Now not all catalog HD releases are despicable. This title preserves the artistic integrity of the film makers. The look and the style is intact. It may not be as colorful as other titles but at least this one is cinematic. The people in this movie looks like err . . human beings not toy soldiers. The fine details are intact nothing is removed. No pesky excessive DNR. No EE. It looks the way it should be.

I highly recommend this for purchase instead of just renting it. You may never know those extra funds may help speed up the remastering of Davin Lean's Trifecta - Bridge On the River Kwai, Dr. Zhivago and El Aurence.

I used the 2001 DVD edition instead of the remastered edition that came out at the same time with the Blu-ray. I'd rather show the difference between those.


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
A Passage To India AVC 2:43:57 36,402,094,080 47,091,721,168 29.60 22.96 Dolby TrueHD 5.1 2444Kbps (48kHz/16-bit)


PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00001.mpls
Size: 36,402,094,080 bytes
Length: 2:43:57 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 29.60 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00011.M2TS 36,402,094,080 2:43:57 0:00:00 2:43:57

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 22959 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 2444 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 448kbps)
Dolby TrueHD Audio French 2551 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 448kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/43a6256b.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/b792baac.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/814e4b3b.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/dcbb7446.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/4c9e440c.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/ecbf373d.png

This one has very little (if any) DNR. Very natural grain if I recall, and it should look great.

Can't wait for the caps...

No fair teasing like that.;)

Art

This Blu-ray looks great and the movie is pretty good too :)

I rented this a couple of weeks ago. The Blu-ray indeed looks great. I thought the movie itself was just so-so.

What a tease.

Is it a joke?

Is it a joke?

Nope, he's just teasing us by taking his sweet time :p

I just hope he gives us some pics of the part where they go up to the caves. There were some excellent shots there.

Brandon

Which discs will you be comparing, Xylon?

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/81bb4242.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/df7fc4a7.png

Freaking gorgeous. High level of detail, intact grain, this is how it's done.

that first shot is great... love how you can read every bit of text

Dammit Xylon, don't you see how much clearer it would be without the grain? ;)

http://chidragon.thedessie.com/APTI_BD_DNR.png

And look at how much better it looks than the DVD! :D

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/4c9e440c.png

Compare the photoshopped pix and the original Blu-ray pix. The fine texture is gone. Eeeeeewww.

you're not doing it right... you gotta give it the "fox treatment"

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/2701/aptiyj7.jpg

Thanks for the shots - that's looks pretty faithful to the source and an excellent representation of the film (which, however, I did not find to be particularly compelling in the end as part of Lean's oeuvre - maybe I need another 10-20 years of maturity). Judging from the shots, it appears that the Blu-ray is indeed framed correctly at 1.66:1 unlike the misframed DVD which I had gathered from the bluray.com shots but was not completely sure of.

Very nice. I gave this a rental a while back and Sony really did an outstanding job on this title. It would be nice if the studios would give us process-free, natural cinematic image quality like this on every title.

Fantastic screenshots. Of course I knew that before as I already own the disc :)

And while I consider The Longest Day and Patton unwatchable I would be thankful if threads about very good transfers were not filled with 'pattonized' screenshots. We got enough of the originals in The Longest Day and Patton threads and we should keep the overprocessed stuff to them, it is bad enough to see these two movies affected.

While I don't want to read in a few months that Fox pulled a Patton on Cleopatra :D I also do not want Fox to have the impression that there is no pleasing the fanatics anyway.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/4c9e440c.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/ecbf373d.png

Good demonstration of why Patton looks wrong. The Passage DVD = Patton BD. The Passage BD = Patton BD without DNR. Of course I'm talking about the relative difference. On the absolute level Patton BD starts with more detail than Passage DVD.

What's the Fox treatment?

Wow. Actual film grain! :eek:

Too bad the film is such a snoozer. Put me to sleep the first time so there won't be a second.

FOX deserves a kick in the ****ing balls for removing all the detail fromn PATTON. It deserves the respect PASSAGE got.

What's the Fox treatment?

A high MSRP, mpeg-2, and single layer with no special features? They wouldn't DNR it though.

Too bad the film is such a snoozer. Put me to sleep the first time so there won't be a second.

That's interesting. I found I enjoyed this movie much more than LoA, which is largely hailed as the better of Lean's works.

Brandon

shhh! Rob might hear!

;)

That's interesting. I found I enjoyed this movie much more than LoA, which is largely hailed as the better of Lean's works.

