<img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=110931&d=1211322087"hspace="12"align="left">
<b>The Review at a Glance: </b> (max score: 5 )

<b>Film:</b> <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109947&d=1210373699">

<b>Extras:</b> <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109948&d=1210373699">

<b> Audio/Video total rating:</b>
<p> ( Max score: 100 )
<font color=green><b><h2>80</h2></b></font>
<br><br><br>
<b>Studio and Year:</b> 20th Century Fox - 1970
<b>MPAA Rating:</b> PG
<b>Feature running time:</b> 172 Minutes
<b>Genre:</b> War Drama

<b>Disc Format:</b> BD-50
<b>Encoding:</b> MPEG-4 (AVC)
<b>Video Aspect:</b> 2.20:1
<b>Resolution:</b> 1080p/24
<br>
<b>Audio Format(s):</b> English DTS-HD Master Lossless, English Dolby 5.0 Surround, Spanish/French Mono
<b>Subtitles:</b> English, Mandarin, Cantonese
<b>Starring:</b> George C. Scott, Karl Malden, Stephen Young, Michael Strong, Carey Loftin, Dumortier
<b>Directed by:</b> Franklin J. Schaffner
<b>Music by:</b> Jerry Goldsmith
<b>Written by:</b> Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North
<b>Region Code:</b> A

<b>Blu-ray Disc release Date:</b> June 3, 2008

<br><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<center><font color=Green><b><h2>"A cinematic classic gets the ‘Blu’ treatment"</h2></b></font></center>

<h4>Film Synopsis:</h4></b></font>

<p>Winner of seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor in a Leading Role (George C. Scott), Best Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Sound and Best Art Direction, the sweeping WWII epic PATTON (1970, Fox) tells the story of one of the most extraordinary generals, George S. Patton, Jr., whose lust for glory swept through the North African battlefield and across Europe, earning the fear and respect of his enemies, as well as the resentment of his allies.</p>

<h4>My Take:</h4></b></font><p>Wow ! Believe it or not I had never seen <I>Patton</I> going into this review. George C. Scott won an Oscar for his portrayal of General George S. Patton and I can see why. He gave a riveting and powerful performance that surely must have been taxing on him. The film documents the story of Patton during the second World War. It begins with his taking charge of the American forces in North Africa after the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, and then leading them to victory at the Battle of El Guettar. After he successfully invades Italy he visits some of the wounded and ends up slapping a young soldier who is suffering from what appears to post traumatic stress. Patton sees him as weak and a coward for being in the hospital with other men who have been physically wounded in battle. Word of the incident gets out and Patton is subsequently relieved of his command. This seemed to mark the beginning of a number of troubling incidents that keep Patton in trouble with his superiors which eventually leads to his losing his command. The Germans see him as a battle hardened and strategic leader who stops at nothing to win. In light of that they base a number of their military plans around their anticipation of what he will do next. This is used successfully by the Allies to decoy the Germans. Patton is a Christian but for some reason believes pretty seriously in reincarnation. He strongly believes that he was put on this earth for one purpose and that is to lead men in times of war.</p><p>I was impressed with this film. At 172 minutes it is certainly not short but I never felt like it was dragging. I have to believe that when it was released it must have been shocking to audiences in its gory depiction of body strewn battle fields. Along with Scott I thought the supporting players were excellent. Karl Malden stood out as Omar Bradley and his interaction onscreen with Scott solidified both roles. </p><p>I read that In 2003, <I>Patton</I> was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". I would say that I would have to agree.</p>




<h4>Parental Guide:</h4></b></font><p>The rating is for war violence, battlefield gore and some language.</p>



<br><b>AUDIO/VIDEO - By The Numbers:
</b><font color=DarkOrange><b>REFERENCE</b></font> = 92-100 / </b><font color=teal><b>EXCELLENT</b></font> = 83-91 / </b><font color=green><b>GOOD</b></font> = 74-82 / </b><font color=yellowgreen><b>AVERAGE</b></font> = 65-73 / </b><font color=red><b>BELOW AVERAGE</b></font> = under 65 </b>

<em>**My audio/video ratings are based upon a comparative made against other high definition media/blu-ray disc.**</em>


<b>(Each rating is worth 4 points with a max of 5 per category)</b>

<font color=yellowgreen><b><h4>Audio: 74</h4></b></font>
<b><ul>
<li>Dynamics: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109945&d=1210373692"></li>
<li>Low frequency extension: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109945&d=1210373692"></li>
<li>Surround Sound presentation: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109946&d=1210373692"></li>
<li>Clarity/Detail: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109945&d=1210373692"></li>
<li>Dialogue Reproduction: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109946&d=1210373692">
</b></li></ul>


<font color=teal><b><h4>Video: 86</h4></b></font>
<b>(Each rating is worth 4 points with a max of 5 per category)</b>

