Hughmc, I think the main problem is that not some members like the way DNR looks, but that just a very few members continuously argue that it's preferable that way. The Patton pics thread has 15 pages of bickering. Truthfully it's not someone stating that "I think this looks just fine" that irritates people. What starts the bickering is certain member's attempts at trivializing what many consider a major problem.

To quote an AVS moderator:
At this juncture it's important to remember that AVS is a home theater enthusiasts web site. This particular forum is for those interested in the highest level of accuracy in film reproduction possible, within their budget of course. Those who do not share this interest should expect to find disagreement with their opinions, and may want to reconsider their participation here.

Hughmc, I think the main problem is that not some members like the way DNR looks, but that just a very few members continuously argue that it's preferable that way. The Patton pics thread has 15 pages of bickering. Truthfully it's not someone stating that "I think this looks just fine" that irritates people. What starts the bickering is certain member's attempts at trivializing what many consider a major problem.

To quote an AVS moderator:

sperron: Not everyone sees the same thing, especially when it comes to viewing films. Do I think Patton and the Longest Day deserve a better transfer? Hell yeah! Am I going to get bent out of shape about it, no. Can I still enjoy the films even though the transfer isn't up to my standards, yes. :D

Well the other problem that I think a few are missing is that for many members, it's not really about Patton, The Longest Day or The Gangs of New York. For many members it's about stopping this from happening in the future. This is already done, and it's extremely unlikely that there will be a recall or fixed editions offed through an exchange program. I think most members here would be content if we just had some assurance that better care will be taken in the future to prevent discs with problems like these from happening.

Well the other problem that I think a few are missing is that for many members, it's not really about Patton, The Longest Day or The Gangs of New York. For many members it's about stopping this from happening in the future. This is already done, and it's extremely unlikely that there will be a recall or fixed editions offed through an exchange program. I think most members here would be content if we just had some assurance that better care will be taken in the future to prevent discs with problems like these from happening.

Well spoken!

For many members it's about stopping this from happening in the future. Yes, and it sure as HELL won't be stopped from happening in the future if a lot of people have the "golly gee guys, you're exaggerating the problem" attitude I've seen expressed by some on here.

Well the other problem that I think a few are missing is that for many members, it's not really about Patton, The Longest Day or The Gangs of New York. For many members it's about stopping this from happening in the future. This is already done, and it's extremely unlikely that there will be a recall or fixed editions offed through an exchange program. I think most members here would be content if we just had some assurance that better care will be taken in the future to prevent discs with problems like these from happening.

Boy to I totally agree with that, the problem is good old Hollywood, doesn't have very good content anymore so reselling copies to us being "remastered" or SuperBit, etc.c.. is just another way of milking the consumer. I mean they done this with LDs and DVDs, I wish it was different with Blu-Ray. Bummer for me I just ordered all these war movies, because I am somewhat of a history buff and now I am wondering should I have waited on some of these. Oh well they still look better than the DVD in most cases. ;) The good thing about AVS, is I was told the first copy of "Full Metal Jacket" was horrible, so I didn't open it, and then they came out with the newer fixed version so I just traded it in, not sure if this is going to happen with Patton or the Longest Day. Also how about "A Bridge Too Far" has anybody seen this yet, if it looks like the DirecTV viewing I saw a couple of months ago I will be very
pleased.

RobertR: Well bitchin about it here sure isn't going to help, best bet is to have a petition sign up and have everyone here sign it and when we get enough people on board send it in. Or maybe have a dedicated website to sign up and sign a petition for better quality remasters of these movies. Also some people on here might not see it as that big of a deal, I mean look at most of the online reviews of Patton, most of them give it very high quality marks, not that I agree with them though.

Ok, I said that people were blowing Patton way out of proportion, but I do see where people are coming from with regards to excessive DNR in regards to Longest Day.

I agree, it looks almost like a painting.

Yes, and it sure as HELL won't be stopped from happening in the future if a lot of people have the "golly gee guys, you're exaggerating the problem" attitude I've seen expressed by some on here.

or the "oh well, it's better than the DVD version..."


:)

or the "oh well, it's better than the DVD version..."


:)

Hey I think I said some thing like that somewhere, and that is my opinion of course.. Maybe we can start talking(bitching) about remastering Charlie Browns Christmas next. :D It doesn't look real.. ;)

I've been watching a little bit of The Longest Day.

I can easily understand how and why people think the PQ is top notch, and there is nothing wrong with it.

The clarity present on the BD is a distraction. People get so caught up with how clear the picture appears, they don't notice all of the detail missing from the film. You can't even see any detail on people's faces...its really weird to see what appears on first glance to be a great looking picture, then realize there is no detail present.

It's like being stuck in the Twilight Zone episode with the mannequins in the department store...people look a little lifeless in appearance...just a bunch of wax figures come to life moving around on the screen.

There isn't any defense anyone can make in favor of the way this film looks on Blu-ray.

Saying it's better than the DVD version isn't saying much at all.

I hope we get a fixed version of this sometime.

People do have pores in the skin on their faces for example. On good HD transfers they are apparent as day. Here....? hmmm......

People do have pores in the skin on their faces for example. On good HD transfers they are apparent as day. Here....? hmmm......