Brandon

:eek:

http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/images/smilies/thwack.gif

shhh! Rob might hear!

;)

I knew my ears were burning. ;)

In all seriousness though, I think Passage is a very under-rated Lean film. I enjoy it immensely, and I actually like seeing that some people like it better than Lawrence, even if I personally disagree with that opinion. :)

In my previous review of A Passage to India I described it as the most film-like experience I have seen yet on Blu-ray. It's one of my favorite discs (right up there with Blade Runner). :cool:

This movie was pretty awful IMO. Wish they put their time and efforts into one of Lean's better films. Watching Bridge on HDNet you could tell that one needs a new transfer also.

well i know im going to get beat up for this but hear goes


I think it looks pretty bad. While it may be a step up from the dvd everyone on this BD looks like they have a suntan, and in the first shot the white papers are 1/3 white 1/3 purple and 1/3 green from all the compression.


Another thing, I don't know what the "correct" aspect ratio is, but you can see details on the DVD that are cut off on the Blu-Ray with its black bars. Edit: Actually i see tops cut off on the DVD, but the bars on the BD cut off the sides of people. what gives?

Am I just nuts or what?

Am I just nuts or what?
I guess you just answered that one for yourself :rolleyes:

There looks like a slightly bluish cast to the BD.

Xylon, you could arrange a Pepsi challenge there...

Sir, what picture do you prefer?

http://img109.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2008/06/22/p2ia-4axmss80o.png
Picture A?




http://img109.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2008/06/22/p2ib-4axmtllxz.png
Picture B?




http://img701.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2008/06/22/p2ic-4axmw98oc.png
Or picture C?

B

I like Coke better.

well i know im going to get beat up for this but hear goes


I think it looks pretty bad.

*beats you up* :p

Brandon

Well, I don't know which picture is which, and it would be nice to know the source of each one. Unless you think that people wouldn't be honest when picking which they think is best if they knew which is which. But I think C looks the best.

A - looks washed out with an overall yellow tint.

B- looks over processed with an overall red push.

C- look just right.

If you check earlier posts in the thread it should be obvious what each is, but I won't spoil it for anyone. :)

Something about his teeth in "C" that just looks so wrong to me, even "A" is better.

Well, I don't know which picture is which, and it would be nice to know the source of each one. Unless you think that people wouldn't be honest when picking which they think is best if they knew which is which. But I think C looks the best.

A - looks washed out with an overall yellow tint.

B- looks over processed with an overall red push.

C- look just right.

*sigh*

*sigh*

What's the 'sigh' for? Instead of making a worthless post, then why don't you say which you think looks better, and WHY.

With that said, I think I've found a problem with judging comparitive picks on computer screens. On my home computer, 'C' looks best. But on my work computer, 'B' looks best. 'A' looks horrible on both counts.

B- looks over processed with an overall red push.

It's the one not processed...

It's the one not processed...

On my PC at home, it looks like over processed video noise. But on my PC at work, it doesn't.

So again, I have to ask, what are the sources for the 3 images. So far, all I'm getting here are one-word, one-line answers, and NO information. I'm guessing one is BD, and one is DVD. Where is the other one from?

B looks process on my work screen but at home looks like film. My work monitor sucks.

C looks softened on both.

What you need here is an original 35mm frame to side by side compassion because both of the above look dreadful.

Cinema is original television isn’t
David Lean

Well at least it’s got a pucker Dolby stereo mix nominated for best sound Graham V. Hartstone Nicolas Le Messurier Michael A. Carter John W. Mitchel (1984), I think it went to "Amadeus" (1984) that year.

Well obviously picture A is the DVD edition or a heavily filtered Blu edition....Picture B is the Blu Ray and Picture C is the photoshopped Blu Ray edition which has had filters applied to it to soften it and make it look DNRed.

I would take option B all day long...

I would take option B all day long...

okay... why?

okay... why?

Of the 3 pics, B is the only one where the high frequency detail is present.

A looks like the DVD. C looks like a "softened" pic of the BRD.

Of course, I also see a bit of aliasing on a piece of hair in B, which means that it's possible that something has been shopped here. But on my monitor, B looks the most natural, and I'd be inclined to chalk the aliasing up to a photo-capture or transfer issue.

okay... why?

