For this sequel the change in the overall look of the restored Bu-ray version is bigger compared to Part 1. Especially with the contrast and brightness boosting. To others the change may be too jarring for them. Give it time and you will get used to it. Film grain is intact (grain haters or Patton (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1039303&highlight=) lovers stay away!) No wax city here ;) and no EE observed. Unlike other HD transfers this is not going to look as sharp as those other movies like I' Robot ;). The Godfather I and II overall is a very good transfer preserving the artistic intent of the filmakers :)

There is nothing to argue about the overall PQ and the restored version. If Godfather is just an award winning movie like A Passage to India (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1041303&highlight=) no one is going to make a fuss about it. But it is the Godfather where over 30 years people has seen it numerous times and has grown accustomed to how the way it looks. Unlike Bram Stoker's Dracula (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=925329) where the restored version made the movie different and actually changed the complexion of the movie because of color change and reduction of brightness and contrast that resulted in barely visible sets and actors. With the Godfather the increase in brightness and contrast you can now actually see more of the scenes especially the backgrounds. There is a side effect for boosting them of course, the picture can lose fine details if cranked up too high. Fortunately for Godfather its soft overall to begin with so this side effect for the most part is not distinct.

The new restored version has warmer look than the older DVD. I personally prefer warm instead of the cold look :)




Now bring on Iron Man :)

Expect this kind of change in PQ compared to the 2001 DVD version.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/5fc66c9a.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/b873fdc3.png

The DVD version is from "The Godfather DVD Collection" released 2001 worked on by American Zoetrope.

Blu-ray File size: 44.40 GB

Bitrate: 22.64 mbps


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
The Godfather II AVC 3:22:06 47,764,948,992 47,984,273,911 31.51 22.64 Dolby TrueHD 5.1 3592Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


DISC INFO:

Disc Size: 47,984,273,911 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: Yes

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00000.mpls
Size: 47,764,948,992 bytes
Length: 3:22:06 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 31.51 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00003.M2TS 47,764,948,992 3:22:06.364 0:00:00.000 3:22:06.364

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 22643 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 3592 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 3592kbps (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps
Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps
Dolby Digital Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 34 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 39 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 6 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 29 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 6 kbps
Presentation Graphics Portuguese 34 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 30 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 6 kbps

CHAPTERS:

Number Time Length Avg Video Rate Max 1-Sec Rate Max 1-Sec Time Max 5-Sec Rate Max 5-Sec Time Max 10Sec Rate Max 10Sec Time Avg Frame Size Max Frame Size Max Frame Time
------ ---- ------ -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
1 0:00:00.000 0:03:40.429 21,851 kbps 34,445 kbps 00:02:09.755 29,967 kbps 00:02:16.970 29,669 kbps 00:02:16.970 113,919 bytes 384,922 bytes 00:02:05.250
2 0:03:40.429 0:03:49.312 24,430 kbps 36,528 kbps 00:05:25.367 31,368 kbps 00:05:38.880 31,047 kbps 00:05:33.291 127,364 bytes 384,117 bytes 00:03:59.281
3 0:07:29.741 0:04:35.025 24,469 kbps 32,936 kbps 00:11:21.931 31,400 kbps 00:11:02.495 29,816 kbps 00:11:02.453 127,573 bytes 281,920 bytes 00:11:05.498
4 0:12:04.766 0:04:13.420 21,828 kbps 29,803 kbps 00:16:09.177 28,836 kbps 00:16:09.468 27,623 kbps 00:16:04.463 113,802 bytes 380,973 bytes 00:12:30.583
5 0:16:18.186 0:11:19.929 22,492 kbps 36,241 kbps 00:20:34.233 34,939 kbps 00:20:30.229 32,184 kbps 00:20:25.599 117,263 bytes 361,329 bytes 00:20:15.381
6 0:27:38.115 0:06:50.076 22,527 kbps 27,836 kbps 00:28:27.915 26,229 kbps 00:28:27.915 25,124 kbps 00:27:38.115 117,444 bytes 257,981 bytes 00:28:31.001
7 0:34:28.191 0:09:16.514 22,508 kbps 31,060 kbps 00:43:35.029 28,632 kbps 00:43:35.029 28,156 kbps 00:38:10.914 117,344 bytes 267,899 bytes 00:35:50.357
8 0:43:44.705 0:05:47.806 23,520 kbps 28,459 kbps 00:45:46.452 27,864 kbps 00:45:44.867 27,276 kbps 00:45:44.867 122,625 bytes 279,516 bytes 00:43:51.754
9 0:49:32.511 0:10:17.575 22,972 kbps 28,193 kbps 00:56:13.912 27,256 kbps 00:56:12.786 26,877 kbps 00:56:12.786 119,767 bytes 326,933 bytes 00:58:49.818
10 0:59:50.086 0:13:01.948 22,118 kbps 27,048 kbps 01:01:15.046 26,266 kbps 01:05:28.341 25,946 kbps 01:08:14.173 115,312 bytes 344,894 bytes 01:00:31.586
11 1:12:52.034 0:04:21.553 22,507 kbps 27,990 kbps 01:12:54.537 25,774 kbps 01:15:21.809 25,613 kbps 01:15:01.038 117,339 bytes 322,886 bytes 01:16:38.219
12 1:17:13.587 0:09:05.295 22,494 kbps 26,832 kbps 01:24:46.123 25,954 kbps 01:24:42.160 25,544 kbps 01:24:37.781 117,275 bytes 365,562 bytes 01:17:24.431
13 1:26:18.882 0:21:03.345 22,815 kbps 30,683 kbps 01:35:43.571 30,338 kbps 01:35:40.902 30,126 kbps 01:35:40.818 118,946 bytes 315,691 bytes 01:29:12.597
14 1:47:22.227 0:02:54.717 21,476 kbps 29,628 kbps 01:47:22.227 27,572 kbps 01:47:22.227 27,200 kbps 01:47:22.227 111,967 bytes 266,004 bytes 01:47:22.269
15 1:50:16.944 0:05:15.481 23,796 kbps 33,205 kbps 01:51:23.260 26,773 kbps 01:51:01.697 26,350 kbps 01:51:14.293 124,063 bytes 237,905 bytes 01:51:23.802
16 1:55:32.425 0:11:18.261 21,830 kbps 31,126 kbps 02:05:16.008 29,941 kbps 02:05:18.136 29,208 kbps 02:05:15.383 113,813 bytes 307,723 bytes 01:58:58.798
17 2:06:50.686 0:06:21.798 22,826 kbps 29,238 kbps 02:10:00.292 28,317 kbps 02:09:56.288 28,154 kbps 02:09:51.283 119,002 bytes 340,229 bytes 02:06:54.732
18 2:13:12.484 0:07:38.000 22,501 kbps 26,810 kbps 02:19:01.625 25,627 kbps 02:19:46.003 25,313 kbps 02:19:55.220 117,308 bytes 241,163 bytes 02:20:20.078
19 2:20:50.484 0:07:39.208 22,501 kbps 27,409 kbps 02:22:37.674 25,679 kbps 02:26:54.806 24,773 kbps 02:27:07.235 117,311 bytes 254,412 bytes 02:21:09.836
20 2:28:29.692 0:05:06.265 21,431 kbps 25,442 kbps 02:31:26.411 24,315 kbps 02:31:22.407 24,120 kbps 02:31:17.402 111,729 bytes 246,046 bytes 02:33:32.245
21 2:33:35.957 0:04:21.052 23,743 kbps 27,325 kbps 02:34:27.550 26,435 kbps 02:34:23.588 25,453 kbps 02:34:23.463 123,787 bytes 252,652 bytes 02:37:51.921
22 2:37:57.009 0:06:11.496 22,499 kbps 27,846 kbps 02:38:04.183 26,896 kbps 02:38:55.443 26,252 kbps 02:38:53.274 117,301 bytes 288,285 bytes 02:38:42.221
23 2:44:08.505 0:06:59.878 22,710 kbps 29,944 kbps 02:49:43.298 27,979 kbps 02:50:00.482 27,170 kbps 02:49:57.104 118,401 bytes 263,447 bytes 02:50:12.869
24 2:51:08.383 0:05:38.338 22,547 kbps 27,660 kbps 02:55:51.332 26,431 kbps 02:55:49.622 26,181 kbps 02:55:45.034 117,548 bytes 309,989 bytes 02:51:12.429
25 2:56:46.721 0:04:46.161 21,787 kbps 27,202 kbps 03:00:37.994 26,186 kbps 03:00:37.952 25,977 kbps 03:00:37.952 113,589 bytes 254,518 bytes 02:56:56.773
26 3:01:32.882 0:03:47.519 23,667 kbps 28,617 kbps 03:02:40.116 27,836 kbps 03:02:41.993 27,627 kbps 03:02:39.031 123,391 bytes 237,140 bytes 03:01:48.940
27 3:05:20.401 0:02:05.459 24,501 kbps 26,963 kbps 03:06:46.445 25,883 kbps 03:06:44.777 25,448 kbps 03:06:43.442 127,737 bytes 268,413 bytes 03:05:34.415
28 3:07:25.860 0:04:35.650 23,293 kbps 29,484 kbps 03:10:46.518 27,624 kbps 03:11:07.289 27,542 kbps 03:11:00.699 121,439 bytes 269,213 bytes 03:09:59.430
29 3:12:01.510 0:04:55.462 21,831 kbps 26,760 kbps 03:14:25.571 25,493 kbps 03:14:23.151 24,776 kbps 03:13:55.833 113,816 bytes 255,292 bytes 03:14:38.750
30 3:16:56.972 0:05:09.392 22,428 kbps 50,644 kbps 03:22:01.776 39,820 kbps 03:21:57.772 31,798 kbps 03:20:08.455 116,928 bytes 609,827 bytes 03:22:02.319