I don't understand why people seem to want to bury their head in the sand over the problem this transfer has. It's not a good transfer by any means...it is really evident that it has problems...yet it doesn't stick in the minds of some.

I remember when everyone used to think it was awesome how you could see the pores in the faces of actors...now it seems there has been a regression for whatever reason.

sperron: Not everyone sees the same thing, especially when it comes to viewing films. Do I think Patton and the Longest Day deserve a better transfer? Hell yeah! Am I going to get bent out of shape about it, no. Can I still enjoy the films even though the transfer isn't up to my standards, yes. :D

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!! Everyone has their 'line' where they decide whether or not they'll buy a movie based on based on their own personal weighting of it's plusses and minuses.... After watching TLD I'd buy it again - it's better than the current alternatives IMHO.

I've read all of the posts and haven't seen anyone post credible evidence that they could have done a better job - obviously you'd have to have the exact source material and production equipment to postulate anything other than conjecture. Discussion and debate is the purpose of these forums - the attitude of "I'm right. Now everyone get on board with me or don't post" is simply laughable.

The bottom line....is the bottom line - I know little about movie post-production but I know in most things it boils down to tradeoffs and costs. Would an improved TLD production have cost $5,000 more, $25,000 more, $200,000 more??? I dunno - but if the cost is more than a nominal amount, someone is going to be doing an ROI on the additional expense - plain business sense.

The Gostak distems the Doshes! It takes two to tango.....instead of hammering about "looks like crap"/"looks fine to me" someone talk about how DNR is applied (ie. runs automatically or someone has to look at each frame), what are the cost factors. How much more would we be willing to pay for a pristine version? And how many fewer sales would result due to the higher costs.

I've read all of the posts and haven't seen anyone post credible evidence that they could have done a better job - obviously you'd have to have the exact source material and production equipment to postulate anything other than conjecture. Discussion and debate is the purpose of these forums - the attitude of "I'm right. Now everyone get on board with me or don't post" is simply laughable.


:rolleyes:

A better job could have been done.

It's already been discussed that the DNR was applied to the entire movie by Robert Harris who would know about these things. The way the picture appears is right in line with what occurs when DNR is applied.

Certainly discussion and debate is the purpose of these forums...

However there is nothing to debate that this is a poor transfer since the final product's appearance clearly indicates a poor transfer.

The bottom line....is the bottom line - I know little about movie post-production but I know in most things it boils down to tradeoffs and costs. Would an improved TLD production have cost $5,000 more, $25,000 more, $200,000 more??? I dunno - but if the cost is more than a nominal amount, someone is going to be doing an ROI on the additional expense - plain business sense.

Only problem with your scenario is that IF there was considerable post processing to the master of The Longest Day (DNR, grain removal, whatever), it cost MORE than simply transferring the film.

:rolleyes:

A better job could have been done.

It's already been discussed that the DNR was applied to the entire movie by Robert Harris who would know about these things. The way the picture appears is right in line with what occurs when DNR is applied.

Certainly discussion and debate is the purpose of these forums...

However there is nothing to debate that this is a poor transfer since the final product's appearance clearly indicates a poor transfer.

Content rains King for me and then PQ, I do I think there could have been a better job on TLD and Patton for sure, especially when you compare it to The Sand Pebbles, great PQ, well at least to my eyes. Maybe when Porn becomes more available on Blu-Ray we can start debating that as well !! :D

I've read all of the posts and haven't seen anyone post credible evidence that they could have done a better job - obviously you'd have to have the exact source material and production equipment to postulate anything other than conjecture. Discussion and debate is the purpose of these forums - the attitude of "I'm right. Now everyone get on board with me or don't post" is simply laughable.Discussion and debate, sure, but education is the main function of this forum, which is what this topic is about. If you don't want to learn about the negative impact to these films, directly due to how they are transferred, that's the attitude that is laughable.

I think Fox has a bunch of high-def masters that were created with running off DVD's in mind. The masters is where the look is coming from and not from special processing that would run up the production costs. Fox doesn't appear to be making new masters. Their BD's of Butch & Sundance, I'm told, have the same hairs or fibers (?) that my 6 year old D-Theater tape has and the DVD has too, I'm told. The several BD's and D-tapes I've compared looked exactly the same to me.

I think Fox has a bunch of "hi-def" masters optimized for making DVD's, not BD's. That seems like a theory that could fit the facts, thanks Sherlock..... ;)

I think Fox has a bunch of high-def masters that were created with running off DVD's in mind. The masters is where the look is coming from and not from special processing that would run up the production costs. Fox doesn't appear to be making new masters. Their BD's of Butch & Sundance, I'm told, have the same hairs or fibers (?) that my 6 year old D-Theater tape has and the DVD has too, I'm told. The several BD's and D-tapes I've compared looked exactly the same to me.

I think Fox has a bunch of "hi-def" masters optimized for making DVD's, not BD's. That seems like a theory that could fit the facts, thanks Sherlock..... ;)

I actually could see this being the case.

It'd be similar to what Universal did with some of their catalog HD DVD titles...using older HD masters that happened to have a lot of artificial enhancements thrown in.