I think Gremmy nailed it, but option B shows the most detail to me. I think we can toss option A out. If you compare his eyes and hair on option B (which I assume is Blu-Ray with grain and no DNR) to option C (which I believe is Blu-Ray with DNR added) I can really see a difference. Option C definitely looks "softened". Detail is not as evident and his skin tone looks waxy to me vs option B where it appears more lifelike. There appears to be a little more color in his face as well with option B.

When the background is out of focus, it seems easier to see the effect. It is a lot less grain in the background. I tend to look at faces first, but the un-focused background really reveals the use of DNR. At least for me....:eek:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/086c6d08.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/47523cc3.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/a82718e5.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/8c170f0e.png

^^^ Wow, look at the green foilage on the BD shot! "Passage to India" may not be the sharpest HD transfer (its actually rather soft) but the increase in bits to render colors more accurately is a universal benefit of every BD transfer. Me likey! :)

I don't think it's that soft. Especially as they hike up to the caves.

Brandon

B looks a bit processed. It looks like there is some sharpening applied.
Also the face is a liitle too red.

C is softened a little, but retains adequate detail. I don't think the grain is 'artistic intent' or makes the movie more interresting. For the still I prefer C. Have to see the movie too see if the grain stands out too much. (With 24fps the movie grain evens out due to it's random nature and is far less objectionable.)

I don't think it's that soft. Especially as they hike up to the caves.

Brandon

Working on that scene right now :)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/e797812f.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/6d06c492.png

I like how the sign is a blurry mess on the SD capture. Yeah, upconvert that. :D

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/81bb4242.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/df7fc4a7.png

I know we're already hurting with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, but this transfer desperately needs some chroma DNR.

Yes, I said it, but the first comparison set speaks to this truth. It should remove very little detail. Luma DNR is where you get killed.

Here's an example:

Xylon, I sampled your first screen grab. I ran it through a chroma DNR filter. What do you think of the results?

ORIGINAL:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/b792baac.png
FILTERED:
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/7408/passagechromafilteredui1.jpg

Unfortunately I had to save the filtered version as a JPG (imageshack limitation as I have no personal hosting plan), but I used the maximum quality (least compression). I had little to no visual artifacts as a result.

I can do more examples tomorrow if you like (using your provided screen grabs).

Here's an example:

Xylon, I sampled your first screen grab. I ran it through a chroma DNR filter. What do you think of the results?

I opened the two images in separate browser windows and have tabbed back and forth between them. The only difference I can see is that in yours the hand is a little brighter. There is no difference in grain or noise levels, which begs the question why you think chroma filtering was necessary.

I opened the two images in separate browser windows and have tabbed back and forth between them. The only difference I can see is that in yours the hand is a little brighter. There is no difference in grain or noise levels, which begs the question why you think chroma filtering was necessary.
You honestly can't see the differences in chroma artifacts?

You honestly can't see the differences in chroma artifacts?

What is it you're defining as a chroma artifact? Can you point to one specifically in that image?

What is it you're defining as a chroma artifact? Can you point to one specifically in that image?
Artifact or not, the difference is very obvious. The filtered version is +- colorless gray on the paper, the original gray plus lots of colored dots as well. Looks like comb filter artifacts of composite video (but isn't).

Is the colored grain supposed to be like that or is it a video artifact? I've seen other transfers that have it (Big Fish comes to mind).

Artifact or not, the difference is very obvious. The filtered version is +- colorless gray on the paper, the original gray plus lots of colored dots as well. Looks like comb filter artifacts of composite video (but isn't).

Well, then I guess that the computer monitor I'm browsing this forum with is insufficient to resolve the difference, because I don't see anything like that. The image looks fairly grainy on both to me.

The difference seen is definitely monitor dependent/calibration; I can seeing the color artifacts on one screen, but not the other.

Well, then I guess that the computer monitor I'm browsing this forum with is insufficient to resolve the difference, because I don't see anything like that. The image looks fairly grainy on both to me.
That was my objective. To keep the grain intact with both images yet filter out the chroma noise.

You can see color dots in the grain structure of the paper when it should only be white.

My LCD monitor is calibrated, but I don't believe this is a reason that I can see the difference.

If you're using a CRT, then perhaps it's a better harder to resolve every bit of the picture, including these fine details, especially if you're running at a high desktop resolution.

You can see color dots in the grain structure of the paper when it should only be white.
.

Are you sure about that? That on the film it looks closer to your filtered version than the unfiltered version?

