minds. Which is why I think this is a good review.

 

[cafink]

Except you didn't say, "no one is endorsing the cropping." What you actually said was, "no one is all that ok with" the cropping. Again, that's simply not true. The people I quoted above are okay with it, even if they don't think it's ideal.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Russell G /forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751399

  The reviewer fairly reviews the product presented him, in a non-biased way so people can make up their minds.  Which is why I think this is a good review. 

Here is my problem with the review. It is stated that this video is in the incorrect aspect ratio, that the contrast is washed out, that the footage is soft, and the color is off. The reviewer compares it to a decade old DVD release and indicates that the DVD doesn't have these problems. The only thing that is better on the bluray is the lack of film scratches and dirt. If he had asked, one of us would have sent him a copy of the latest DVD remaster to compare, and he would have found that not only is the 2004 A&E set sharp, clear, in the correct aspect ratio, with good contrast and color... he would find that it has very little in the way of scratches and dirt, plus it has two hours more supplemental material.If the bluray isn't even as good as the 2004 DVD release, why isn't he giving it no stars and recommending readers purchase the DVDs that are not only superior in every way, but one third the price?

 

[BobO'Link]

I was just going to make very similar comments about framing. One thing to add is that in spite of the tighter framing the subject is typically *still* presented in a way which preserves a balanced look/frame (at least on most news/documentary programs). Generally the tighter framing is done *without* lower third supers/titles and even though the top of a head is cut off it's not distracting. However, when titles are added you either have them covering the mouth (very bad) or you have to provide space for the titles. If the head is still cropped then you'll see part of the neck and the eyes are then too high in the frame which makes the shot feel off balance and odd. Even 20-30 years ago we'd use ultra-tight framing when warranted but this was never done when a title was to be used.

I've found *one* positive about the new release... it has sub-titles where the original release does not.

That said... I've ordered my standard DVD copy while they are still available at a decent price.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Paul Penna
I dunno; it just seems ironic to me that here, of all places, the concept of "formatted to fit your screen" isn't being given anything but an instant no-pass.

It's never an instant "no-pass" when the creator of the work is involved. I defend the right of the filmmakers (which includes the producers of this documentary altering the AR) over anything else. It's their documentary. I'm fine with people refusing to purchase the new Blu-rays on principle, too. Everyone has their principles. I don't think cropping The Last Emperor is the wisest decision, either, but I'll defend Burtolucci's right to approve that change. In general, I have less issue with this when the creator of the work is responsible, whether it be Nolan for The Dark Knight, Cameron for Avatar, and so on.

 

[bigshot]

Don't forget Star Wars!

 

[Ruz-El]

If the bluray isn't even as good as the 2004 DVD release, why isn't he giving it no stars and recommending readers purchase the DVDs that are not only superior in every way, but one third the price?

He can answer that himself. I don't know why on the HTF some reviewers use stars and some don't.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Russell G

I did say "no one is all that ok with it" because it's pretty much a given that it would of been preferred that it was in it's original aspect ratio.

Yes, you said it, and it's still wrong. Some people are okay with it. The HTF Reviewer Richard Gallagher, for example, said, "I do not find it to be objectionable."

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by cafink forum/thread/305831/htf-blu-ray-review-the-world-at-war/30#post_3751623
Yes, you said it, and it's still wrong. Some people are okay with it. The HTF Reviewer Richard Gallagher, for example, said, "I do not find it to be objectionable."

He also said:

"this new Blu-ray version from A&E Home Video is a mixed bag."

"This is not a bad presentation, but anyone expecting a dramatic upgrade from the HBO Home Video DVD release is likely to be disappointed."

"The primary issue that I have is that a direct comparison with the HBO Home Video box set which was released in 2001 demonstrates that the restored version has significantly less contrast and vividness. "

"The restoration team also has made extensive repairs to the newsreel and combat footage, much of which shows a great deal of damage in the DVD release. Scratches, dirt, and other problems have been painstakingly cleaned up. The results are impressive, leaving us with images which are generally smooth and free of digital artifacts. Still, the overall look is on the soft side. Some of this softness undoubtedly can be attributed to the limitations of the source material, while some of it may be attributable to the zooming which was necessary to change the aspect ratio."

"What immediately struck me, and which was driven home when I did a comparison with the original DVD set, is that the producers of the Blu-ray disc have inexplicably turned down the contrast. "

"One needs only to compare the footage of Hitler's home movies to see how the color intensity has changed. The color sequences on the Blu-ray actually remind me of black and white films which were colorized by Ted Turner, so color me disappointed."

"I am, however, disturbed by the low contrast and relatively weak colors when compared to the HBO Home Video set."

As far as the "I do not find it objectionable":

"The conversion from 4:3 to 1.78:1 will undoubtedly make it a non-starter for some, although I do not find it to be objectionable. I am, however, disturbed by the low contrast and relatively weak colors when compared to the HBO Home Video set."

Is qualified by:

"The restoration team decided to go through the original footage frame-by-frame and make every effort to retain all essential information. The only way to convert a virtually square image into a rectangular one is to zoom and crop. Depending upon where in the frame the essential information is located, the cropping might be greater on the top or bottom, or it might be equal. In any event, when compared to the original, the high-definition picture contains less information on the top and bottom without adding anything to the sides. This cropping has been done in a very skillful way, and I suspect that a viewer who has never seen the original and is unaware of the differences would not guess that anything has been lost."

So in his opinion, as in the opinions of others who didn't mind Lucas mucking around with his films, or how the rematting of Apocalypse Now wasn't considered a wholesale disaster, he feels that the cropping was done tastefully. No where in the review does he express a preference for the cropping, or give it an absolute "This is OK."

Also, I don't know how anyone who has actually read this review can consider it a wholesale approval of this set, even if you ignore the cropping.