I think Fox has a bunch of high-def masters that were created with running off DVD's in mind. The masters is where the look is coming from and not from special processing that would run up the production costs. Fox doesn't appear to be making new masters. Their BD's of Butch & Sundance, I'm told, have the same hairs or fibers (?) that my 6 year old D-Theater tape has and the DVD has too, I'm told. The several BD's and D-tapes I've compared looked exactly the same to me.

I think Fox has a bunch of "hi-def" masters optimized for making DVD's, not BD's. That seems like a theory that could fit the facts, thanks Sherlock..... ;)

Yah but in the case of Butch and Sundance that film was shot with soft filter lenses and people could easily ( i did ) mistake the softness for DNR. I don't mind the hairs as applying a razor to them may result in a bad cut.

Universal have made new masters of The Mummy and The Mummy Returns and it's not long before people can see if they did a good job of them or not.

Hopefully Fox will start to do likewise and make new masters.

Hopefully Fox will start to do likewise and make new masters.

To the best of my knowledge Fox is doing 4k masters for their large format library for some time now so the master for Patton is probably 4k and the grain should also be intact. What we definitely need is a new transfer if the master is up to standards - still not to be had for free but much less expensive than a new master.

Looking at the screenshots of Patton I would think that the transfer indeed comes from a very high quality element, too bad somebody went overboard with DNR/grain reduction.

Only problem with your scenario is that IF there was considerable post processing to the master of The Longest Day (DNR, grain removal, whatever), it cost MORE than simply transferring the film.
You are welcome to find out why they did it at additional costs. Fact is, they did it, whether we think it makes financial or other sense or not.

Their BD's of Butch & Sundance, I'm told, have the same hairs or fibers (?) that my 6 year old D-Theater tape has and the DVD has too, I'm told.In most instances of fuzz or crud or hair or fibers located at the edge of the image, this occurred in the camera and is present on the negative. The proper way to eliminate them would be to do a full blown digital restoration ala Lowrey (think $$$$) and have them painted out.

If people complain too much, it's much more likely that the studios will take the easy (think cheap) way out and apply more severe cropping to the image to hide the junk at the edges and we will wind up seeing less of the original image on our screens.

Vern

LONGEST DAY in Black & White = (B)utchered & W(axy):p

I don't understand why people seem to want to bury their head in the sand over the problem this transfer has. It's not a good transfer by any means...it is really evident that it has problems...yet it doesn't stick in the minds of some.


Exactly ! Why are there so many here who seem to be resisting the concept of getting the best it can be ?:confused:

art

Exactly ! Why are there so many here who seem to be resisting the concept of getting the best it can be ?:confused:

art

I was really tempted to say people want to justify their purchases.

But it's not exactly like The Longest Day or Patton are exactly breaking the bank in cost if you got them off of Amazon.

I've thought about it for a bit trying to view why I would want to defend the BD of Longest Day. I can't come up with anything beyond the justification of their purchase.

It's sort of difficult to even finish watching this because of the lack of detail present. Some of those scenes in motion really do look like paintings and I don't mean that in a good way. What a disgrace to a great movie.

I think Fox has a bunch of high-def masters that were created with running off DVD's in mind. The masters is where the look is coming from and not from special processing that would run up the production costs. Fox doesn't appear to be making new masters. Their BD's of Butch & Sundance, I'm told, have the same hairs or fibers (?) that my 6 year old D-Theater tape has and the DVD has too, I'm told. The several BD's and D-tapes I've compared looked exactly the same to me.

I think Fox has a bunch of "hi-def" masters optimized for making DVD's, not BD's. That seems like a theory that could fit the facts, thanks Sherlock..... ;)

Good points. This is likely what's going on.

I was really tempted to say people want to justify their purchases.

But it's not exactly like The Longest Day or Patton are exactly breaking the bank in cost if you got them off of Amazon.

I've thought about it for a bit trying to view why I would want to defend the BD of Longest Day. I can't come up with anything beyond the justification of their purchase.

It's sort of difficult to even finish watching this because of the lack of detail present. Some of those scenes in motion really do look like paintings and I don't mean that in a good way. What a disgrace to a great movie.

Well on top of it both of these movies are getting mostly rave reviews on PQ etc, via the web with the exception of this thread! :D I bought the War Packs via Amazon and got great pricing, via the 3 pack. So far The Sand Pebbles is an excellent transfer, but I agree with Patton and TLD, these transfers almost look at times to be artificial.

Exactly ! Why are there so many here who seem to be resisting the concept of getting the best it can be ?:confused:

art

I may be wrong, but I'd like to advance the theory that's been mentioned before: it might be the PS3 effect, at least partly, although maybe not for the reason that most people think.

I think it's because we're insulting their "software," and nothing irritates members of the gaming culture faster than insulting their hardware or software.

I remember when I was a kid, my gaming system was a Commodore Amiga 500, and I used to get into p*ssing contests with the IBM kids about which gaming system was better. The IBM had higher resolution, but the Amiga could display 4096 colors (taken that IBM Mofos!:D) Anyway, my point is that there's just something about the gaming culture that loves a good fight, even when the fight is sheer stupidity.