<b><ul>
<li>Resolution/Clarity: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109946&d=1210373692"></li>
<li>Black level/Shadow detail: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109947&d=1210373699"></li>
<li>Color reproduction: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109947&d=1210373699"></li>
<li>Fleshtones: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109946&d=1210373692"></li>
<li>Compression: <img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109947&d=1210373699"</b></li></ul><p> <i>Patton</i>comes to Blu-ray disc sporting a 1080p AVC encoding that has an average bitrate of 24 mbps and DTS-HD Master Audio Lossless sound with an average bitrate of 3.8 mbps.</p><p>Fans have been anticipating this release in high definition and my opinion is that the wait was well worth it. This is a beautiful presentation that boasts a wide color palette that really comes to life in high definition. Colors are well saturated and warm which made them very pleasing against the war time backdrops and cinematography used in the film. Blacks are not inky but have enough dynamic range to keep them from looking flat. Lower light sequences exhibited plenty of detail within backgrounds and shadows. Fleshtones appeared a bit pasty and uneven which I think is attributable to the style of makeup used. They didn’t come across with natural tonality in every case (especially George C. Scott) but I didn’t find it overly distracting. I would describe this presentation as being extremely film like. It exhibited a crisp razor sharp image that revealed fine textures and minute physical detail. This was regardless of the aspects contained within the scene. Occasionally definition and dimensional perception lessened to a degree. This didn’t negate the feeling of watching high definition but rather the feeling of wow factor. Considering the age of this film I was stunned at how good it looked. I suspect fans will have plenty to like about it.</p>
<p>The DTS-HD audio featured an interesting mix which made use of the entire surround platform. Dialogue sounded clear and intelligible through the center channel but didn’t have the concise and crystalline texture of the better of today’s soundtracks. A few times I found myself turning up the volume to better hear dialogue in scenes where there was background noise. One on one conversations were not a problem. The front soundstage sounded moderately compressed which impacted imaging across the three channels. The surrounds were used to reproduce a variety of surround effects as planes flew overhead, tanks exploded, or to help fill the entire room with the beauty of Jerry Goldsmith’s music score. The bombastic nature of the battle sequences were probably quite impressive at the time this film was released theatrically. By today’s standards they seemed pretty dated but I appreciated their aggressiveness. The sounds of exploding tanks, artillery volleys, machine gun fire and strafing airplanes lacked the dynamic presence and impact associated with today’s digitally recorded sound mixes. That is not a complaint but rather an observation. I think that most should find the audio presented here to be very close to what the theatrical experience must have been like 30 + years ago. </p>

<h4><b>Bonus Features:</b></h4></font>

<p> This is an excellent bonus set that provides a near 360 degree look at this film. The commentary and introduction by writer Francis Ford Coppola on Disc 1 provides some great insights into the script, its history, shooting the film, and some detail about how it was received. Disc 2 contains the bulk of the material and is in fact a Standard Definition DVD. There are three documentaries that look at the film from a number of perspectives, as well as George S. Patton himself and his legacy. These are full length pieces that provide some very interesting and comprehensive material. There are two still galleries, one that is accompanied by Jerry Goldsmith’s Academy Award nominated score in Dolby Digital Stereo. The other is set to an audio essay on the historical George S. Patton. The original theatrical trailer is included as well. I tend to gravitate toward films that have historical backgrounds and having bonus features that include a look at the basis for the film is always welcome. </p>

<b>Disc 1:</b>

<ul>
<li>Introduction by Francis Ford Coppola </li>
<li> Commentary by Francis Ford Coppola</li></ul>

<b>Disc 2:</b>

<ul><li>History through the lens: Patton – A rebel revisited documentary </li>
<li>Patton’s Ghost Corps documenatry </li>
<li>The Making of Patton documentary </li>
<li>Production still gallery accompanied by Jerry Goldsmith’s complete musical score </li>
<li>Behind the scenes still gallery accompanied by an Audio Essay on the historical Patton</li>
<li>The original Theatrical Trailer </li>
<li>Blu-ray Disc Trailer for <b>Jumper</b></li>
</ul>



<h4>Final Thoughts:</h4></b></font>

<p><I>Patton</I> is a catalog title that fans have eagerly been anticipating in high definition. Fox Blu-ray has brought it forth with resplendent video quality and a set of extensive bonus features that is sure to gladden fans. For me this was my first (and not the last !) experience with this great film. What a spectacular introduction….<b>Highly Recommended.</b> </p>





<img src="http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=109949&d=1210373731" align=left>
<br><br><br><br>
<br><b>Ralph Potts</b>
<em>AVS Forum Blu-ray Reviews</em>



<br><br><b>Reference Review System:</b>

<strong>
Sony VPL-VW50 SXRD 1080p High Definition Front Projector
Carada Precision Brilliant White 96" Screen
Oppo 970HD universal disc DVD Player (480i HDMI)
Toshiba HD-XA2 HD DVD Player (HDMI Audio/Video)
Panasonic DMP-BD30 Blu-ray disc Player (HDMI Audio/Video)
Sony Playstation 3 Blu-ray disc Player (HDMI Audio/Video)
Marantz DV7001 Universal Disc Player
Denon AVR 5308CI THX Ultra 2 Preamp/Video Processor
Outlaw Audio Model 7700 seven channel amplifier
B&K Reference 200.7 Series 2 seven Channel amplifier
Canton "Ergo" Series speakers
Axiom Audio QS8 Quadpolar speakers
SV Sound PB-13 Ultra (Rosenut finish)
APC AV S15BLK Power Conditioner/Surge Protector
Wireworld, VizionWare, Audioquest, Best Deal Cables - Audio/Video/Speaker Cabling
Cool Components - CP-CP102 cooling package
</strong>

You lucky guy..getting to see Patton for the first time...and in HD!!

Fascinating movie.

Nice review, Ralph.

Was there even a hint of edge enhancement?

Thanks,
Tom

You lucky guy..getting to see Patton for the first time...and in HD!!

Fascinating movie.

Nice review, Ralph.
I agree 100%. Those of us who have known for years about the greatness of "Patton" as a film were looking forward to your reactions to the initial experience! I can't wait until my pre-ordered (along with "The Longest Day") copy arrives!!

In regards your comments about the sound--- I saw this film about three times in its initial 65-mm Roadshow presentation in New York's Criterion Theatre (where "My Fair Lady," the film, premiered) and the sound was fine and definitely excellent for-the-day stereo. I believe that the picture was awarded the Best Sound Oscar.
But the movie on VHS, laserdisc and earlier DVD (haven't seen the 2-disc second-release edition) had really tinny sound.
Looking forward to hearing the great Goldsmith score in what has to be vastly improved sound.

Ralph-- you've only seen this film once. Here's hoping you have many more viewings! It grows on you and you have to give in to occasional Scott-as-Patton cravings!

OH-- and now you've got that "clout" with these studios, prevail on Fox to add "Tora! Tora! Tora!" to that list of essential "war" film releases. They owe it to us if only to apologize for "Pearl Harbor."

Scott as "Patton": (on hearing he lost the D-Day command after slapping a soldier):
"Hell. I wish I'd kissed the son-of-a-bitch!"

BRAVO! Welcome addition to the Blu-ray war chest.

