Is it just me or is the we were soldiers transfer just very grainy.... (1 Viewer)

[todd stone]

Probably did this on purpose to milk us for a better version with even more extra features..

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Considering that Paramount has only done _1_ disc reissue, and that was to upgrade from a bare-bones to SE, I doubt it

Probably just artistic grain

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Probably did this on purpose to milk us for a better version with even more extra features..

Yes, it's clear that they're going to put out a version with a big "NEW AND IMPROVED - NO GRAIN!!!" on the cover. Y'know, I can understand some cynicism toward studios for their reissue tendencies, but this comment's way over the top, especially aimed at Paramount, the one studio that has demonstrated NO proclivity whatsoever for the double-dip.
Some directors make movies grainy to fit a stylistic concept. Looked to me like that's what Wallace did here. Grain isn't inherently a bad thing...

 

[rutger_s]

[angry filmmaker's voice]Its supposed to look like that[/angry filmmaker's voice]
See also...
Kung Pow: Enter The Fist - Film is supposed to look like a poor restoration of a '70s Hong Kong film.
The Matrix - The color tints are normal.
Saving Private Ryan - No, that funky ghosting was done on purpose.
Payback - Its supposed to have dulled out colors.
Fight Club - Yes, its that dark.

 

[Rich Romero]

I don't consider grain to be negative. In many cases, it makes the image appear sharper and more filmlike. Not only that, in the case of We Were Soldiers, it was the filmmaker's intention to have it be slightly grainy, I saw it in the theater, it's not just the transfer.

 

[DanR]

Probably just artistic grain

Jeff,
I agree some grain is intended. I mentioned this in the official review thread. That being said, it is excessive, and I don't remember the film being this grainy in the theater. In addition, that is only but one of the problems I had with this transfer. Some of the other problems worth noting seem to be some haloing in certain circumstances, the almost complete lack of shadlow detail, and very little actual detail in the transfer itself.
In short, this transfer is very two dimensional, with excessive grain. A big disappointment for me.
That being said, it is rather ridiculous for someone to come in here and say that the grain is there so that Paramount can double dip by releasing a better version later. Silly indeed, especially given Paramount's long history of re-releases on the DVD format. :rolleyes
Regards,
Dan

 

[todd stone]

hmm I know what intended grain is, ie saving private ryan, but not when hes doing a speech etc. It looks like BAD TRANSFER grain is what I mean...

 

[Patrick McCart]

Sorry, but it's not a defect of the film, nor the transfer. The film was purposely grained up (and digitally color timed) for a gritty look. When we screened We Were Soldiers at the theater I work at, it was very gritty.

The DVD accurately shows the film the way it was made.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

I wasn't bothered by the grain at all. It's becoming a common technique to use for "artistic" purposes. So common that it's awkward to NOT see grain. As for the other elements to the transfer, I thought it was fairly poor. Fine detail was lacking and alot of scenes had pixellation. Definitely could've been a whole lot better.
Bruce

 

[Julian Lalor]

Y'know, I can understand some cynicism toward studios for their reissue tendencies, but this comment's way over the top, especially aimed at Paramount, the one studio that has demonstrated NO proclivity whatsoever for the double-dip.

Except with respect to the Star Trek movies. In this case, however, I agree - the statement is nonsenical.

 

[YANG]

"The DVD accurately shows the film the way it was made."

The grains that you see,appears in the housewives chat session only.Other than this scene,the grains are virtually unnoticeable,because of brighter lights during the jungle scene and the hanger scene.

You think that the R1 version looks grainy,The R3 release shows more grain.

I believe that the grains,are inherited from the original theatrical print.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

You'd think after the whole A.I. thing that people would know the difference between grain and artifacts.

Sometimes, film looks grainy. Such is the nature of film. When that film is transferred to DVD, the DVD will have grain.

If you didn't see the grain, then that would be a truly bad transfer.

I think people have gotten used to the soft presentation offered by TV and early DVDs, and now see film grain as some type of flaw.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Another thing to add...

To see what bad grain looks like, check out Westworld. The movie should look pretty smooth, but has an overwhelming amount of grain at some times. This is mostly a fault of using just a regular theatrical print instead of going towards an archival print, or interpositive.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Except with respect to the Star Trek movies. In this case, however, I agree - the statement is nonsenical.

Gotta defend my word usage: "proclivity" means "habitual tendency". Paramount are allowed the occasional reissue, but obviously rereleases aren't frequent with them...

 

[Julian Lalor]

Perhaps it was your statement "NO proclivity whatsoever" that led me to the conclusion you were saying Paramount never re-issued titles.

 

[Declan]

cant wait to get this one now when it comes out here in the UK on the 2nd September.

Loved it at the flicks (calling the sound dynamic is an understatement).

But yeah it was grainy at the cinema as well. I used to be the projectionist there and it was shown in studio 1............so it was on the best screen.

So it definitley is a stylistic choice.

But if the grain it that much part of the look of the film, you think that they would have put a disclaimer before the start like Three Kings.

my 2c

 

[Mike Graham]

Just to add my 2 cents, but I remember there being a fair amount of grain in the theatrical presentation last spring, so much so that as I was watching I remember thinkning, "This is gonna cause some trouble on DVD..."

However, it doesn't hurt the movie at all, but simply adds to it. Fabulous sound by the way.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Perhaps it was your statement "NO proclivity whatsoever" that led me to the conclusion you were saying Paramount never re-issued titles.

Okay, my word usage wasn't the greatest, but I'm still technically correct! "NO habitual tendency whatsoever" is right, isn't it? One reissued DVD to date = no proclivity whatsoever. (Ain't digressions fun?

 

[Mike Graham]

This is a bit off topic, but when will you be updating your DVD site's Top 10, Colin, to reflect the summer's releases? I'm just curious to see if Wrath Of Khan:SE will make it onto "Best of" list this year. Keep up the good work

 

[YANG]

Will PARAMOUNT ever re-release their back catalogue titles,it is very hard to determine.
For WE WERE SOLDIERS case,there maybe a chance of re-release or maybe no...simply because that it is too "costly" for them.
If PARAMOUNT really goes for re-release,their big time titles like BRAVEHEART or TITANIC will now be available in the R1 street as a S.E dual disc sets,just like R2 or R4.