U know that 12 year old kid who loves to cuss at you when he frags your @ss online (you gamers know what I'm talking about), well that kid is alive in well in a lot of 20 and 30 year olds who have gravitated from video games to HDTVs and BRDs.

If you go onto any gaming site, you'll find hoards of people arguing about whether or not the XBOX360 is better than the PS3. It's the same old thing. You'll also find endless threads arguing about which game is cooler, yadda yadda yadda. And all it takes is 20 minutes on XBOX-Live for some dork tell you how he'd like to tea-bag your uncle for free. So yeah, the gaming culture -- maybe that's part of what's going on in this forum.

I don't mean to imply that there aren't arguments in other forums (RPTV, *cough* *cough*) but there is something about the crowd in the BRD forum that's taken this sort of arguing to new heights.

I dunno. I could be wrong.

I just watched The Longest Day BD on my Infocus 7200 (720 DLP) on an eight-foot screen.

I have also seen the film a number of times during its original theatrical release (1962-3) and saw it a few years ago with an archive 35mm 4-track mag print. [It was filmed in 35mm although there were a few 70mm prints in Europe, I think that US distribution may have been entirely 35mm.]

Since my most recent memory theatrically is the archive print (I think in 2005), I found the image to be somewhat fuzzy in the manner of old Cinemascope films and I found the contrast somewhat muddled.

I like the new Blu-ray presentation very much. It is, of course, clean and all defects have been removed. More importantly, I am not seeing the tell-tale signs of too much digital tampering. I see no EE. I would not swear that there is no DNR but if there is, it is an improvement over the archive print.

Some of the cited scenes--e.g., the one with John Wayne in what looks like a hanger--looked that way on the film print to my recollection.

The one thing I do notice is that the contrast appears greatly improved and the "color timing" does a great job with the night scenes. These scenes are important because you have to know that they are at night but you still need to see the details as someone who had become accustomed to the dark would see them.

In our concern for preserving the original I think we have forgotten what the original actually looks like, in this particular case. I get to see a lot of archive prints of classic films optimally exhibited (often the archives are from UCLA or direct from the studio's best sources), and it is often apparent that there are problems in the original films that affect the quality of the video versions.

The wonderful thing is seeing all of the action scenes with real men and real machines instead of the incessant CGI that we are forced to watch these days.

The film is also historically accurate in a way that films no longer even think about being.

WRT the other films: The Battle of Britain looks fine, this film always had some problems. The Sand Pebbles is terrific, no question about it. I am not so sure about Patton, it looks overly soft to me compared to my 38-year-old memory of the 70MM D-150 presentation. I will try to see the new Fox 70mm print at some point. Patton is certainly far better than any video presentation I have seen.

^ Interesting.

rlsmith, what happened to the grain if they didn't DNR it? If films from that time period could be filmed with no grain, there should be many more examples of it. I don't think there is any reason to debate that they DNRed it, merely an argument as to what extent they did so. You obviously find it to be an acceptable level as opposed to many others who do not.

As for no EE, look at where John Wayne's hat meets his head in this shot:
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/1b6989ac.png

It has the telltale ringing outline starting from his hairline on the right all the way down. Look at this nose shadow and see that the lighting is coming from behind over his shoulder. If you look at his hair under the hat on the right you can actually see that the hat is casting a small shadow. Yet somehow in the shadow his scalp where it meets the hat is whiter then the rest of the skin in the shadow.

Seems to me that the DVD is just as DNRed as the BD, only the increased resolution of the BD makes the waxy look even more obvious. I don't see any obvious EE ringing either.

The EE looks very very minor. It's the scrubbed, waxy look that is the issue. If that's not DVNR, then I'm a transexual hooker.

Sperron,


The scene with Wayne is exactly the one that I mentioned. I recall that this scene did not look good in 35mm for some reason.

Many other scenes (including some of Wayne himself, Robert Ryan, etc.) don't have this kind of look.

Obviously, I don't have the 35mm print available to compare to see what the overall situation is. My guess is that the critics of this Blu-ray might be rather surprised by the comparison however.

Mentioning a different film, we recently saw The Last Picture Show in 35mm at a film festival and introduced by Peter Bogdanovich himself. I compared it the next week to the HD version on HDNet Movies. Overall, the HD version was a better imaging experience (and of course many of the reasons had to do with imperfections in the print). No Peter Bogdanovich in my house, however. :)

On the other side, I saw Vertigo in 70mm a few months ago, and the HDNet Movies presentation fares very poorly by comparison. Ditto for Lawrence.

Since I worked my way through college as a union projectionist, I often saw the same movie 50 or more times. Even so, I find that my memory often fails me, and I suspect I may have more accurate memories than many.

I saw Dr. Zhivago 175 times (in both 35mm and 70mm blowups) and was always annoyed by the grain and inconsistent colors and focus. I recently saw Warners' restoration 35mm print and was very pleased with it. Much less grain, and the colors held from scene to scene. I remember the yellow flowers (an important plot point from Sir David) and how the yellows used to vary so much.

My point is that comparison to what the film looked like (or what you think the film may have looked like) is a tricky business. Equally, if processing has been applied, the question of whether or not there is an improvement is open to a lot of debate.