I watched Patton again last week but, unfortunately, it was on a 480p DVD, not Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray would have to make this spectacular film even better, but it’s outstanding, even on a conventional DVD. George C. Scott, a great actor by any measure, gave the performance of a lifetime in the role of a lifetime.

Hi Ralph,

These guys smell DNR. Do you ?

My copy of Patton has already been shipped and I would be terribly disappointed if the transfer was DNR-ed.

http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2834.shtml

20th Century Fox Home Entertainment has now brought to Blu-Ray Disc the spectacular Special Edition that was previously released on DVD. Offering a high definition transfer of the movie in its original 2.20:1 widescreen aspect ratio, I swear that I did a double take when I first put in the disc. The film's opening sequence showing Patton in front of the American flag is simply mind-blowing. The image is so razor-sharp and stable that it looks as if you were looking at a static image on your computer. The colors are so rich, the edges so perfectly defined that it is hard to believe you are looking at a motion picture if it weren't for George C. Scott strutting about in front of it. It will leave you gasping.

However, this kind of stellar cleanliness in the presentation is also one the transfer's shortcomings. In order to achieve this kind of perfect look, a lot of clean-up has been performed on the transfer. You won't find a hint of film grain or dirt anywhere on this release - and I mean anywhere. It is so clean that it is unreal already. Using digital technologies the studio seems to have eliminated all grain from the transfer and while that creates a very clean image, it also has side effects. As a result skin tones look very pasty throughout the movie, as if every actor was wearing a little too much make-up, as if someone forgot to dust of the excess powder on their faces. It is kind of weird to look at Scott's craggy face, hear his throaty, bellowing voice and looking in his super-smooth, glamour-shot style face while body parts explode around him in the battlefield. I am sorry but for all the cleanliness it may have given the transfer I would have preferred the film's original grittiness and edge. Fox clearly went overboard here creating a transfer that no longer represents the original filmmakers' intentions, and while this may please the masses I do not think it is the way to treat a film.:confused:

Other than that the transfer does look fantastic with great detail throughout and strong colors that truly pop off the screen. You will see seams and details that you could never see on the DVD. I doubt you could even see them during theatrical presentations either. Contrast is wonderfully balanced with great blacks and strong highlights. There are a few minor coloration issues where shots are slightly off-colored and skin tones suddenly appear with yellow or green tinges but given the film's age and brutal length, a handful of slightly faded shots are certainly excusable.

I really hope they didn't go overboard on the DNR. This is one of the great classics of all time.

Hi Ralph,

These guys smell DNR. Do you ?

My copy of Patton has already been shipped and I would be terribly disappointed if the transfer was DNR-ed.

http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2834.shtml

Haven't seen the Blu-ray disc myself, but some thoughts on "DNR" with regards to a movie like PATTON that was filmed in 65mm:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=13912841&postcount=254

Vincent

Thanks a ton Vincent for the clarification.

After looking at the screens on blu ray.com the faces do look a little 'smooth'(Like they went to the Wayne Newton school of 'How do I look?'). It does actually appear to have 0 grain.

I don't think Pan's Labyrinth looked like that at all.
The more I look at the screens the more it does look like it is DNRd.

Greetings,

Don't worry about the quality of this video presentation. Its not perfect but it looks beautiful and if you like this film you won't see it look any better than this.


Regards,

Ralph, others have said it already, but wanted to chime in and say I really like your reviews. They're smugness-free and straight-shootin'. You've also been very even-handed, which is refreshing from the reviews we see on other sites, where you wonder if the reviewer really spun the disc to give it a fair shot.

Was going to wait for a deal on this as I do for most Fox Blu-ray$, but may have to make an exception. Screenshots posted in the blu-ray.com review make this look like a movie released today. For those of us w/front projectors, hope the DNR is minor.

Vincent, I hope you don't mind, but I thought it would be helpful to post the content of your link to your comments on why there is little/no grain in Patton. This is excellent information.

PATTON was shot in 65mm, so it should be practically grain-free without the need of any "DNR". I wonder if the reviewer, shocked at the lack of grain and not understanding that PATTON, although a dreaded "old movie", was filmed in 65mm which is practically grain-free, perhaps imagined some of the so-called "DNR artifacts" that they thought they saw in the transfer simply because it didn't have the grain they were used to from more recent, often Super-35mm shot films? His comment about the film's supposed "original grittiness and edge" certainly doesn't jive with the look that any movie shot in 65mm would ever have had originally.

Vincent

According to a film buff at another forum it should be nearly impossible to see the film grain even on a 20' wide screen especially with how Fox has treated the master with care.

I think if anything it showed the dvdreview guy to be ignorant.

Ralph, others have said it already, but wanted to chime in and say I really like your reviews. They're smugness-free and straight-shootin'. You've also been very even-handed, which is refreshing from the reviews we see on other sites, where you wonder if the reviewer really spun the disc to give it a fair shot.

Was going to wait for a deal on this as I do for most Fox Blu-ray$, but may have to make an exception. Screenshots posted in the blu-ray.com review make this look like a movie released today. For those of us w/front projectors, hope the DNR is minor.

Greetings,

Thanks for your comments. I believe you will be happy with this one.;)


Cheers,

I recently re-visited this film when Fox re-released this as a 2-disc edition with the 70mm transfer. Such an amazing movie, even after 35 years. It practically defines the term "epic" in regards to war films, and it was perhaps the last great war epic to come out of Hollywood. Following that, most WW2 films were overlooked since they whole theme had been so tried and done(Saving Private Ryan would change all of that.

It was sort of controversial for its day, given it was released at the very height of Vietnam. The Academy and movie-goers didnt seem to think so.

Another war epic needing the HD blu-ray treatment is Tora Tora Tora, released the same year to equal acclaim but less box office returns. I am suprised Fox didnt includ it along side The Longest Day and Sand Pebbles, along with a Bridge Too Far, Battle of Britain.