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File PID Type Seconds Bytes Packets Bitrate
---- --- ---- ------- ----- ------- -------
00003.M2TS 4113 (0x1011) 0x1B 12126.36 34,322,489,890 186,704,821 22,643
00003.M2TS 4352 (0x1100) 0x83 12126.36 6,415,200,926 44,939,863 4,232
00003.M2TS 4353 (0x1101) 0x81 12126.36 291,032,832 1,894,745 192
00003.M2TS 4354 (0x1102) 0x81 12126.36 970,109,440 5,684,235 640
00003.M2TS 4355 (0x1103) 0x81 12126.36 970,109,440 5,684,235 640
00003.M2TS 4356 (0x1104) 0x81 12126.36 291,032,832 1,894,745 192
00003.M2TS 4608 (0x1200) 0x90 12126.36 51,369,425 290,115 34
00003.M2TS 4609 (0x1201) 0x90 12126.36 59,685,057 337,585 39
00003.M2TS 4610 (0x1202) 0x90 12126.36 43,445,289 246,246 29
00003.M2TS 4611 (0x1203) 0x90 12126.36 45,432,270 257,326 30
00003.M2TS 4612 (0x1204) 0x90 12126.36 51,290,714 289,844 34
00003.M2TS 4613 (0x1205) 0x90 12126.36 8,750,193 49,698 6
00003.M2TS 4614 (0x1206) 0x90 12126.36 8,440,868 48,039 6
00003.M2TS 4615 (0x1207) 0x90 12126.36 8,430,736 48,005 6



http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/43aecd4e.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/d5b261fd.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/f6a2f932.png

Remember this scene?

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/0c7b7dd5.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/781c13d4.png

By increasing the contrast and brightness this scene it now looks like it took place in the morning or late afternoon instead of early dawn. To me its no big deal actually, I'd rather see more of the set and the actors ;)

In some dark scenes throughout the movie expect this to happen.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/af45b407.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/69c211d9.png

I love grain :)

Thanks for those shots Xylon - the restoration looks exceptional - I can't wait for my set to arrive :D

Is it possible to do a comparison of the outdoors of when Michael returns home?

this is fabulous, as you can see the previous DVD was way off in color timing

-Gary

It looks fantastic. They can't get here soon enough. The color differences are exceptional. In the screenshot at the table, the color differences between the grapes and wine really stand out. Also in the screenshot with the cannon, the difference in detail between the figurines in the back is astounding.

It's an improvement over DVD, but I don't know if it's worth spending $62 plus S&H for....I think I might just have to stick with my DVD copies of these movies. Just not big enough an improvement in my book....but that's just my opinion :)

I think I will stick with my DVD set. The colors look vastly different, but that's about it. The image looks very soft and no better than the upscaled DVD pics...

It's an improvement over DVD, but I don't know if it's worth spending $62 plus S&H for....I think I might just have to stick with my DVD copies of these movies. Just not big enough an improvement in my book....but that's just my opinion :)

Its Godfather! :D

It's an improvement over DVD, but I don't know if it's worth spending $62 plus S&H for....I think I might just have to stick with my DVD copies of these movies. Just not big enough an improvement in my book....but that's just my opinion :)

Well, I didn't have to think twice about replacing my DVDs. Assuming the movies have a good replay value to you, then there's nothing better than having a definitive version.

By increasing the contrast and brightness this scene it now looks like it took place in the morning or late afternoon instead of early dawn. To me its no big deal actually, I'd rather see more of the set and the actors ;)

In some dark scenes throughout the movie expect this to happen.
Don't forget about color timing. The comparison of the outdoors on the steps scene (I don't know what it's call, I haven't seen the film!) is illustrative of the color temperature differences.

Are the flesh tones supposed to be this red? Or does it just seem red when compared to the DVD?

If I were to buy this set and maybe adjust my tv's color scheme to cool rather than custom or warm, would this correct some of the overblown red?

I just saw this film at the Arclight Hollywood via a restored print master yesterday and I honestly think the original DVD is closer to what I just saw in the theater in terms of tint. Its a little disappointing to say the least but I'll just have to check it myself when my copy comes in later this week.

The color timing on the remastered version is different. It was an intentional change.

Some scenes look kind of washed out. It's an unfortunate by-product of a film in terrible condition.

Man, this isn't just a bit warmer, its a lot warmer, and quite frankly some of those skin tones just look too red now. I mean maybe its just because I'm so used to seeing it on TV and on DVD, but this Bluray is a complete 180 from what I've ever seen.

Is there anyone in here that remembers watching this in the theaters and remembers what the film looked like?

Because I just can't imagine it looking that way when it was released in theaters.

The DVD although much darker, has more realistic skin tones, and quite frankly looks more like I would imagine the theatrical release looked like.

Its Godfather! :D

Well, I didn't have to think twice about replacing my DVDs. Assuming the movies have a good replay value to you, then there's nothing better than having a definitive version.