We are in for a crazy ride.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/d1a82b79.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/cb39ce9c.png

wow.. that's bad

Xylon, do you have a string of these pictures saved up that continue to get worse and worse? :p

Certainly no one can claim that there isn't edge enhancement after looking at that one.

Good Lord. That is horrendous. The word horrendous was invented to describe exactly that!

Now imagine that scene in motion, all the shifting and smearing that would take place. This is what DVNR can do to a film. This release should be recalled. It's a disgrace.

Yes, that scene looks awful. I remember it looking bad in the 35mm (the guy in the middle is Omar Bradley, he is getting the reports about the landings).

ok this one looks extra bad because looking again it's a crappy composite shot

I don't think even the most hysterical grainophobe would say that looks good.

Xylon, do you have a string of these pictures saved up that continue to get worse and worse? :p

Certainly no one can claim that there isn't edge enhancement after looking at that one.

Blame rlsmith :)

I will post better shots too of course. Some of them did not suffer from the John "Waxy" Wayne look.

I just watched The Longest Day BD on my Infocus 7200 (720 DLP) on an eight-foot screen.

I have also seen the film a number of times during its original theatrical release (1962-3) and saw it a few years ago with an archive 35mm 4-track mag print. [It was filmed in 35mm although there were a few 70mm prints in Europe, I think that US distribution may have been entirely 35mm.]

Since my most recent memory theatrically is the archive print (I think in 2005), I found the image to be somewhat fuzzy in the manner of old Cinemascope films and I found the contrast somewhat muddled.

I like the new Blu-ray presentation very much. It is, of course, clean and all defects have been removed. More importantly, I am not seeing the tell-tale signs of too much digital tampering. I see no EE. I would not swear that there is no DNR but if there is, it is an improvement over the archive print.

Some of the cited scenes--e.g., the one with John Wayne in what looks like a hanger--looked that way on the film print to my recollection.

The one thing I do notice is that the contrast appears greatly improved and the "color timing" does a great job with the night scenes. These scenes are important because you have to know that they are at night but you still need to see the details as someone who had become accustomed to the dark would see them.

In our concern for preserving the original I think we have forgotten what the original actually looks like, in this particular case. I get to see a lot of archive prints of classic films optimally exhibited (often the archives are from UCLA or direct from the studio's best sources), and it is often apparent that there are problems in the original films that affect the quality of the video versions.

The wonderful thing is seeing all of the action scenes with real men and real machines instead of the incessant CGI that we are forced to watch these days.

The film is also historically accurate in a way that films no longer even think about being.

WRT the other films: The Battle of Britain looks fine, this film always had some problems. The Sand Pebbles is terrific, no question about it. I am not so sure about Patton, it looks overly soft to me compared to my 38-year-old memory of the 70MM D-150 presentation. I will try to see the new Fox 70mm print at some point. Patton is certainly far better than any video presentation I have seen.

Whoa! Really?!?

Patton is certainly far better than any video presentation I have seen.And far poorer than the theatrical presentation I've seen. Many of us prefer to use FILM as our quality reference, not video.

Whoa! Really?!?

Well, memory is a poor thing to rely on, but that is my memory. Many scenes have a composited look to them and quality varies from scene to scene.

I was a theater projectionist during the initial release and must have seen this film 20-30 times during the summer of 1963. I even had a print of it in my house for a few days (I had 35mm/Cinemascope/4-track magnetic in my basement). As I mentioned, I saw an archive 35mm print 3 years ago at the Stanford Theater in Palo Alto on D-Day (the world's best rep house IMHO.)

It was interesting to me that you picked out some of the very scenes that I remember blanching at 45 years ago! The Omar Bradley scene in particular. Sorry, that was lousy to begin with.

My main point is that we would have to have more basis for comparison here to make any judgments.


BTW I will argue that the sound is uniquivocally better than the original 4-track magnetic. It is not every release that I say this about. They have retained much of the front stereo sound stage while improving the dynamics.

And far poorer than the theatrical presentation I've seen. Many of us prefer to use FILM as our quality reference, not video.

I have made very clear in my posts that I was comparing it to the film, yes, that is my frame of reference. How many times have you seen this film and under what conditions? How recently?

And far poorer than the theatrical presentation I've seen. Many of us prefer to use FILM as our quality reference, not video.

That's not what he was saying Robert.

Believe me, rlsmith has tons of experience when it comes to film (as should be obvious by now).

TLD doesn't look like any film projection I have ever seen including about 30 IMAX presentations at about 0.9x width back from the screen ; every single one had some visible grain structure.

I'm sorry but this is just one of those times that I have to say it doesn't add up.Whether that be equipment, viewing distance, anything ,I just don't believe that the original film looked like this.

Art

I think it's because we're insulting their "software," and nothing irritates members of the gaming culture faster than insulting their hardware or software.

Excellent point. I've had the same theory formulating in my head as well and you've thought it through much better than I. It's the only psychological justification I can reason for folks not being interested in pushing for the best out of these discs.

New thread to debate here...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14175760#post14175760

All the new release threads are out of control with the EXACT same arguments in each.

All the new release threads are out of control with the EXACT same arguments in each.