This use to be my childhood favorite for a time being. I sneaked into the X rated movie when I was like 12 and watched it in an afternoon showing. There were like 20 people in the theater and it was wonderful. I love George C. Scott in that role of Patton!

I have a VHS copy of it and a DVD. I try to buy it locally and see it on Memorial Day!

Is the Blu Ray version that much better than the standard dvd?

I watched this recently for the first time and I'm definitely looking forward to it. I may even not wait for a sale (as I usually do for Fox titles), since they ported the extras over.

Does anyone know if all of the supplements on the Special Edition DVD came over or as is the sad practice nowadays only some?

Does anyone know if all of the supplements on the Special Edition DVD came over or as is the sad practice nowadays only some?

I'm not sure which supplements you're referring to, but by all accounts the 2nd disc is a worthwhile buy by itself.

Disc 2:

* History through the lens: Patton – A rebel revisited documentary

* Patton’s Ghost Corps documenatry

* The Making of Patton documentary

* Production still gallery accompanied by Jerry Goldsmith’s complete musical score

* Behind the scenes still gallery accompanied by an Audio Essay on the historical Patton

* The original Theatrical Trailer

* Blu-ray Disc Trailer for Jumper

I want to check with a friend at a local Blockbuster store to see if they will carry this for rental. I'd like to go that route and then wait for a good price. Cheapest I've seen is Amazon for $27.95 (give or take a bit). I'm in no hurry really though to buy it.

Thanks for opinions here. I'll check checking in.

So, DNR not an issue with this one?

Finally got to watch Patton. Amazing PQ for such an old title and outstanding effort put by FOX. I have nothing to nitpick besides few minor contrast fluctuations under the harsh lighting conditions and the hanging mic wire on top of the screen on a particular scene. The intermission at 1 hr 40 min was a bit distracting though it helped me out in taking a leak. This is one among the very few movies that exhibits reference black levels and color saturation.

The movie itself was quite interesting and engaging and I hope that Hollywood remakes Patton to incorporate more style on top of the substance but I can't imagine anyone else to fill in the shoes of George C. Scott.

The SQ was a big let down though.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/2530144516_ce008b07a6_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/2529327467_4f011a28b6_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2530144896_df35d481ea_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2014/2530144774_4c00901f9b_o.jpg


I'm glad you liked Patton so much but a remake would be an insulting pander. The film is simply perfect as made. The entire cast was first-rate, especially the great Karl Malden, still kicking today at 96 years of age!!

I'm interested in your comments about the sound. Though I remember excellent (and Oscar-winning, I believe) sound during the original Road Show at the Criterion in New York, I know that the sound has been very tinny and sub-standard on previous releases -- both DVD and Laserdisc.

I'm not sure which supplements you're referring to, but by all accounts the 2nd disc is a worthwhile buy by itself.

Disc 2:

* History through the lens: Patton – A rebel revisited documentary

* Patton’s Ghost Corps documenatry

* The Making of Patton documentary

* Production still gallery accompanied by Jerry Goldsmith’s complete musical score

* Behind the scenes still gallery accompanied by an Audio Essay on the historical Patton

* The original Theatrical Trailer

* Blu-ray Disc Trailer for Jumper

This film and actually, Sand Pebbles as well were special edition releases on DVD a couple of years ago. If you look at both they have the same cover art as well. I own both DVD SEs.

I read a review elsewhere with screenshots that stated and showed Patton on BD as a worthwhile upgrade.

I'm simply trying to find out whether Fox included ALL of the extras on that previous edition on this BD edition as well. Considering the extra capacity of BluRay, this should be a non-issue. But as has been irritatingly the case for some time many of the studios have stiffed the public on BD and HD-DVD as well for that matter in the area of "Special Features." :mad:

I would think for the additional price we would get the supplements on the original release as a given that's all. I will cross check your list against my DVD SE and cross my fingers.

This film and actually, Sand Pebbles as well were special edition releases on DVD a couple of years ago. If you look at both they have the same cover art as well. I own both DVD SEs.

I read a review elsewhere with screenshots that stated and showed Patton on BD as a worthwhile upgrade.

I'm simply trying to find out whether Fox included ALL of the extras on that previous edition on this BD edition as well. Considering the extra capacity of BluRay, this should be a non-issue. But as has been irritatingly the case for some time many of the studios have stiffed the public on BD and HD-DVD as well for that matter in the area of "Special Features." :mad:

I would think for the additional price we would get the supplements on the original release as a given that's all. I will cross check your list against my DVD SE and cross my fingers.


I believe I read that on both PATTON and THE LONGEST DAY that the second discs in each set is a Standard DVD-- a duplicate of the second discs that are on the special editions.

I believe I read that on both PATTON and THE LONGEST DAY that the second discs in each set is a Standard DVD-- a duplicate of the second discs that are on the special editions.

For the studios, minimal effort results in maximum profit.

I never saw the Roadshow Todd-AO version of Patton, but I did see Sound Of Music, Dr Dolittle, & Star at the Madison Theater in Detroit. I don't remember any grain. I saw Hello Dolly at the American Theater 3 times at Northland in Detroit, a brand new, state of the art theatre at the time, and I remember no grain. The wide screen images, that I do remember were clear, colorful and breathtaking. The BEST of the day. I do remember some hiss with the the 6 track magnetic stereophonic sound, but that was the norm, and where else could you hear 6 track stereo sound? How much grain is present in 70mm Todd-AO? Where does it come from??? Todd-AO was the Cadillac of all wide screen process in the late 60's and very early 70's. Movies should be restored to the night of its premiere. Since Patton was one of the last films processed in Todd-AO, the image should be stunning, with very little grain. I will buy this blu ray.

Blockbuster local store is only getting one copy for rental and one for sale. I'll snag it for rental when it is available. If I like it enough for the quality, I'll buy when the price is right.