I appreciate your feedback and completely agree with you that "Its Godfather" and has great replay value. But I have to agree with SlaughterX, the results look pretty much like upscaled DVD! I'm sure the difference between this Blu-ray set and the new DVD set released today as well is minimal unfortunately.

I'll be picking this set up when it goes on sale, but unfortunately not a day one purchase for me, even though I'm a huge Godfather fan (I think I'm one of the very few people who actually really enjoyed Godfather III)

I think I will stick with my DVD set. The colors look vastly different, but that's about it. The image looks very soft and no better than the upscaled DVD pics...

If I were to buy this set and maybe adjust my tv's color scheme to cool rather than custom or warm, would this correct some of the overblown red?


If by "correct" you mean "make wrong," then sure. Go ahead and do that.


I'll be picking this set up when it goes on sale, but unfortunately not a day one purchase for me, even though I'm a huge Godfather fan (I think I'm one of the very few people who actually really enjoyed Godfather III)

If you think an incorrectly colored dvd is better than this new BD release, I'd rethink your status as a "huge Godfather fan." Just a thought. ;)

colors look different but it is not that much of an improvement in sharpness and detail. I pre ordered and it has already shipped so I'll keep them but I expected more from the way you guys were hyping the restore job done on it.

Please everyone watch the Featurette: "Emulsion Rescue: Revealing the Godfather"

Please everyone watch the Featurette: "Emulsion Rescue: Revealing the Godfather"

Is it in 1080i/p? I guess I'll know tonight when my set is sitting on my doorstep.

If by "correct" you mean "make wrong," then sure. Go ahead and do that.

Exactly.


My copies arrive today and I can't wait to dig into these discs. The only dilemma I have is whether I should start with the docs or start with the films. Maybe I'll start with that emulsion featurette...

If you think an incorrectly colored dvd is better than this new BD release, I'd rethink your status as a "huge Godfather fan." Just a thought. ;)

I never said it wasn't better quality....I just said the improvement in quality was not a huge enough improvement for me to upgrade. Both versions (with correct colours or not) do not affect the actual quality of the films themselves.

Therefore I do not see the relevance in questioning whether or not I'm a fan of the movies because I personally don't think the improvement was great enough to upgrade to the BD version. As I said before, it's my opinion only...I'm entitled to it, as you are.

colors look different but it is not that much of an improvement in sharpness and detail. I pre ordered and it has already shipped so I'll keep them but I expected more from the way you guys were hyping the restore job done on it.

There's only so much you can do sometimes. This is likely the best it will ever look. There was a complete restoration done here.

Some scenes are a substantial improvement in detail, and some others are minor. But consider how bad the DVD looked in the first place to put it into perspective.

Brandon

The only dilemma I have is whether I should start with the docs or start with the films.

My unsolicited 2c. Start with the films and just enjoy them for the story. Then watch the docs and then go back and spin the movies again. If you do the docs first you risk being distracted by the things you picked up in the docs.

I recommend watching the movie first before the documentary.

It looks absolutely stunning...

Please everyone watch the Featurette: "Emulsion Rescue: Revealing the Godfather"

It's a great featurette that makes you really appreciate the work that went into this project. Also, it was neat to see Robert Harris in it.

Well, I didn't have to think twice about replacing my DVDs. Assuming the movies have a good replay value to you, then there's nothing better than having a definitive version.

I'll go ever farther. I am not replacing my DVD. I getting the Blu-ray too. Most of my Blu-ray purchases, I sell the DVD. Not in this case. By the way, I paid $67 for the Blu-ray set. I paid over $100 for the DVD when it came out.

I think I got mine for about $80 or so from Amazon.com when it came out. I'm keeping it, of course, mostly for decoration. Maybe I should get the LD from ebay. It's probably the most luxury of all.

Thanks for all the hard work. :)

Glad to see the blown out contrast and I saw here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14701041#post14701041) were just a fluke, or maybe even a problem on DVD Beaver's end. The warmth is a bit overpowering, but if this is how FFC says it's supposed to look, I'll not argue.

That third shot... wow. No Dracula black hole effect this time, that's for sure. :D

I'll go ever farther. I am not replacing my DVD. I getting the Blu-ray too. Most of my Blu-ray purchases, I sell the DVD. Not in this case. By the way, I paid $67 for the Blu-ray set. I paid over $100 for the DVD when it came out.

I'm sure I paid at least 70 to 80 bucks years ago. If you can get the BD version for around $60 its more than reasonable.

Glad to see the blown out contrast and I saw here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14701041#post14701041) were just a fluke, or maybe even a problem on DVD Beaver's end. The warmth is a bit overpowering, but if this is how FFC says it's supposed to look, I'll not argue.


Keep in mind that blown out contrast and crushed blacks were the intended look (all discussed in the supplemental material).

After seeing the first movie and a bit of Part II, I can safely say that the picture quality difference between this set and the original DVDs is significant. I'm not just talking about changes in color, but detail as well.

Keep in mind that blown out contrast and crushed blacks were the intended look (all discussed in the supplemental material).

After seeing the first movie and a bit of Part II, I can safely say that the picture quality difference between this set and the original DVDs is significant. I'm not just talking about changes in color, but detail as well.


+1

I saw Part I last night and I was definitely impress. Definitely worth upgrading from DVD.

with a bunch of scenes in this film.

Some scenes are beautiful and untouched. Others not so much. It seems to me to be any scene that was particularly dark or underexposed has been given a "red" wash during the color grading. The magenta haze added to all darkly lit moody scenes is not pretty in my opinion but even worse is thats not the way it looked in the theater, (I just saw a restored print of this on Sunday)

Cuba scenes were gorgeous. DeNiro/Corleone scenes were a mixed bag with a handful of scenes getting this distracting red-magenta wash with others holding up faithfully.

Its hard to nitpick at such a brilliant movie that I happen to love perhaps more than any other film in the world but I had to share my disappointment.:(

with a bunch of scenes in this film.

Some scenes are beautiful and untouched. Others have been graded poorly. It seems to me to be any scene that was particularly dark or underexposed has been given a "red" wash during the color grading. The magenta haze added to all darkly lit moody scenes is not pretty in my opinion but even worse is thats not the way it looked in the theater, (I just saw a restored print of this on Sunday)

Cuba scenes were gorgeous. DeNiro/Corleone scenes were a mixed bag with a handful of scenes getting this distracting red-magenta wash with others holding up faithfully.

Its hard to nitpick at such a brilliant movie that I happen to love perhaps more than any other film in the world but I had to share my disappointment.:(

It doesn't sound like you really understand just what it took for your favorite film to reach the restoration level it did based on how badly the original film elements were, nor understand the filmmaker's intentions. Have you at least watched the BD documentary on this, or read some of the published articles? If you did so, my guess is you would be very appreciative of picture quality and feel damned fortunate.

Actually I do understand, I just don't agree with the decisions made for certain scenes.

To me, from what I see in the screen captures, the DVD is smoked by the BD. That being said, it's too rich for my blood. Right now, anyway. Remove Godfather III and a third of the price and I'd be sold.

I'd love to see this in Art's theater. :eek:

Actually I do understand, I just don't agree with the decisions made for certain scenes. FYi, I am film colorist who does this type of work every day of my life so I clearly understand the process but thanks for the advice.