Some of the senseless, repetitive dialogue reminds me of Southpark episodes!!! :D

Stan: "TLD Sucks"
Kyle: "Yeah, TLD sucks big time"
Cartman: "TLD suck major a$$"
Kenny: "What's so bad about TLD??"

That"s Great.


Cartman: "Ummm, Mr. Garrison, DVR sucks balls..."

I spoken with a couple of other mods for the HDM forums. We've decided we are going to ask those the want to defend the use of DNR to take the debate to the "Official DNR Pro/Con Debate" Thread. Here's the link.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1043727


Going forward the members understand your position, so there is no need to continue to beat that drum in the specific threads on each title. No need to respond to those who disagree with the pro DNR thread. Your debate needs to go in that Official thread going forward.

So those that are PRO DNR, please post your reasonings in the Official thread.

Thanks
Ron Boster

Previously I had just scanned through this BD, but last night I watched the first 2 hours of it. There is a lot of inconsistency in the quality of the image. Oddly, the scenes where the still photos in this thread are from didn't stand out to me other than lacking some detail. A scene that really seemed odd was from about 4:30-5:00 in the beginning of the movie when some German officers are facing the cameras with the ocean to their backs. I'm wondering if someone that has seen the BD and is more knowledgable (calling rlsmith) can tell me what is going on there? It looks like the officers are superimposed on the screen - I can't normally spot edge enhancement even when pointed out in screen shots, but this scene seems like it might be a classic example of it. But I'm not sure if that's it, so I'd like other input.

Those were process shots, probably using rear screen projection as clearly shown by the halos around the foreground characters. The halos are not EE halos, however, they definitely have a different look.

Vern

Those were process shots, probably using rear screen projection as clearly shown by the halos around the foreground characters. The halos are not EE halos, however, they definitely have a different look.Thanks. What causes the halos?

Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
And far poorer than the theatrical presentation I've seen. Many of us prefer to use FILM as our quality reference, not video.
I have made very clear in my posts that I was comparing it to the film, yes, that is my frame of reference. How many times have you seen this film and under what conditions? How recently?I was responding to the comment that it looks better than any other video presentation. Other video presentations shouldn't be our reference. I saw Patton in 70 mm about six years ago at the Samuel Goldwyn theater in Los Angeles (theater of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences). The BR does not look like what I saw.

Previously I had just scanned through this BD, but last night I watched the first 2 hours of it. There is a lot of inconsistency in the quality of the image. Oddly, the scenes where the still photos in this thread are from didn't stand out to me other than lacking some detail. A scene that really seemed odd was from about 4:30-5:00 in the beginning of the movie when some German officers are facing the cameras with the ocean to their backs. I'm wondering if someone that has seen the BD and is more knowledgable (calling rlsmith) can tell me what is going on there? It looks like the officers are superimposed on the screen - I can't normally spot edge enhancement even when pointed out in screen shots, but this scene seems like it might be a classic example of it. But I'm not sure if that's it, so I'd like other input.

There were a few scenes where it just jumped out that you were looking at actors in front of a picture on a screen - fortunately they didn't last long as it was very distracting. Processing or simply HD making the film limitations more noticable??

Previously I had just scanned through this BD, but last night I watched the first 2 hours of it. There is a lot of inconsistency in the quality of the image. Oddly, the scenes where the still photos in this thread are from didn't stand out to me other than lacking some detail. A scene that really seemed odd was from about 4:30-5:00 in the beginning of the movie when some German officers are facing the cameras with the ocean to their backs. I'm wondering if someone that has seen the BD and is more knowledgable (calling rlsmith) can tell me what is going on there? It looks like the officers are superimposed on the screen - I can't normally spot edge enhancement even when pointed out in screen shots, but this scene seems like it might be a classic example of it. But I'm not sure if that's it, so I'd like other input.

I noticed the exact same thing regarding the German officers with the ocean to their backs. It seemed like the first 5-10 minutes of the movie were the worst with regards to edge enhancements. Then again, I haven't made it through the enitre movie. Also, I tried listening to the historical commentary, since I've seen the movie so many times. I found the historical commentary to step all over the dialog, making the movie unwatchable. I found the director's commentary to be more compatible with watching the movie.

Wow. Like with PATTON, I rented this BD and spent some time watching it at normal viewing distance from my 47inch HDTV. Unlike PATTON, this one is pretty much unbearable, even on such a small HDTV (small compared to what is becoming increasingly common in the size departent these days). Frankly, I was shocked at just how terrible this one looks at 47 inches. I thought it would be bearable, but it is not. Even my wife thought it looked "blurry" and she never thinks about those things.

This is sickening.

Meanwhile, SAND PEBBLES is major wow. Truly film like. What a gorgeous looking transfer.

Matt...I'm not stalking you - it's just that your experience with Patton and The Longest Day is so totally different than mine and I simply find that amazing.
I would not describe TLD as "blurry." In fact, the first impression one gets is the amazing sharpness of the imagery and how marvelous this title looks after so many years and I was looking at this title on a 8' screen.This is what happens when people confuse image sharpness with image detail.

It is very possible to have very sharp edges on moderate to large size objects and still have no fine detail with the resulting pasty unnatural look.