I watched Patton in Blu Ray as soon as it was released (front projection - 120inch screen) and was delighted with the transfer. I admit I will give the engineers a break when dealing with a very old film. Obviously, there is only so much they can do. But, if anyone is interested in this movie, rest assured the Blu Ray version will simply blow your mind. The transfer is truly excellent. Sound quality was a bit less than I had hoped for but nevertheless was excellent,

I did have an issue with the portion of the film between the apology and intermission (picture was garbled) so I am exchanging my disk. I have not read of anyone else having this problem so it is likely my disk. The rest of the film was superb. Also, the menu selection seems to take forever to appear and again it just might be my disk.

Aside from this slight technical glitch...this is an excellent film and the transfer to blu ray lets you enjoy it.

Marcus

Robert Harris chimed in today on HDD forum about this film. I'm a total noob with these older films but if you are interested in reading what he wrote, hop over there to the Patton thread. I don't feel it appropriate to cut and post here.

I think it's fair to say that Harris thinks the PQ is a travesty: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris062408.html

John K.

The PQ is a travesty. Patton along with Longest Day are the most processed unnatural abominations on a disc yet. Gangs of New York is not far behind. Expect more DNRed transfers as a result of all the positive reviews.

I think it's fair to say that Harris thinks the PQ is a travesty: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris062408.html

John K.

There is also a hint given by Mr Harris that just maybe Fox will redo and re-release this film without the excess DNR.

They will probably wait a year though as they don't want to admit anything is wrong.

I watched Patton in Blu Ray as soon as it was released (front projection - 120inch screen) and was delighted with the transfer. I admit I will give the engineers a break when dealing with a very old film. Obviously, there is only so much they can do. But, if anyone is interested in this movie, rest assured the Blu Ray version will simply blow your mind. The transfer is truly excellent. Sound quality was a bit less than I had hoped for but nevertheless was excellent,

Aside from this slight technical glitch...this is an excellent film and the transfer to blu ray lets you enjoy it.

Marcus

I agree completely. On my 100" 1080 screen, it looked fabulous. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

There is NO DNR smearing, no edge enhancement, so posterisation, no banding, no compression artefacting. I rate it as one of the finest presentations I've seen.

On my 118" screen I got swept up into the story, but it was a rental and I forgive PQ a lot more when I haven't bought it, although if they come out with a "fixed" edition I may bite. Great movie.

I agree completely. On my 100" 1080 screen, it looked fabulous. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

There is NO DNR smearing, no edge enhancement, so posterisation, no banding, no compression artefacting. I rate it as one of the finest presentations I've seen.
I so agree. I finally received this title as well as
The Longest Day yesterday and I couldn't be more pleased with both releases. To me it was like these titles had been brought up to date via a time machine and re-shoot on HD digital cameras complete with that "live...you are there" vibrancy look and not that "tired" old grainy film presentation I was expecting.

no edge enhancement, .

This is simply incorrect and has been demonstrated.

Art

This is simply incorrect and has been demonstrated.

Art

Perhaps the region B release is different.

Perhaps the region B release is different.

I've got the region A release.

Honestly, if there hadn't been this uproar, I wouldn't have been sitting there questioning myself through this movie, trying to "see" the problem. I almost felt guilty at times being thoroughly wowed by many scenes - how can I call myself a videophile and yet enjoy this picture, when all around me people are screaming fowl?

I am a bit perplexed to be honest. I am one of those people who can go to someone's house and just "feel" out problems with peoples setups. I know when DNR is turned on on someone's TV, though they are blissfully unaware. Of course, I turn it off for them, lower the sharpness, turn down the contrast and so on.

All I see in this movie is a transparent encode of an immaculate picture. Should I cower and run away now? Ugh.

No, it's just that some videophiles turned into religious fanatics. Shouting how much of an abomination this transfer is the ticket to gain credibility with the community.

Granted it has dnr and looks soft in places and could have been more detailed.
It's not as bad as some have stated though.

Fox spent a penny to touch this one up, it's a higher profile catalog release with a potential to sell beyond the early adopter market. My guess is that they did not wan't to risk sales by a 'grainy' blu ray presentation.

All I see in this movie is a transparent encode of an immaculate picture. Should I cower and run away now? Ugh.

When I watched this my first instinct was that it wasn't sharp anywhere. It did look incredibly clean, I saw the edge emhancement on the American flag right off.

If you like this film as is therte really is nothing wrong with that ; there are a lot of us, including Robert Harris, who know it could have been much much better.

Art

HA HA! i dont think i would want paul watching tv at my house changing the settings on my tv,but i must admit it bugs the heck out of me wheni go to someones house and there tvs out of whack, and they dont even notice it,I just want grab the remote control and start adjusting the settings on their television. I even want to go behind their t.v. to and see how their tv is hooked up! I actiaully did this at sears one time and noticed they only had the red yellow and white RCA cables hooked up in the back of a brand new hitachi 50'' tv. I did my best to restrain my self as i explained to the sales clerk how in the world did they expect to sell that beautiful new HDTV with a crappy signal, the next time i went to sears they had corrected the problem and had it hooked up to an hdmi cable. I guess i just need help heh! heh!:p

I think it's fair to say that Harris thinks the PQ is a travesty: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris062408.html

John K.

I don't have Patton on Blu-Ray yet, nor do I have a film projector and a Patton film reel, so I can't comment on the integrity of the Blu-Ray transfer, but I'll say this...

The argument that Blu-Ray is supposed to "reproduce the look of cinema in home theater" is an unfair way of looking at it. If that was the case, should Blu-Ray movies simulate dust specks on the film and that big black dot that tells the projectionist to switch reels? Obviously not. Maybe that's a bit of an extreme analogy but it illustrates my point: as much as home entertainment technology is supposed to bring the splendors of cinema to your living room, "more like cinema" does not necessarily mean "better".

Most of the time, film grain is a product of technological limitation of film. There are some exceptions, but other than that, to say that Blu-Ray should stay faithful to cinema by limiting DNR would contradict the sole purpose of Blu-Ray, which is to overcome previous technological limitations.

I think Blu-Ray movies should find an equilibrium between "reproducing the look of cinema" and "overcoming the limitations of cinema". The extreme of the former would be to simulate dust specs and "cigarette burns" that you would see in a cinema, and the extreme of the latter would be adding color and sound to Charlie Chaplin. Eliminating film grain, however, is completely reasonable and these videoholic elitists need to lighten the **** up.