Ah, okay. So Coppola and Willis should have listened to your suggestions. Gotcha!

Ah, okay. So Coppola and Willis should have listened to your suggestions. Gotcha!

Wow, you ever hear of personal opinion? A director can shoot his movie anyway he wants it doesn't mean we have to like the way he did it and it's not like we are saying our way would be better. The director may have wanted it to look a certain way but some of us may not like the way it looks.

Wow, you ever hear of personal opinion? A director can shoot his movie anyway he wants it doesn't mean we have to like the way he did it and it's not like we are saying our way would be better. The director may have wanted it to look a certain way but some of us may not like the way it looks.

Every day someone comes into this thread stating implicitly or explicitly that some aspect of this release was botched because one of reason or another (e.g, poor color, excessive softness, too dark, crushed blacks, looks different from the DVD, etc.). It's just getting very ridiculous. It all stems from people not fully understanding the full context of this release which includes the filmmaker's intentions as well as the restoration work these movies required.

Every day someone comes into this thread stating implicitly or explicitly that some aspect of this release was botched because one of reason or another (e.g, poor color, excessive softness, too dark, crushed blacks, looks different from the DVD, etc.). It's just getting very ridiculous. It all stems from people not fully understanding the full context of this release which includes the filmmaker's intentions as well as the restoration work these movies required.


Your right on target David.After hanging around here for a few years I never thought their was this many sick puppies or spoiled jerks around.But every once in a while I get some good info.But it is getting harder to find,:(

OK, well, surprise surprise... Between the Discovercard cashback I have, an Amazon coupon and their 50% off sale, I was able to get this thing for next to nothing. I was going to pass, but man oh man, I just couldn't after realizing just how little I'd have to pay.

:cool:

Have you ever been in a digital color grading suite in your life DavidHir?

I'd love to know of your experiences in this field. As someone who works with film directors every day I have a unique perspective on this subject.

Bottom line is that directors and cinematographers don't always have an "intent" when walking into grading session. Many times its something they are willing to explore once they arrive and see how images can be manipulated because of modern technology and then "original intent" goes out the door. I agree that many threads are started in this fashion by someone who may not fully understand film and all of its processes. Unfortunately for your argument I am not one of them.

My opinion on this direction they took certain scenes was a direct comparison to the restored film print I just screened this past weekend. When was the last time you saw this film in a theater setting?

Have you ever been in a digital color grading suite in your life DavidHir?

I'd love to know of your experiences in this field. As someone who works with film directors every day I have a unique perspective on this subject.

Bottom line is that directors and cinematographers don't always have an "intent" when walking into grading session. Many times its something they are willing to explore once they arrive and see how images can be manipulated because of modern technology and then "original intent" goes out the door. I agree that many threads are started in this fashion by someone who may not fully understand film and all of its processes. Unfortunately for your argument I am not one of them.

My opinion on this direction they took certain scenes was a direct comparison to the restored film print I just screened this past weekend. When was the last time you saw this film in a theater setting?

You can try playing the "Mine is bigger than yours" all day long if you like. Doesn't really matter to me.

The bottom line is this - and if you actually bothered watching the documentary or reading some of the very informative posts by Robert Harris on other forums, as well as the excellent articles written on the entire release of Godfather, you would understand how meticulously the filmmakers were involved in this release down to the tee. All you're doing is making a generalized statement based on your experience and applying it to something you were not involved in at all - nor seem to stay educated on. All of the available evidence to date states these films were remastered and restored as well as was possible based on technology and the filmmaker's intent.

I have seen the documentary. I saw the process and I understand the intent. My contribution was stating that I was disappointed with what they "accomplished" as a result of this.

And it was never a matter of "mine is bigger than yours" in this discussion; you attacked me personally as someone who simply does not know or understand what it took to restore the film. You were wrong.

I think the film is very beautiful but was disappointed with how certain scenes ended up after all was said and done because do know how this all took place in theory and in practice and I trust my judgement on this.

So you haven't seen this film in a theater environment, you've never been in a color grading suite and have severely limited knowledge of how this technology works but you have seen the supplementary documentary DVD. Congrats.;)

So you haven't seen this film in a theater environment, you've never been in a color grading suite and have severely limited knowledge of how this technology works but you have seen the supplementary documentary DVD. Congrats.;)

You worked on Godfather no more than I did and I guess anyone can be an expert with an anonymous name on the Internet, can't they? I'm sorry, but I'll have to take RAH', Willis', and Copolla's word and decisions on color grading over internet poster history2b's "expert" opinion.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to take RAH', Willis', and Copolla's word and decisions on color grading over internet poster history2b's "expert" opinion.

Same here.

I still know much more on the process and am entitled to my professional and personal opinion.

And now I'm glad I shared it with everyone. Its still a beautiful film just technically flawed.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion....it's not anyone's place to tell them their opinion is wrong!

I still know much more on the process and am entitled to my professional and personal opinion.

You may "know much more on the process" than we do (but since you haven't revealed your identity, we really have no way of knowing,) but I highly doubt you "know much more on the process" than the filmmakers who both created the films and played major roles in their restoration. Again, I'm going with what Willis and Coppola say - if they're happy with the final product, that's good enough for me. YMMV.

It all stems from people not fully understanding the full context of this release which includes the filmmaker's intentions as well as the restoration work these movies required.

Understanding the context and intentions are one thing, but understanding and agreeing are two different things.

I can appreciate the effort that a chef puts into his signature dish, but that doesn't mean I have to love the flavor.

heh... bobloblaw...


"Why should you go to jail for a crime that someone else... noticed?" :D



/off-topic tom foolery

You may "know much more on the process" than we do (but since you haven't revealed your identity, we really have no way of knowing,) but I highly doubt you "know much more on the process" than the filmmakers who both created the films and played major roles in their restoration. Again, I'm going with what Willis and Coppola say - if they're happy with the final product, that's good enough for me. YMMV.

First of all I am entitled to my privacy. I certainly do not need to reveal personal and private information about myself in order to satisfy you.

Second, I know for a fact that I know more about the process of film restoration, 4k scanning and digital film grading than Francis Ford Coppola, Willis or any director / DP. Its what I do every day. How often do they do it?

Now its just a matter of taste and I do not like what they elected to do in certain scenes. It appears to be what they wanted to do. It has without question altered the original. But when you do alter something, especially something as familiar as the Godfather, the changes not going to be universally accepted just because they were done with the best intentions. I simply preferred it the way it was screened in theaters and I'm entitled to feel that way no matter how many times you watch the restoration DVD.:D

Second, I know for a fact that I know more about the process of film restoration, 4k scanning and digital film grading than Francis Ford Coppola, Willis or any director / DP. Its what I do every day. How often do they do it?
That may or may not be true, but we really have no way of knowing if that's true as long as you choose to keep your identity and/or resume a secret. But even assuming that you are the expert you claim to be, you're in no way an expert on how any of the Godfather films are supposed to look. The people who are experts (Willis, Coppola, etc.) are apparently very happy with the final product. Again, that's good enough for me (especially after seeing firsthand the fruits of their labor.) Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether or not you (or I, or anyone else for that matter) agree with their decisions - they're the artists and these films are their works of art.

It's okay to not agree with their opinions. Personally, I didn't like when Zappa had Chad Wackerman playing electronic drums. But, I still loves me some Zappa. I think it's safe to disagree with the color palette that FFC chose, as long as you can acknowledge that it looks looks the way it's supposed to look.