Many people also leave their displays set to factory defaults which adds excessive and unnatural sharpening to the image. Then they get used to this as being the norm, particularly when they don't actually have film as a reference.

Vern

Louigi, you are supposed to take this argument to the official DNR thread. This is no longer the place to defend the use of DNR used on this film.

I spoken with a couple of other mods for the HDM forums. We've decided we are going to ask those the want to defend the use of DNR to take the debate to the "Official DNR Pro/Con Debate" Thread. Here's the link.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1043727


Going forward the members understand your position, so there is no need to continue to beat that drum in the specific threads on each title. No need to respond to those who disagree with the pro DNR thread. Your debate needs to go in that Official thread going forward.

So those that are PRO DNR, please post your reasonings in the Official thread.

Thanks
Ron Boster

Wow. Like with PATTON, I rented this BD and spent some time watching it at normal viewing distance from my 47inch HDTV. Unlike PATTON, this one is pretty much unbearable, even on such a small HDTV (small compared to what is becoming increasingly common in the size departent these days). Frankly, I was shocked at just how terrible this one looks at 47 inches. I thought it would be bearable, but it is not. Even my wife thought it looked "blurry" and she never thinks about those things.

This is sickening.

Meanwhile, SAND PEBBLES is major wow. Truly film like. What a gorgeous looking transfer.

I think that The Longest Day is the least resolution I've ever seen in HDM.

I got The Seventh Seal just to compare another older black and white and The Longest Day is just laughable.

I think that The Longest Day is the least resolution I've ever seen in HDM.

You must of missed The Punisher.... ;) There were some real stinkers the first 10 weeks of the format. Longest Movie beats most of those barkers, not much of anything else though. Longest Day is so far back in the pack, it's like being 3rd from last at the Boston Marathon... I award The Longest Day a gin-u-in certificate of partcipation.... :rolleyes:

Review is finally up on HDD:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1343/longestday.html (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1343/longestday.html)

Reviewed by Kenneth S. Brown
Friday, July 11, 2008

From the opening shot to the closing credits, skin textures and fine details aren't just haunted by a waxy appearance, they’ve been completely plasticized by an over-exuberant grain scrubber in a bottom-rung production house. At times, it looks as if the actors have been painted onto the screen while, at others, the same actors look as if they’ve been superimposed onto CG-enhanced backdrops. Depth has been erased, the foregrounds don’t naturally coexist with the backgrounds, three-dimensionality has been compromised, and the filmic nature of ‘The Longest Day’ has been sullied. By comparison, the piddling level of DNR applied to ‘Patton’ seems like a complete non-issue. I’m usually quite forgiving when a transfer doesn’t have any other debilitating issues aside from DNR, but it’s so offensive and obvious in this case that I have to protest.

The Picture Quality received a 2.5 rating.
The Audio received a 3 star rating.

I think that The Longest Day is the least resolution I've ever seen in HDM.

Such a bummer. This and Patton would have been must-buys for me, and I just won't buy them in this state. What a royal screwup.

I've only viewed the Longest Day in the past two days.

I watched TLD on a 65" LCD with 1:1 mapping at 24Hz.
The pasty, claymation was very evident at night and less so during daytime viewing. Front projector owners are correct in whining the loudest.
But when a plasma or LCD owner says it look pretty good, the are correct too. Ambient light levels do change our viewing perceptions.

The software package used to master this obviously used a substantial amount of unsharp mask with halo suppression. And yes some fine detail is missing, but this is the exact same issue many DSLR's camera owners face too, as the manufactures quietly apply non-defeatable noise reduction in the camera or CCD chip. Welcome aboard.:p

Hopefully these observations will help clear up some of the confusion. While there is some errors in the gamma/greyscale, both sides are fairly accurately reporting what they see.

Thanks to Dave JJ (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14276588#post14276588) who posted links to someone that worked on Patton and The Longest Day masters. We basically have confirmation that These 2 films were DNRed. The really bad news is that these guys worked on the master. This means that it will have to be completely remastered to ever have a better version.


http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=586971&postcount=29
Today most movies HD or SD transfers are somewhat restored. It all depends on the budget the studios give each movie. We just finished "The longest day" and "Patton" and we put hundreds of hours into each movie.

http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=612455&postcount=65
Everyone is acting like digital noise reduction is something new, but that can’t be farther from the truth. We in post-production have been using it for about 20 years. The first one that I was introduced to was an Accom and it was the best one out at the time. Then Digital Vision came on to the market and blew Accom out of the water not only did it do noise reduction but it could also sharpen the picture and it could also clean some of the dirt from the film. But if either box was used improper it would add some type of artifact. To much noise reduction you would get smearing, make it to sharp and you would get aliasing, crank up the dirt cleaning and things would disappear that should really be there (example ~ at the last company I worked for we transferred “Coneheads” in the opening there was a star field and the stars disappeared because the colorist had the dirt removal set too high, but the director of the movie was sitting there and asked “hey where did my stars go?” So the dirt was turned off for that scene and the stars returned). The company I work for now has come up with a process to remove all of the film grain so we can make the image as sharp as possible then we add grain back to the picture, but not as much. When we do a lot of the film transfers we have either the DP or the director there to supervise the transfer, so if they don’t like it we change it to how they want it. On the older movies the studios will make the call.