I don't know enough to judge whether Patton strays too far from this equilibrium, but I just think it's ridiculous to say that every Blu-Ray should adhere to that "The film has already been made. The job is to reproduce it." Posting a pic of the Mona Lisa with DNR is complete ********.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think the purpose of BD is to present the films closer to how they really are, not to achieve some "HD look."

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think the purpose of BD is to present the films closer to how they really are, not to achieve some "HD look."

So, if "reproducing the look of cinema" is the absolute top priority, then would you prefer Blu-Ray movies to simulate dust specs and cigarette burns? After all, that would definitely be closer to having a film projector in your own home, would it not?

Cigarette burns are added to some release prints, but they are not part of the finished film. Many theaters don't use them nowadays anyway.

The idea is to get as close as possible to seeing the film in a top quality cinema, not the typical one. Dust specks are not a problem in a good theater.

Cigarette burns are added to some release prints, but they are not part of the finished film. Many theaters don't use them nowadays anyway.

The idea is to get as close as possible to seeing the film in a top quality cinema, not the typical one. Dust specks are not a problem in a good theater.

When Patton was released in theatres in 1970, did theatres use cigarette burns to tell the projectionist to ready the other projector? Were dust specks any more or less visible back then? I wasn't born yet in 1970 so I wouldn't know.

Dust specks may not be a problem in a good theatre, unless the projection room is sealed in an airtight vacuum, dust specks will always be present.

I would disagree with Mr. Harris. Then again I have a 32" LCD and I hear that this "processed look" is more apparent in larger sizes. It looks fine to me. I'm happy to see I am not alone.

I think that in a way we're talking about the reality of two different mediums. If this were projected film then the issue of grain and accompanying visual components would make sense but in reality this is film converted into a video borne signal. It is not projected film but a video signal transmitted and displayed on a Television Monitor - two totally different things. I personally feel this is a missed point.

This slavish desire for maintaining "film grain" (a necessary result of film emulsion/development I suppose and something of a concomitant negative in my view) is wrong headed. I guess I am just not that much of a purist in this regard ( I DO draw the line at "colorization" :mad:). Here come the invectives I'm sure!

A loss of detail in this digital "scrubbing"? Perhaps. Here I will concede this one point but with real attention to process and a good eye this should not be a problem as is the case here I feel.

I for one will keep this transfer. I thought the Std DVD edition of this release (Cinema Classics Collection) TOO soft. I of course heard no real complaints in this area on that release, particularly when an older prior release was much sharper.

Why can't these studios get some consistency in certain areas I wonder? Artistic decisions with each iteration make it a real crap shoot! Either the color is too drained or saturated. The focus too soft or maybe over done (edge enhanced) and on and on. Seesh! :confused:

A loss of detail in this digital "scrubbing"? Perhaps. Here I will concede this one point but with real attention to process and a good eye this should not be a problem as is the case here I feel.

I think that in a way we're talking about the reality of two different mediums. If this were projected film then the issue of grain and accompanying visual components would make sense but in reality this is film converted into a video borne signal. It is not projected film but a video signal transmitted and displayed on a Television Monitor - two totally different things. I personally feel this is a missed point.



Not perhaps. But a definite yes. To get rid of grain is to get rid of detail.

As youself why people always say that the transfer is very film like. And it's said in a positive way. What is your definition of film like?

And I don't buy your explanation of "two different mediums". A film is a film. And an HD video source is just that. And when each is transfered to BD, each should look as it was originally created. A video based football game should look just like it originally did if transferred to BD. Or do you want your football game to have grain and look like a film? I don't. And I don't want a film to look like a football game.

Not perhaps. But a definite yes. To get rid of grain is to get rid of detail.

As youself why people always say that the transfer is very film like. And it's said in a positive way. What is your definition of film like?

And I don't buy your explanation of "two different mediums". A film is a film. And an HD video source is just that. And when each is transfered to BD, each should look as it was originally created. A video based football game should look just like it originally did if transferred to BD. Or do you want your football game to have grain and look like a film? I don't. And I don't want a film to look like a football game.

It might now come down to what "Type" of detail we talking about, the uninteresting pattern in a wall in the background? What are we desperately trying to save here? Whatever...

I don't wish to discuss my definition of film. It would probably take more time than I'd like to invest now. I've always felt but don't often see that when talking about matters visual the only true way to debate is to set up carefully chosen examples of the film(s) at issue -stills, comparisons, what have you. We have to SEE what it is we're discussing. Words really don't accomplish much here unfortunately. If you've got concrete examples illustrating your point that would be super, otherwise I would set that to rest for now.

Though the original source is film it is now in a new medium and you won't convince me otherwise. I think it best to move on and except the new tools and processes out there and with an educated mind and eye use them.

What the hell does Football have to do with this? No, it doesn't look anything like a game shot on video. Obviously, we are going to really disagree here.

I so agree. I finally received this title as well as
The Longest Day yesterday and I couldn't be more pleased with both releases. To me it was like these titles had been brought up to date via a time machine and re-shoot on HD digital cameras complete with that "live...you are there" vibrancy look and not that "tired" old grainy film presentation I was expecting.
Unfortunately neither of those titles where shot with digital cameras.
They were shot on film.
So hopefully you can appreciate/understand, even tho you liked the look (enjoy!), people that wanted those releases on HD to look like the original source are disappointed/upset.

When I watched this my first instinct was that it wasn't sharp anywhere. It did look incredibly clean, I saw the edge emhancement on the American flag right off.

If you like this film as is therte really is nothing wrong with that ; there are a lot of us, including Robert Harris, who know it could have been much much better.

Art

Art,

You hit the problem with digital overprocessing on the head.