Are you sure about that? That on the film it looks closer to your filtered version than the unfiltered version?
I have no idea what the master looks like, but I suspect colors like a sky (in one of the pictures) are supposed to be blue, not blue and several other colors (which appear to be chroma artifacts in my opinion).

If this picture doesn't illustrate my point, then I don't know what will.

ORIGINAL:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/6d06c492.png

FILTERED:
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1970/passageskyti9.jpg

Look specifically at the sky. Are you sure you cannot see a difference in the "after" version?

If this picture doesn't illustrate my point, then I don't know what will.

Look specifically at the sky. Are you sure you cannot see a difference in the "after" version?

That example is clearer on my monitor than your previous attempt. I can see the difference in colors in the sky.

However, I don't really find the "before" image objectionable, and I'm not sure what your filtering will do to the rest of the image during regular playback.

Great job Chuck.

At least based on the screen grabs, the Chroma DNR'ed examples definitely look better. Very interesting.

Now not all catalog HD releases are despicable. This title preserves the artistic integrity of the film makers. The look and the style is intact. It may not be as colorful as other titles but at least this one is cinematic. The people in this movie looks like err . . human beings not toy soldiers. The fine details are intact nothing is removed. No pesky excessive DNR. No EE. It looks the way it should be.



Watched this last night (actually this morning :o ).
Was looking for the "wax figures"; butt the guys wouldn't stop sweating!
Women looked fine.
Thanks as always, Xylon.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/ec2dd7b6.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/84130412.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/9b3fdd11.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/A%20Passage%20To%20India/102f098a.png

As a new Blu-Ray owner I bought this on Xylon's recommendation and was not disappointed. As far as content is concerned I think this is one of his greatest color films, much better than Dr Zhivago or Ryan's Daughter, and if you don't like it now you might try it when you get older.

This is the sort of film high definition is ideal for: epics on the grand scale with top-notch cinematography. This did look as if you were actually watching a film rather than some sort of film/high definition video hybrid, but the powers that be seem to feel it is better to tweak the sharpening to produce something that really "pops", something that will impress the masses in the stores.

I did feel the need to boost the yellow on the display, however.

As a new Blu-Ray owner I bought this on Xylon's recommendation and was not disappointed. As far as content is concerned I think this is one of his greatest color films, much better than Dr Zhivago or Ryan's Daughter, and if you don't like it now you might try it when you get older.

This is the sort of film high definition is ideal for: epics on the grand scale with top-notch cinematography. This did look as if you were actually watching a film rather than some sort of film/high definition video hybrid, but the powers that be seem to feel it is better to tweak the sharpening to produce something that really "pops", something that will impress the masses in the stores.

I did feel the need to boost the yellow on the display, however.

It is a great movie, and a highly underrated one from Lean. I still give Doctor Zhivago (it's not "Dr." Zhivago...sorry, stupid pet peeve of mine ;)) the nod over A Passage to India, but not by a big margin (some might argue that the unrelenting score of Maurice Jarre in Zhivago is reason enough to prefer Passage;)).

Doctor Zhivago is one of my most highly anticipated titles on Blu-ray, just behind another David Lean epic. :cool:

It is a great movie, and a highly underrated one from Lean. I still give Doctor Zhivago (it's not "Dr." Zhivago...sorry, stupid pet peeve of mine ;)) the nod over A Passage to India, but not by a big margin (some might argue that the unrelenting score of Maurice Jarre in Zhivago is reason enough to prefer Passage;)).

Doctor Zhivago is one of my most highly anticipated titles on Blu-ray, just behind another David Lean epic. :cool:

I finally managed to catch Dr. Z on HDTV, it looks like its one of Warner's filtered masters. Visible jaggies present during the whole movie.

I finally managed to catch Dr. Z on HDTV, it looks like its one of Warner's filtered masters. Visible jaggies present during the whole movie.

:(

Who was showing this in HD?

From my cableco's on-demand library, they had a bunch of classic Warner titles, Singing in the Rain looked pretty good, and A Streetcar Named Desired looked fantastic. No jaggies on them.

http://hdimage.org/images/4paoy6pwnas2uz55dmba_drz_thumb.png (http://hdimage.org/images/4paoy6pwnas2uz55dmba_drz.png)

(some might argue that the unrelenting score of Maurice Jarre in Zhivago is reason enough to prefer Passage)

My peeve with the good Doctor is that it veers from things that look absolutely real to things that are obviously constructed on a sound stage (the frosty interior of Yuri and Lara's lovenest house to name but one offender). And yes, Jarre's film score is pretty notorious (his score for Passage is much better, particularly the lilting theme that comes up as the credits roll). Parts of Zhivago's bad rep may come from people's memories of the cut version, which for years was all you ever saw. The complete version is much better.