Anyone else getting dejavu from the reaction to Bram Stoker's Dracula? :)

Some scenes are beautiful and untouched. Others have been graded poorly. It seems to me to be any scene that was particularly dark or underexposed has been given a "red" wash during the color grading. The magenta haze added to all darkly lit moody scenes is not pretty in my opinion but even worse is thats not the way it looked in the theater, (I just saw a restored print of this on Sunday)

Don't let yourself be intimidated by some posters here. An informed own opinion is a good thing no matter how much others want to shut you up by citing some authorities or using various strong arm tactics.
The print you saw was derived from the same digital restoration as the Blu Ray? If so, why do you think the print looked one way and the HD another beyond the differences due to HD and film gamut?

I'm going to have to side with History2b. Seems a little overdone.

On the other hand, if this truly is how the film is supposed to look...

No more than someone doesn't like the "look" of a movie like 300, I apparently don't really like the "look" of The Godfather. I very much still like the content though. ^_^

My "opinion" is that the final look is something of an aged photograph from the 70's coincidentally enough. :-)

Anyone else getting dejavu from the reaction to Bram Stoker's Dracula? :)

"which color timing is correct?"

"the dvd looks better in that shot"

The big difference though is that these transfers are actually decent and contain HD detail. BSD is a sad pile of filtered garbage in comparison.

I'm going to have to side with History2b.

No more than someone doesn't like the "look" of movie like 300, I apparently don't really like the "look" of The Godfather.

My "opinion" is that the final look is something of an aged photograph from the 70's ironically enough. :-)

You're missing the point. So are a few other people.

Let's put it this way.

Is 300 "technically flawed" because it has a lot of grain even though the filmmakers have explicitly stated it's supposed be grainy?

You might not like the way Godfather looks, but to say the color is "technically flawed" and screwed up some way despite the filmmakers saying otherwise based on all of the information available is, well...

"which color timing is correct?"

"the dvd looks better in that shot"

The big difference though is that these transfers are actually decent and contain HD detail. BSD is a sad pile of filtered garbage in comparison.

Doesn't FFC, RAH, Kim Aubrey, etc all say that's the way it was supposed to be? Isn't that what FFC, RAH, Jan Yarbrough are saying about Godfather II?

In each case, the creators and experts are on one side while certain enthusiasts are on another...

You're missing the point. So are a few other people.

Let's put it this way.

Is 300 "technically flawed" because it has a lot of grain even though the filmmakers have explicitly stated it's supposed be grainy?

You might not like the way Godfather looks, but to say the color is "technically flawed" and screwed up some way despite the filmmakers saying otherwise based on all of the information available is, well...

I never said it was technically flawed. I said I didn't like the approved result. See the difference?

I never said it was technically flawed. I said I didn't like the approved result. See the difference?

I never said YOU said it was technically flawed. Someone else did. My 300 grainy example was just to illustrate a point.

I never said YOU said it was technically flawed. Someone else did. My 300 grainy example was just to illustrate a point.

Then how exactly was I missing the point? :-/

BTW, I was using 300 to illustrate the point you just made before you made it. (Who's on First? Second!)

Then how exactly was I missing the point? :-/

Some people giving their opinion on whether or not they like the way Godfather looks is NOT the issue. There's a lot of movies I watch which I don't care for the "look."

The issue is a few self-proclaimed experts coming into this thread claiming to the effect that someone screwed up to some degree on the Blu-ray Godfather release without a shred of evidence.

There are two separate matters. That is what some people are missing.

Some people claiming whether or not they like the way Godfather looks is NOT the issue.

The issue is a few self-proclaimed experts coming into this thread claiming to the effect that someone screwed up to some degree on the Blu-ray Godfather release without a shred of evidence.

There are two separate matters. That is what some people are missing.

But you said "I" was missing the point. I called you on it.

QOUTE: You're missing the point. So are a few other people.

Maybe I'll just ask a mod to delete some posts... it seems so dumb now.

by citing some authorities

Actually he wasn't citing some authorities,. He was citing THE authorities.

Everyone take a breath. The Godfather and Part II "The Coppola restoration" are being shown downtown in manhattan. At the film forum

Film Forum


209 W Houston St
New York, NY 10014

Anyone wishing can go see the restored version in the theater and then compare.

:)

Everyone take a breath. The Godfather and Part II "The Coppola restoration" are being shown downtown in manhattan. At the film forum

Film Forum


209 W Houston St
New York, NY 10014

Anyone wishing can go see the restored version in the theater and then compare.

:)

(checks the plane ticket prices... ) Ehhhh... I might have to bow out of this one. ^_^;

...

My opinion on this direction they took certain scenes was a direct comparison to the restored film print I just screened this past weekend. When was the last time you saw this film in a theater setting?

But the thing is, the "restored print" came from the same 4K date files as the BD. If the lab processing on the print was done 100% correctly, it should look the same as the BD, which is simply a 1080P High Definition downconversion of the exact same 4K date files that were used to create the restored 35mm prints. Since Robert Harris- who actually did the restoration- has already said that the BDs accurately reflect the 4K restored digital files, then I can only surmise that if the print you saw looked different, it was either an issue with the processing of that print by the lab, or a problem with the projection.

Vincent

...
Second, I know for a fact that I know more about the process of film restoration, 4k scanning and digital film grading than Francis Ford Coppola, Willis or any director / DP. Its what I do every day. How often do they do it?...

I don't know how often they do it, but the real question is, how often does Robert Harris do it? Do you know more about the process of restoring classic films than he does? Because, after all, he was the man who oversaw this entire restoration project.

So, do you know more than him?

Vincent

Because that is a film that does have a very deliberate look.

And 10, 20, 30 years from now when technology "improves" and the look is altered from its original look at the helm of technicians and with the blessing of the director it may not be universally embraced.

DavidHir is having a hissy fit because someone's opinion on the quality of the restoration does not reflect his own because after all he watched the restoration DVD.

Its been changed and I'm not a fan of some of the changes. The majority of the movie looks excellent and true to form. But the added color in some scenes looks is an example of overusing the current technology in my opinion.

I don't know how often they do it, but the real question is, how often does Robert Harris do it? Do you know more about the process of restoring classic films than he does? Because, after all, he was the man who oversaw this entire restoration project.

So, do you know more than him?

Vincent

My opinion was never based on "knowing more than anyone." I stated my opinion and only volunteered my expertise and experience (for the first time ever on this forum in all my years) based on the allegation of another poster, who does not work in the business by the way, that I did not understand the process.

But the thing is, the "restored print" came from the same 4K date files as the BD. If the lab processing on the print was done 100% correctly, it should look the same as the BD, which is simply a 1080P High Definition downconversion of the exact same 4K date files that were used to create the restored 35mm prints. Since Robert Harris- who actually did the restoration- has already said that the BDs accurately reflect the 4K restored digital files, then I can only surmise that if the print you saw looked different, it was either an issue with the processing of that print by the lab, or a problem with the projection.

Vincent

Color space varies between all formats from HD video, to 4k data files to 35mm prints. There isn't going to be an "exact" match.

(checks the plane ticket prices... ) Ehhhh... I might have to bow out of this one. ^_^;

Come ON man! I'll buy the popcorn!