Digitally cleaning up a film to remove the grain and textures that the cinematography and director had in mind (remember they chose the format with that look in mind) is like appling No Noise to a recording to remove tape hiss and make it sound more modern--it cleans up the original at the expensive of damaging the look of the film itself. "Patton" isn't a current film shot on HD video nor is it meant to have that look. The film looks over processed ruining much of the quality of the visual presentation.

It also defeats the entire purpose of a restoration which is to preserve the qualities that made the original project so unique in the first place.

I would disagree with Mr. Harris. Then again I have a 32" LCD and I hear that this "processed look" is more apparent in larger sizes. It looks fine to me. I'm happy to see I am not alone.

I think that in a way we're talking about the reality of two different mediums. If this were projected film then the issue of grain and accompanying visual components would make sense but in reality this is film converted into a video borne signal. It is not projected film but a video signal transmitted and displayed on a Television Monitor - two totally different things. I personally feel this is a missed point.

This slavish desire for maintaining "film grain" (a necessary result of film emulsion/development I suppose and something of a concomitant negative in my view) is wrong headed. I guess I am just not that much of a purist in this regard ( I DO draw the line at "colorization" :mad:). Here come the invectives I'm sure!

A loss of detail in this digital "scrubbing"? Perhaps. Here I will concede this one point but with real attention to process and a good eye this should not be a problem as is the case here I feel.

I for one will keep this transfer. I thought the Std DVD edition of this release (Cinema Classics Collection) TOO soft. I of course heard no real complaints in this area on that release, particularly when an older prior release was much sharper.

Why can't these studios get some consistency in certain areas I wonder? Artistic decisions with each iteration make it a real crap shoot! Either the color is too drained or saturated. The focus too soft or maybe over done (edge enhanced) and on and on. Seesh! :confused:


Doesn't matter what medium a film is presented in but it should stay true to what the SOURCE looked like without altering it for that new medium. Grain adds texture, can create an additional sense of depth and, strangely enough, reality to films. The director (Franklin Schaffner) was quite deliberate in choosing the film stock he did for "Patton" knowing what the end result would look like, carefully considering how the film was developed by the lab and, ultimately, wanting it presented a certain way.

It's not a slavish desire to maintain film grain but to maintain the desired look of the film. It's really no different than colorizing a film--the look of the film has been altered its just not as readily apparent. Yes, it was also noticable on the DVD re-release but not as apparent--Blu-ray is so unforgiving that it makes it more transparent on BR

I'm watching this on a 65 inch system and it is readily apparent that DNR was used, the image was thrown slightly out of focus and pulled back in via edge enhancement to eliminate the grain.

Regardless of the format, the way the artist who made the film wanted the film presented in terms of its look is the least we owe to them. It was their vision after all. If it was acceptable to eliminate all the film grain than perhaps we can erase part of the background and replace it with something else.

Context and intent are everything when it comes to an accurate presentation of a film. If you heard an orchestra playing a brilliant piece of music would you want the key changed just because someone thought it wasn't in the best possible key?

Doesn't matter what medium a film is presented in but it should stay true to what the SOURCE looked like without altering it for that new medium. Grain adds texture, can create an additional sense of depth and, strangely enough, reality to films. The director (Franklin Schaffner) was quite deliberate in choosing the film stock he did for "Patton" knowing what the end result would look like, carefully considering how the film was developed by the lab and, ultimately, wanting it presented a certain way.

It's not a slavish desire to maintain film grain but to maintain the desired look of the film. It's really no different than colorizing a film--the look of the film has been altered its just not as readily apparent. Yes, it was also noticable on the DVD re-release but not as apparent--Blu-ray is so unforgiving that it makes it more transparent on BR

I'm watching this on a 65 inch system and it is readily apparent that DNR was used, the image was thrown slightly out of focus and pulled back in via edge enhancement to eliminate the grain.

Regardless of the format, the way the artist who made the film wanted the film presented in terms of its look is the least we owe to them. It was their vision after all. If it was acceptable to eliminate all the film grain than perhaps we can erase part of the background and replace it with something else.

Context and intent are everything when it comes to an accurate presentation of a film. If you heard an orchestra playing a brilliant piece of music would you want the key changed just because someone thought it wasn't in the best possible key?

"Grain ADDS texture." Now, you would have me appreciate something being added to the image if only perceptively. Again, I disagree. Maybe, on a large monitor what you say is noticable, but not on a small one. Until, I see palpable examples I consider the opposing view picky and over-reactive. Let's leave it at that please.

Pls help me...
I understand this movie has a Spanish audio track, but what about Spanish subtitles??
I found some reviews were this is listed, and in others it is not. :confused:
A picture from the back case (dvdempire.com) says it does not have spanish subtitles.
This is the UPC Code: 024543519782.

Can someone please surf the disc and let me know ASAP?

Thanks so much!

Relly enjoyed it.
Color detail was awesome, especially on the various uniforms.
My disc did a strange thing at the end of the movie, just kind of froze.
I had to turn off the player, which also took a while.
Anyone else have this problem?

Absolutely loved this movie. I hadn't seen it before, and was shocked at the quality of the film transfer. Wow, excellent contrast, detail, and well saturated colors are what I noticed the most. The story was also excellent, and it's nice to remember when Americans weren't always politically correct and just did the right thing.

4.5 out of 5 stars for story, and same for PQ. Sound was maybe 3.5 stars, but its an older film.

Dan

Watched Patton last night in Blu-Ray on my Runco 3 chip system.
All I can say is "Wow!"

This is one of the clearest DVD's I have viewed since receiving my new projectors.

Al B

Watched Patton last night in Blu-Ray on my Runco 3 chip system.
All I can say is "Wow!"

This is one of the clearest DVD's I have viewed since receiving my new projectors.
I agree that Patton on Blu-ray was an outstanding transfer of a truly great film. Actually, we saw it on BD, not DVD. DVDs have a resolution of 480p, while most BDs, including Patton, have a resolution of 1080p.