I was one of those teenagers that propelled Doctor Zhivago into its moneymaking stature- it was slow to gain its legs on its first release, and it was baby boomer teenagers that took it to their hearts and made it into a blockbuster. Of course films today no longer have that luxury to sit around for weeks in order to gain an audience, and we are all the poorer for it.

I was hoping for some definite announcements on some BD Lean films this past CES :(

For all we know we'll probably see it in 2010.

(some might argue that the unrelenting score of Maurice Jarre in Zhivago is reason enough to prefer Passage)

My peeve with the good Doctor is that it veers from things that look absolutely real to things that are obviously constructed on a sound stage (the frosty interior of Yuri and Lara's lovenest house to name but one offender). And yes, Jarre's film score is pretty notorious (his score for Passage is much better, particularly the lilting theme that comes up as the credits roll). Parts of Zhivago's bad rep may come from people's memories of the cut version, which for years was all you ever saw. The complete version is much better.

I was one of those teenagers that propelled Doctor Zhivago into its moneymaking stature- it was slow to gain its legs on its first release, and it was baby boomer teenagers that took it to their hearts and made it into a blockbuster. Of course films today no longer have that luxury to sit around for weeks in order to gain an audience, and we are all the poorer for it.

Zhivago certainly has its faults, but the thing that makes it such a great movie to me is the breathtaking cinematography (including the frozen interior that you refer to). And yes, it is Lean's biggest box office success, by far.

In fact, Zhivago is still in the number 8 spot all time after adjusting for inflation:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

:(

Who was showing this in HD?

I may be mistaken, but I think he was referring to the fairly recent remake, not the classic original.

I may be mistaken, but I think he was referring to the fairly recent remake, not the classic original.

What do you base that on?

He said "From my cableco's on-demand library, they had a bunch of classic Warner titles, Singing in the Rain looked pretty good, and A Streetcar Named Desired looked fantastic".

That hardly sounds like he was referring to a recent "remake". :confused:

if Warner stuffs up Zhivago I will short sell every Time Warner affiliated company there is

What do you base that on?

He said "From my cableco's on-demand library, they had a bunch of classic Warner titles, Singing in the Rain looked pretty good, and A Streetcar Named Desired looked fantastic".

That hardly sounds like he was referring to a recent "remake". :confused:

Sorry I only saw the part where he said he watched it on HDTV. Hdnet or one of those channels was showing the remake last week I believe.

:(

Who was showing this in HD?

One of the Zoom channels rebranded as some thing else has been running it a lot up here in Canada. I've PVR'd it 3 times but haven't dug up the motivation to try and sit through it yet.

Sorry I only saw the part where he said he watched it on HDTV. Hdnet or one of those channels was showing the remake last week I believe.

Got ya.

One of the Zoom channels rebranded as some thing else has been running it a lot up here in Canada. I've PVR'd it 3 times but haven't dug up the motivation to try and sit through it yet.

I think you mean one of the "Voom" channels (not Zoom)? Anyway, you really should "dig up the motivation" to watch it. It's a great film. But yes, it will require a substantial part of your time.

Watched this film a few times on premium cable (maybe HDNet) and recall remarking a few years back about its exceptionally good PQ. So, having just installed a Blu-ray player (PS3) this was on my disc buy list.

Not sure now. Images within this thread look like a very murky/blurry print was used for the transfer. Yet from the cable viewing I can still recall the texture of the elephant's skin visible on the caves visit, plus the depth of focus for distant trees during the train climb, and many other crisp shots.

Thread shots remind me of the comparisons provided with the Blu-ray release of "Pride and Prejudice" from the BBC/A&E, made directly from S16mm negative transfers, with excellent PQ for 16mm, but compared with a poor-color, blurry print example in the 2-disc special-features section; (viewable on line or here by searching this section for "Prejudice" and the review thread).

Just have a few Blu-rays so far but this Passage disc seems like a waste of money PQ-wise. Guess there are no prospects for a better disc release? Yup, chances of negative transfers from 35mm features aren't good--although AIUI John Lowry used negs for his supercomputer image crunching of the James Bond features. -- John