:)

Color space varies between all formats from HD video, to 4k data files to 35mm prints. There isn't going to be an "exact" match.

So if you admit there isn't going to be an "exact" match, how is it that you proclaim that your viewing of a 35mm print of the restoration which was made from the exact same 4K digital files as the BD is correct while the BD is not? If anything, the BD- which is a direct digital conversion from 4K to 1080P HD without having to worry about any lab variations affecting the results- would seem to be a more accurate barometer to judge by, especially since the man who actually did the restoration and color timed it to match to vintage I.B. Technicolor prints under guidance of the original filmmakers- Robert Harris- has said that the BD versions are correct.

Vincent

What's your stance on this issue? That it should all just be an exact match as you previously said or that it will all be slightly different as I "admitted?" Clarification on your part would be a nice start since you want to play police detective.

I'm not even going to bother asking if you know the color space differences of blu-ray discs and 4k files. 10 bit log 4:4:4 video versus 4:2:0, etc. Blu Ray color space is HD video space, aka, Rec.709. DCI-P3 space for film outs will not necessarily match Rec.709.

This was never about doubting the credentials of anybody who oversaw anything nor is it a judgement of their ability. Its a matter of taste and too many techie wannabes (and I emphasize wannabes) object to an individual opinion of taste.

Many many accomplished competent visual effects supervisors and artists worked diligently for years on Lucas' Special Edition Star Wars IV, V and VI. If you did not like some or even all of the changes made from the original are you doubting their ability? Are you saying you know more about visual effects than them? Than Lucas. Its absurb.

I just think some scenes were a little heavy handed with the digital manipulation of color.

Anyone else getting dejavu from the reaction to Bram Stoker's Dracula? :)

No. :D

Dracula is an awful transfer, period. Harris can defend it all he likes, that doesn't keep the old DVD from having better contrast and more accurate colors compared to EVERY shred of evidence as to what the film was "supposed" to look like (documentaries, on set photos, existing digital transfers of high quality 35mm prints, etc). Anyone defending it is doing it based on the word of the crew behind the work and isn't using the eyes their mothers' gave them.

The Godfather Part II is no such transfer.

Color space varies between all formats from HD video, to 4k data files to 35mm prints. There isn't going to be an "exact" match.

So why do you assume that the 35mm print is a more accurate representation of the restored 4k master than the Blu-ray? If anything analog film printing processes have more variables that could change the image, even a simple change in film stock, so what guarantee do you have that one transfer is a more true example of the source?

My opinion on this direction they took certain scenes was a direct comparison to the restored film print I just screened this past weekend.

So clearly the 4k master is up to snuff, if you have no complaints over the 35mm print.

I'm not even going to bother asking if you know the color space differences of blu-ray discs and 4k files. 10 bit log 4:4:4 video versus 4:2:0, etc.

Are you saying that the conversion from 4k 10-bit 4:4:4 to 1080p 8-bit 4:2:0 manipulated them in some way? If you can't handle 4:2:0 video, I'd suggest never watching video at home, and possibly staying out of AVS all together. That's typically all we, as consumers, have access to.

I just think some scenes were a little heavy handed with the digital manipulation of color.

Are you saying the Blu-ray release had its' colors manipulated after the 35mm prints were made from the exact same 4k master? That makes no sense. All the color tweaks were done during the restoration itself. Whatever digital changes were made on the 4k master would be present on the Blu-ray AND the 35mm print, period.

You're a professional, so tell me, how often does a director approved 4k master get tweaked last second before being fed into a Blu-ray/DVD encoder? I'm willing to bet "practically never", and that The Godfather Trilogy wasn't an exception.

No. :D

Dracula is an awful transfer, period. Harris can defend it all he likes, that doesn't keep the old DVD from having better contrast and more accurate colors compared to EVERY shred of evidence as to what the film was "supposed" to look like (documentaries, on set photos, existing digital transfers of high quality 35mm prints, etc). Anyone defending it is doing it based on the word of the crew behind the work and isn't using the eyes their mothers' gave them.


Harris also had nothing to do with that transfer (and it was also a film he said that he didn't know well at all) neither did Coppola who was off shooting his most recent film. Some Zoetrope rep reportedly passed along his wishes to the guys doing the transfer. Look who we have doing transfers nowadays. The guy who worked on the Patton BD who PUBLICLY stated how much he hated film grain and couldn't wait until it was a thing of the past! Whomever worked on Dracula probably really dug the work of Tim Burton on films like Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd and steered BSD thataway.

Not fair comparing the final product of Godfather trilogy to Dracula. Not fair at all.

Everyone take a breath. The Godfather and Part II "The Coppola restoration" are being shown downtown in manhattan. At the film forum

Film Forum


209 W Houston St
New York, NY 10014

Anyone wishing can go see the restored version in the theater and then compare.

:)

thanks a lot for this information, i wish there was some place like this in philly. i think i might make have trip up to ny to see these

Because that is a film that does have a very deliberate look.

And 10, 20, 30 years from now when technology "improves" and the look is altered from its original look at the helm of technicians and with the blessing of the director it may not be universally embraced.

DavidHir is having a hissy fit because someone's opinion on the quality of the restoration does not reflect his own because after all he watched the restoration DVD.

Its been changed and I'm not a fan of some of the changes. The majority of the movie looks excellent and true to form. But the added color in some scenes looks is an example of overusing the current technology in my opinion.

LOL Making a statement like you have that the BD product is technically flawed or incorrect because you don't like the color is asinine. I challenged you to simply prove are you completely full of it. :) Instead all you do is boast of being a self-proclaimed film color expert. Yeah, sure. Robert Harris who oversaw this restoration has written a lot on the subject - I suggest you actually read it because you sorely lack the knowledge of what the real experts have written on the subject of Godfather. Better yet, I suggest you personally contact Robert Harris who is accessible on some of the forums. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to respond to Penton-man's questions.

I've just read every thread I could find here regarding this release because dare I say it, I have NEVER seen any of these flicks, not in any way shape or form (yet I LOVE Goodfellas, Casino, Carlitos Way, etc), dunno why, just never caught them - from theather to home versions to cheesy edited for tv, etc. I was not going to buy this set either as I've read enough reviews (of the film content) from places I trust, as well as asking friends that are fans 'em, etc, was going to hold off for the eventual individual releases and nab only I & II. Newayz, seems like the majority of people are very pleased with the BR versions, far more than unhappy anyway. So in light of the flicks I was about to buy tues getting pretty 'heh' reviews now (Dawn of the Dead, Sarah Marshal, 40 Yr Old), I think I will spend the money on The Godfather set instead and treat myself to what everyone has always said is nothing short of masterpiece filmaking...maybe I'll still get Forgetting Sarah Marshall tues along with Iron Man, but heck with those others, The Godfather prolly has more replay value anyway! :)

I've just read every thread I could find here regarding this release because dare I say it, I have NEVER seen any of these flicks, not in any way shape or form (yet I LOVE Goodfellas, Casino, Carlitos Way, etc), dunno why, just never caught them - from theather to home versions to cheesy edited for tv, etc. I was not going to buy this set either as I've read enough reviews (of the film content) from places I trust, as well as asking friends that are fans 'em, etc, was going to hold off for the eventual individual releases and nab only I & II. Newayz, seems like the majority of people are very pleased with the BR versions, far more than unhappy anyway. So in light of the flicks I was about to buy tues getting pretty 'heh' reviews now (Dawn of the Dead, Sarah Marshal, 40 Yr Old), I think I will spend the money on The Godfather set instead and treat myself to what everyone has always said is nothing short of masterpiece filmaking...maybe I'll still get Forgetting Sarah Marshall tues along with Iron Man, but heck with those others, The Godfather prolly has more replay value anyway! :)

Your first time seeing the films and you get to see them like this? Lucky you. I don't think you'll be disappointed. The first two films are two of the best films ever made, imo. The bonus disc has a wealth of information, including interviews with a bunch of celebrities who share our love of the films. If you can still find it for around $60, it's a steal.