Love this movie. The general Patton play by Scott is impeccable.
One of the greatest role play by an actor in our times.
I love the musical score too, very poignant, even for an older film.
A true classic for sure.
So I can forget what people have to say about the transfer, it is secondary
for me with a film like that. Of course, it's nice to have the best and most representative transfer possible.
Agreed on all points. Scott's performance as Patton was one of the all time best in film history and that beautiful, haunting score sticks with me to this day. I can think of the film and still play its theme in my head.

I am not sure whether the relative weakness of the Patton BD's PQ should be attributed to the transfer or whether it's the result of a film made over 40 years ago. Regardless, Patton an artistic masterpiece.

^^ Agreed! and while this BD may irk some it's still the best I have ever seen this movie look or sound.

"Grain ADDS texture." Now, you would have me appreciate something being added to the image if only perceptively. Again, I disagree. Maybe, on a large monitor what you say is noticable, but not on a small one. Until, I see palpable examples I consider the opposing view picky and over-reactive. Let's leave it at that please.

Grain does not ADD texture, grain is an inherent part of the image structure, i.e. the image is built from the underlying grain. There can be fine grain or coarse grain, and as noted above it is a choice the filmmaker makes when picking film stock.

In any case, presenting a film with more or less grain than the filmmaker intended is a change. When you remove grain you remove some portion of the image; that is unavoidable. Now, you may digitally process the image afterwards to sharpen it and increase the appearance of detail, but you can not add back in parts of the image (true detail) that were removed with the removal of grain.

More than perhaps you want to know about grain:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4evOCA2bvAgC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=film+stock+grain&source=bl&ots=tF1N72QAzk&sig=2-I2MDnlM3Tf7rsG2pT66IArCF0&hl=en&ei=0LSmSZKSItLjtgfg96HLDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

John K.

I was lucky to see the movie at the theater last week in the 70 mm version at an annual 70 mm "festival". The presentation was absolutely spectacular (apart from some problems with one of the two projectors used, which is not relevant here). The picture was incredibly sharp and I did not notice any grain. This should be in accordance with the previous poster mentioning that grain is obviously less prevalent in 70 mm film.

I did notice that the 70 mm was sharper than my Blu-Ray version. A good example would be Pattons binoculars at the first battle. On film I could see "Japan" rather clearly on the binoculars (an obvious goof), whereas on the BD at home I can see 5 groups of 3-4 white pixels per letter, but it takes a "leap of faith" to make out "Japan".

This supports the argument that 70 mm (65 mm original negative) has better resolution than 1080p, so some information will inherently be lost when transferring to BD. I still think the Patton BD looks great, but definately inferior to a good 70 mm theater presentation. Since there was no noticable grain in the theater, I don't see why it should be on the BD in what is really reduced resolution.

Hans Henrik

This supports the argument that 70 mm (65 mm original negative) has better resolution than 1080p, so some information will inherently be lost when transferring to BD. I still think the Patton BD looks great, but definately inferior to a good 70 mm theater presentation. Since there was no noticable grain in the theater, I don't see why it should be on the BD in what is really reduced resolution.


Even if you have problem seeing the grain, there should be a subtle grainstructure. By removing the grain as has been done here (confirmed) you make the BD look worse then its need to.

While I dont doubt that the 70mm is better, its not fair to compare it to a DNRed BD.

Good point MovieSwede. I should amplify a bit on my post: I didn't specificially look for grain in the 70 mm presentation, so it might very well be there. I just noticed that the 70 mm image was much more smooth than what I am used to from 35 mm. There was still an incredible amount of detail in the 70 mm image. I remember my eyes scanning around the image, and seeing all sorts of detail I had not noticed before.

I just rechecked the Patton BD last night, and it definately looks dull and lacking in detail compared to the 70 mm presentation. Whether it is due to limitations of 1080p or DNR I cannot really say.

BRAVO! http://www.*****************/data/img/3816/s09v0317fvxp/00.gifWelcome addition to the Blu-ray war chest.

:)

this is a must have for the blu collection!!

Patton Blu-ray 40th Anniversary Limited Edition (Released 5-11-11)

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Patton-Blu-ray/22075/

I saw that this movie was released again on Blu-ray for its 40th anniversary. Everything appears to be the same but the newest edition has a book. Has anyone picked up a copy of this new edition? One of my favorite movies of all time.

Patton Blu-ray 40th Anniversary Limited Edition (Released 5-11-11)

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Patton-Blu-ray/22075/

I saw that this movie was released again on Blu-ray for its 40th anniversary. Everything appears to be the same but the newest edition has a book. Has anyone picked up a copy of this new edition? One of my favorite movies of all time.

According to DigitalBits.com:

Now for that news...

We've spoken with the good folks at 20th Century Fox and have learned that they ARE in fact working on a new HD master of Patton. It appears that it will NOT be included on the 5/10 Blu-ray re-issue of the title, however the studio tells me they ARE working to make it available on Blu-ray to all of you sometime before the end of the year. We'll post all the official details as soon as the studio provides them. Just know that a new remastered Blu-ray IS coming later this year and we'll let you know more when release plans are set.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa192.html#042711

Patton Blu-ray 40th Anniversary Limited Edition (Released 5-11-11)

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Patton-Blu-ray/22075/

I saw that this movie was released again on Blu-ray for its 40th anniversary. Everything appears to be the same but the newest edition has a book. Has anyone picked up a copy of this new edition? One of my favorite movies of all time.
High Def Digest (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1341/patton.html) gave the new Patton BD high marks, too. Although the reviewer had some reservations about both the video and audio presentation on the BD he nevertheless "Highly Recommended" it.

It's my understanding that this is the same deeply flawed transfer as last time, simply repackaged in book form, and that Fox is still intending to release their new non-DNR transfer in the not too distant future (think, months). Based on that, why they bothered with the unimproved "book" edition is mind boggling.

I picked up Patton on bluray several months ago at costco for a nice price. Now I see several more versions get released. Man, this never ends.

I picked up the Thin Blue Line several days ago on bluray, it was released by criterion. I hope to watch it soon to see if it was worth the money I spent.

Somehow this film has eluded me, as well, so I'm looking forward to seeing it for the first time. Great review, Ralph! Can't wait to fire it up!