Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here. (1 Viewer)

[Adam Gregorich]

This is not in the past. I attended a Disney Blu-ray "focus group" this week. There were several attendees who are new to BD and were complaining about film grain ("noise") and wanted titles to be cleaned up to remove it. I also have a sneaking suspicion that J6P may start complaining about the black bars on 2.35:1 releases on their widescreen sets. Hopefully the studios will tell them to use the stretch function of their TV .

 

[Michael Reuben]

Please tell me that you (or someone) spoke up against these yo-yos. They need to be opposed wherever they appear.

M.

 

[MatthewA]

Sounds like the same people who got 2-disc DVD sets killed because they couldn't figure out which one had the movie on it. These people should have their electricity cut off.

If you want to stem this tide, the only thing you can do, and should do, is to write letters telling them what you want from Blu-Ray, and what you do NOT want. Thecinemalaser.com still has the addresses up. I think it's time to use them.

 

[Cees Alons]

"electricity" = "heads".


Cees

 

[MatthewA]

Even I think that's a little much. If they don't have heads, how would they see the errors of their ways when their heads contain their eyes?

 

[Paul_Scott]

I'm thinking that Bd is going to be primarily embraced by a younger set who buy into for peer/status reasons...not because it is the best technology for realizing source fidelity. The studios are chasing numbers and those numbers are with a demographic that will view HD the way they view Aeropostale, American Eagle, and Abercrombie compared to Faded Glory and Cherokee. Standard def DVD will be just fine for their parents who can't appreciate the difference, but for the 15-35 crowd, Bd is going to be the sexy choice. And grain and source fidelity are qualities that are going to be anathema to these people. I look down the Blu highway and see a lot of frustration to come.
It was great to see someone else who finds The Untouchables to be compromised and not the ideal to strive for. The sad fact is that opinion is very much in the minority. To most people that title DOES represent an ideal catalog presentation.
Makes me want to cry because that is the opinion the studios will serve for likely much of the formats lifespan. And that'll be just fine with the studios, because that will always leave the door open to selling a correct remastered version down the line. But in the near term I see the booboisie ruling the roost.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Of course, that assumes the preservation of elements sufficient for the creation of a correctly remastered version. But what if the compromised, over-DNR'd version is treated as the preservation element? Stranger things have happened.

M.

 

[RobertR]

You're scaring me, Paul and Michael. :frowning:

 

[Michael Reuben]

You should be more scared by Adam Gregorich's report from his recent experience at a Disney focus group (see post 102 above). 'Cause that shows we're not just theorizing.

M.

 

[RobertR]

Yeah, I read that. I would like to ask that HTF take a firm stance against such nonsense when communicating with the studios.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's not like HTF, as an institution, has a direct pipeline to the studios. (I, for one, never talk to studio people.) But we've been talking about the problem internally for a while now.

As great an impact (or possibly greater) would be made if a hue and cry were regularly raised in forum threads when this problem rears its ugly head on existing hi-def discs -- e.g., if, as expected, the Blu-ray of Face/Off appears with the same ugly transfer we've already seen on HD DVD.

Something tells me, though, that I'm whistling in the wind. We have a lot of people who will jump up and down and stamp their feet if a title doesn't contain lossless audio (regardless of how the audio on the disc actually sounds), but most of those same people are nowhere to be found when a video transfer gets trashed with excess DNR.

M.

 

[RobertR]

Ok, I'll do my part.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Can we get a good sticky list going of all titles w/ bad DNR issues (and similar quality issues)? IIRC, someone's doing that over on AVS, but one over here would be very helpful too as not all HTF members/visitors regularly visit AVS (or desires to).

Maybe that would help raise awareness better. I for one would love to have such a reference list lying around and readily accessible (whether for my own shopping purposes or for letting others know about the issue).

_Man_

 

[Goko]

"Whistling in the wind" is an apt description of any hue and cry campaign to promote better PQ when viewers can not even come to a universal agreement on the merits/demerits of one particular title. Since everyone's HD set-up is different and, not even mentioning visual issues, I think the best and only way to judge if PQ/AQ is up to snuff is to rent the title before any purchase is made and simply judge for yourself.

 

[Dave Moritz]

While lossless audio is an important selling point, I also would exspect a video transfer that is done correctly as well. There are a number of HD titles that I did not and will not buy becuase the video quality is on the poor side. I would like to own The Untouchables on Blu-ray but if the video is done poorly then I do not care if lossless is not there. Now there are some titles that if they have a great transfer and no lossless I may not buy or at least hold of til later.

The studios need to take HD seriously and they need to do both the video and audio right on these releases. It is scary if they start listening to the consumers that are basically clueless, those are the ones that can run HD into the ground and kill it. At this time I do not see that happening but it does not help that those particular people might infuence studios, its kinda scary.

 

[RobertR]

I think the explanation is readily apparent: The reviewer you quoted is essentially oblivious to DNR and/or doesn't like film grain and isn't bothered by its absence.

I think I will make a point of reading reviews to see if the reviewer makes any negative comments about film grain (such as "the transfer was beautifully grain-free", etc.) and respond appropriately.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Michael's problem with the transfer is that the use of excessive DNR has not only removed film grain that should remain, but also detail to the picture. This allows the HD DVD not to look like film, but a more glossy presentation lacking in the areas I touched on earlier. Up to a point, I agree with him in regard to those PQ concerns.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't think The Untouchables is quite as bad as some are suggesting. Yes it has had far too much grain removal to the point that some high frequency information is missing, but it is very watchable and clearly an upgrade in detail from the DVD. Also being that this film was photographed with anamorphic lenses, it's not going to be as apparently grainy as say a super 35 film from the same era.

Personally I would have preferred that they not remove grain if they can help it at all, but the movie is so enjoyable that honestly I don't notice it about 5 min into the film.

Doug

 

[Michael Reuben]

And how do your eyeballs know whether or not the transfer is accurate?

One of the biggest problems with many, if not most, of today's DVD reviewers is that they no longer watch film. All their viewing is on video; so they no longer have any sense of what constitutes a good reproduction. Just look at the criteria from the review you cited: vibrant colors, deep black levels, balanced contrast. Those sound like the "pop" factors that make people pick out one TV over another on a showroom floor. I don't hear anything about fidelity to the source or picture detail.

And picture detail is what we're talking about. The faces in the HD DVD of Face/Off are artificially smooth. Whenever there's any fast motion -- and this is a John Woo film, so that's often -- things get blurry, because the picture detail that would keep it distinct has been DNR'd away. Is it watchable? Depends on your tolerance. I can; I know at least one person who can't. Is it an accurate transfer? No way.

M.

 

[RobertR]

Something else to question a reviewer on: Did he see the movie in a theater, or does he at least watch film.