Thanks to Dave JJ (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14276588#post14276588) who posted links to someone that worked on Patton and The Longest Day masters. We basically have confirmation that These 2 films were DNRed.

I don't think we need them to confirm there is excessive DNR on these titles. We already know that for weeks :) ;)

The really bad news is that these guys worked on the master. This means that it will have to be completely remastered to ever have a better version.


http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=586971&postcount=29


http://www.highdefforum.com/showpost.php?p=612455&postcount=65

Now that is bad news.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/2b1cb723.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/3ae765e4.png

Still having a hard time seeing what's wrong?

Check out the The Seventh Seal (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1043683).

'Nuff said?

Now that is bad news.

And worse is the pride in this travesty.

Art

How the hell did this get into tier 1 above THE SAND PEBBLES that i watched today and looked great:confused:

And worse is the pride in this travesty.

Art

Exactly.

stupid question: the right screenshot is the blu ray right ? :D
'cause some posts for a second made me think it was the opposite
now i agree the bray shot doesn't look ultra sharp indeed but the left shot is disgusting, soft and burried into MPEG2 low bitrate compression

i agree DNR is a bad thing. but let's put the church back in the center of the village...

as they said at highdeftdigest, the contraste and black level seems well better on the blu ray

Images looks great to me..I would enjoy watching the BR without hesitation.

Amazing to see how mad folks get about this stuff.

Crazy

Just because the Blu-ray blows away the dvd doesn't mean it isn't garbage. From across the room it probably looks great but from any decent viewing spot the EE and the lack of any real detail are going to be painfully obvious.

i admit we're back in thre dvd period where we needed several edition to get one right
EE/DNR for instance on GANGS OF NEW YORK yuck !

Images looks great to me..I would enjoy watching the BR without hesitation.

Amazing to see how mad folks get about this stuff.

Crazy Not open to debate in this thread. There is a thread set asside for folks like you who just cannot understand the issue.

Shame, such a good movie. But bluray looks to be defeinitely a step up from the bluray from viewing pics, think rental is approriate unless I can find it for less than $20 to replace the dvd I currently own. Does anyone think FOX will end up releasing a special\collector edition with a better transfer?

Does anyone think FOX will end up releasing a special\collector edition with a better transfer?

....wha' cha' talkin about....you must mean the $69.99 list, Dierector's Blood On The Beach Edition. I'd bet it'll run aground some future June..... :rolleyes:

Not open to debate in this thread. There is a thread set asside for folks like you who just cannot understand the issue.

Hmmmm....I don't see the problem with someone making a simple "didn't seem that bad to me" post...??? As long as it doesn't lead to ongoing, pointless drivel (pro and con parties both guilty) - a single statement of opinion should be allowed....

If not, then the title of this thread should be changed to "TLD Bashing ONLY Thread" - which would put it into circle-jerk mentality of "sucks", "yeah, sucks big-time", blah, blah, blah.....

As an owner/viewer of the BD TLD I come here periodically to see if anything intelligent has been posted. :eek:

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/0f6a7a4a.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/cac00502.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/ea998215.png

Photoshop paintbrush filter

Well, I had to see for myself what TLD looks like on Blu. The DVDs are so wretched that anything would surely be an improvement, and there are positives to the Blu-ray. Blacks are deep and there's a superficial crispness to the image that is far beyond any previous home video version.

But my God, the DNR has ruined what could've been the definitive treatment of a black-and-white movie in high-def. Out of the 300+ pieces of HD software that I've owned, this is the most OTT use of grain-reduction I've yet seen (that includes Golden Compass and Pan's). It's like watching a waxwork recreation.

I'll keep the disc, and I'll enjoy what I'm watching simply because it's The Longest Day, but I pray that Fox don't let this happen again.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/62687a8b.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/249d26b8.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/638a226a.png

Richard Burton is to some degree DNR resistent. :D To make him lose all facial detail requires strongly DNRED SD masters dumbed down to VHS.

Man, this was the worst DNRed movie I've seen to date. I was hoping that AVS members were exaggerating the issue, but it looked horrid on my 150" setup. However I can also see how someone viewing this on a small 40-60" screen in their living room might say otherwise.

Man, this was the worst DNRed movie I've seen to date.

Same here.

Art

How is that Henry Fonda is front and center in the cover? He had a very minor role in the movie and was on-screen for perhaps 10 minutes at the most.

It was also interesting to see Sean Connery cast as Pvt Flanagan, clearly before he became James Bond.

Dr. No came out the same year as The Longest Movie.... ;) My dad took me to both. My little brother was born that year. Dad quit taking mom to the movies. She stayed home with the little screamer. My sister and I saw all the Bond films, all the war movies, all the westerns, and only very occasionally had any input into what film it would be....whatever daddy wanted to see. This gig lasted close to 5 years. I can't remember which one came out first.

1962 was a good year for movies, I thought....

good work Xylon

Finally watched this. Maybe someone at Fox should have tried doing that before releasing it. Good grief. To my eye (on a 102"-diagonal screen), it's worse than Patton. Patton featured waxy faces. I would describe these more as rubbery, like Halloween masks.

Damn good movie, though.