Thanks. =)

Target has it listed for $61, a great price indeed. I printed that out and will have BB match it (they're supposedly "not allowed" to PM with Target because they post their prices straight from Amazon, but I have yet to have them decline the match come crunch time, lol).

Cannot wait!! And after reading this debate about the color and what not, you're right, I do feel fortunate to see them now without any previous notion of what they looked liked before, etc...I get to sit back and simply enjoy the movies!

Thanks. =)

Target has it listed for $61, a great price indeed. I printed that out and will have BB match it (they're supposedly "not allowed" to PM with Target because they post their prices straight from Amazon, but I have yet to have them decline the match come crunch time, lol). In the event that price matching with Target ever becomes an issue, price match with Wal*Mart, whose online prices are usually very similar to Amazon.

Ummmm....what happened to the pretty pictures?

LOL Making a statement like you have that the BD product is technically flawed or incorrect because you don't like the color is asinine. I challenged you to simply prove are you completely full of it. :) Instead all you do is boast of being a self-proclaimed film color expert. Yeah, sure. Robert Harris who oversaw this restoration has written a lot on the subject - I suggest you actually read it because you sorely lack the knowledge of what the real experts have written on the subject of Godfather. Better yet, I suggest you personally contact Robert Harris who is accessible on some of the forums. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to respond to Penton-man's questions.

Look at you high and mighty. "I know Robert Harris on this forum" "he is a real expert." What does that have to do with you? You attack me for not understanding the process of restoration. After enlightening you of my profession you then shift your argument to my credibility as a film expert. I have to admit, I find it amusing.

You clearly don't understand the concepts of digital color correction and that's ok because you shouldn't. Its not your field of expertise. Its not Robert Harris' either as he is also not a digital colorist. They did an excellent job of restoring this film back to life digitally (key word here). But the application of color was a bit heavy handed in some scenes and its not consistent in my opinion.

You don't have to agree as my opinion was not shared to garner your approval. It should be enough that you simply don't think what I'm saying is true. But its not. You have to be a cyber commando on a subject you know extremely little about. But you throw around names like Coppola, Harris and Willis and that means you know. Ha ha.

and nab only I & II.

This bothers me big time-- people making up their mind on a movie before even seeing it. I know that I'm not immune to it either, but I hope you go into III with an open mind. Seems to me that the people who dislike it most are the ones who heard it was bad before they watched it. Its not the same type of movie as the other two, so it can never be compared to those.

This bothers me big time-- people making up their mind on a movie before even seeing it. I know that I'm not immune to it either, but I hope you go into III with an open mind. Seems to me that the people who dislike it most are the ones who heard it was bad before they watched it. Its not the same type of movie as the other two, so it can never be compared to those.

Coppola didnt even want to call it Godfather 3. But I will not write his prefered name, since it contain a major spoiler.

How unsurprising that one of the top advocates for assigning the "poor quality/do not buy" to any release that even approaches light DNR or EE is taking the side of the trolls.

If it wasn't for the overblown threads regarding DNR outside of the roughly 5-10 (out of nearly 800) releases with actual problems, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now, where the studios are just giving up on listening to anyone and going with the yahoos who want everything to look like the football games.


LMAO, that nail was hit square on the head

Vincent Pereira's on the money.

Everyone take a breath. The Godfather and Part II "The Coppola restoration" are being shown downtown in manhattan. At the film forum

Film Forum


209 W Houston St
New York, NY 10014

Anyone wishing can go see the restored version in the theater and then compare.

:)

Wow...very tempting. Thanks Dave!

Coppola didnt even want to call it Godfather 3. But I will not write his prefered name, since it contain a major spoiler.

Well, you could provide the answer like this? Please. :D Thanks.

Ah, okay. So Coppola and Willis should have listened to your suggestions. Gotcha!
Both G1 and G2 won oscars for best picture and are now part of American Art. So, should we have the version that the Academy saw, or the directors intent. My guess would be both.

Is it OK for JK Rowlings to go back and re edit her stories. Not majorly, but minor details?

Personally,I thought the 2001 DVDs were quite poorly done. The Blu Rays (G1 at least for now) look great in the parts I have seen. But are Xylons images a comparison of the restored DVD v Blu ray or not?

Do you know more than Jan Yarbrough ?
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=1176374&postcount=5406

I would love to meet you at 6:30 this evening. :)

I'll meet you if you're in the McLean, VA area :)

Do you work in the film industry?

well as a 15+ year qualified plumber i can say if this is the correct color that it was supposed to be from day 1, then i am glad i saw the screwed up one first...

also i did a quick google to read some info on Robert Harris...

this popped up from around 2004 about the dvd set:


Yes, they are. They were approved by Coppola himself.

Robert Harris had this to say about the DVD on HTF:

"I've just completed viewing the new DVD of The Godfather.
After reading the negative responses from this group, I was expecting the
worst.
Understanding that reproduction results can vary from player to player, I'm
seeing no problems whatsoever on my playback equipment.
The look, the texture, the color palette of the original dye transfer prints
are, IMHO, beautifully reproduced by Paramount for this video release.
Even problems which I have seen on film elements have been made transparent
via this transfer.
Other than an occasional speckling of minus density (negative dirt which
prints as clear - white - on prints), a norm on negatives which have been
mistreated and overly printed, I see no problems.
A beautiful transfer which properly represents the film."

Look at you high and mighty. "I know Robert Harris on this forum" "he is a real expert." What does that have to do with you? You attack me for not understanding the process of restoration. After enlightening you of my profession you then shift your argument to my credibility as a film expert. I have to admit, I find it amusing...

...But you throw around names like Coppola, Harris and Willis and that means you know. Ha ha.

Harris, Willis and Coppola are all satisfied with the transfer. If you aren't, that's fine. I myself have seen restorations that do things I didn't like (such as grain reduction). But at least pick a side; if the 35mm print was fine, the 4k restoration was fine, which means unless the BD was intentionally tinkered with at the encoding stage (which you never so much as suggested) the BD is fine too.

You don't need to reveal your mother's maiden name, but if you want to play the "I'm an expert" card on the internet - particularly a serious forum like AVS - you either need to put up or shut up. The fact that I can color correct, comb filter, IVTC and upscale VHS tapes doesn't make me a professional analog video restoration expect, but I don't claim to be one either.

I'm not surprised that Harris said the old DVDs looked like the dye transfer prints, which doesn't mean that they look the way they could/should have compared to a full blown meticulous restoration. What would they have look like? Cropped 16mm prints with optically printed Portugese subtitles? ;)

Well, you could provide the answer like this? Please. :D Thanks.
The original title was going to be...
The Death of Michael Corleone

Harris, Willis and Coppola are all satisfied with the transfer. If you aren't, that's fine. I myself have seen restorations that do things I didn't like (such as grain reduction). But at least pick a side; if the 35mm print was fine, the 4k restoration was fine, which means unless the BD was intentionally tinkered with at the encoding stage (which you never so much as suggested) the BD is fine too.

You don't need to reveal your mother's maiden name, but if you want to play the "I'm an expert" card on the internet - particularly a serious forum like AVS - you either need to put up or shut up. The fact that I can color correct, comb filter, IVTC and upscale VHS tapes doesn't make me a professional analog video restoration expect, but I don't claim to be one either.

I'm not surprised that Harris said the old DVDs looked like the dye transfer prints, which doesn't mean that they look the way they could/should have compared to a full blown meticulous restoration. What would they have look like? Cropped 16mm prints with optically printed Portugese subtitles? ;)

umm he says right at the bottom please read it,

"I see no problems.
A beautiful transfer which properly represents the film."

so which is it? why now 5yrs on is this not right? because its now blu?

What's your stance on this issue? That it should all just be an exact match as you previously said or that it will all be slightly different as I "admitted?" Clarification on your part would be a nice start since you want to play police detective.

Hey, you're the one making accusations based on your viewing of the "restored print" vs. the BD. I was simply pointing out that the restored print was derived from the same 4K digital files as the BD, and the man who oversaw the 4K restoration has publically stated that the BD accurately reflects those 4K restored files, which were color timed to match archival I.B. Technicolor prints that Gordon Willis approved.

I'm not even going to bother asking if you know the color space differences of blu-ray discs and 4k files. 10 bit log 4:4:4 video versus 4:2:0, etc.

I love how you like to throw around your expertise when it suits you in order to try and invalidate the opinions of folks who oppose you, but you continue to refuse to address the simple issue at the heart of this- that Robert Harris has said that the BDs are an accurate representation of the 4K restored digital files which were color timed to match archival I.B. Technicolor prints that were approved by Gordon Willis.

This was never about doubting the credentials of anybody who oversaw anything nor is it a judgement of their ability. Its a matter of taste and too many techie wannabes (and I emphasize wannabes) object to an individual opinion of taste.

You never doubted credentials? Allow me to quote one of your earlier posts in this thread:

From post #59, written by you:

"I know for a fact that I know more about the process of film restoration, 4k scanning and digital film grading than Francis Ford Coppola, Willis or any director / DP. Its what I do every day. How often do they do it?"

Yeah, you're not doubting their credentials at all...

Many many accomplished competent visual effects supervisors and artists worked diligently for years on Lucas' Special Edition Star Wars IV, V and VI. If you did not like some or even all of the changes made from the original are you doubting their ability? Are you saying you know more about visual effects than them? Than Lucas. Its absurb.

What does STAR WARS have to do with this?

I just think some scenes were a little heavy handed with the digital manipulation of color.

And yet the restored print you saw that was created from those same "digitally manipulated" 4K files as the BD looked fine. Okay...

Feel free to attack my "credentials" (and then claim that you aren't attacking my credentials or anybody else's) in your follow up.

Vincent

umm he says right at the bottom please read it,

"I see no problems.
A beautiful transfer which properly represents the film."

so which is it? why now 5yrs on is this not right? because its now blu?

Robert Harris recently addressed his earlier comments on the old DVD set on hometheaterforum:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3436923-post193.html

Vincent

So, Harris basically said what I said: That the old DVDs looked like the non-restored prints that existed circa 2004, before the full blown restoration. :)

Robert Harris recently addressed his earlier comments on the old DVD set on hometheaterforum:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3436923-post193.html

Vincent

5yrs ago about the dvd:

"The look, the texture, the color palette of the original dye transfer prints
are, IMHO, beautifully reproduced by Paramount for this video release."

bluray version:

"All work was performed with digital data side by side with original dye transfer reference prints of GF 1 and GF 2"

i read him basically saying the same thing that he did for the dvd set, except they look totally different in the color timing? Coppola gave his blessing 5yrs ago too....

ah well whatever...

ah well whatever...
Did you even read the link he posted before responding? If you're not even going to try to understand what's going on here, I don't see why anyone else should bend over backwards trying to explain it to you. You either get it or you don't.

FWIW, here's the pertinent part of the post from that link: (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3436923-post193.html)

At that time, based upon the reproduction values of standard def DVD, the final product, although still problematic, was the closest that the film could be brought technologically to the desired look. From an overall point of view, and with an understanding that grain would be turning to video noise, that release was quite acceptable, with color and densities at least watchable. I, for one, was thrilled to be able to purchase a copy. With all of the problems being faced taken into account, this was a good release.

We have now far exceeded what those elements permitted, and the combination of a return to extant original negative elements combined with a myriad of quality dupes, all scanned at 4k, corrected at that same resolution and then down-rezzed to HD, allows us to create a product today that was previously unattainable. All of this occurring under the watchful eyes of Mr. Coppola, Gordon Willis,ASC, Allen Daviau, ASC and Bob Raring, the original color timer of The Godfather Part III. These films could not have been restored without them.

For the record, we do not work from memory. All work was performed with digital data side by side with original dye transfer reference prints of GF 1 and GF 2, as well as an original Eastman print of GF 3 and the guidance of Mr. Raring, the original color timer.

Perhaps if you'd read that before replying, you'd be able to contribute more than "ah well whatever..."

Just rented and watched part 1 and 2 on blu ray the last two nights. I have problems with the part 2 disc in that some brightly lit scenes have more details than the dimly lit ones. To me, it looks unbalanced. I know it has to do with the material but that's my observation.

For now, I won't be buying the blu ray set after just watching it two days ago. I remember buying the DVD set for $80 when it first came out and now you can buy just DVD part 1 and 2 for $14 and skip part 3 altogether.

I'm gonna wait for part 1 and 2 blu ray come out and buy them at a lower price later.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/8dd5adbf.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/b4db8afb.png

I have to stop coming to these threads till my disks get here. I know they only shipped on Tuesday and I was pretty calm up till now. That is till I saw those last two caps. Now I feel like a junky waiting for a hit. Are my disks ever going to get here?

I for one appreciate the great work done on these films. I have only had time to watch the first one on BR so far and I was blown away by the quality and the fact it looks like film and not video. Having been into Home theater since 1990 the one thing I always looked for in a transfer on laserdisc was the look of film over video which in my opinion is what HT is about, bringing the movie going experience home.

I hope everyone enjoys these films as much as I do and I cannot wait to watch the second one.

Later Everyone

Because that is a film that does have a very deliberate look.

And 10, 20, 30 years from now when technology "improves" and the look is altered from its original look at the helm of technicians and with the blessing of the director it may not be universally embraced.


Its been changed and I'm not a fan of some of the changes. The majority of the movie looks excellent and true to form. But the added color in some scenes looks is an example of overusing the current technology in my opinion.

You may be in the minority here at AVS. But I respect your opinion. The changes in color, contrast and brightness timing in some scenes may be too jarring for someone to accept right away.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/0d2c524b.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/6a36774d.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/ad88a770.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/20dba10f.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/62252b24.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Godfather%20II/1512cb7b.png

My favorite American movie and what a beautiful transfer(not the best looking catalog title though, the source is what it is)
The film is so gorgeous at times, especially the Italian and Cuba scenes.