I am scratching my head on this one. The article is long, I will post one of the head scratcher parts. The ENTIRE article can be found here


http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/David_Krauss/Warner_Brothers/Industry_Trends/Blu_About_The_Slow_Release_of_Classic_Titles_On_Blu-ray_Take_Heart!/2502




"Perfection, he explains, doesn't mean compromising a film's original elements, such as grain structure, and Feltenstein is adamant that WHV does not condone such tampering, nor does it allow The Motion Picture Imaging Group, the company that produces its transfers, to artificially enhance images or apply digital noise reduction to achieve a more modern, sleek look. Black-and-white films of the 1930s and 1940s tend to exhibit more grain than movies made in the '50s and '60s, and sometimes that grain looks amplified when projected on a high-def display. When doing transfers, Feltenstein says, "we keep the grain, but get rid of every piece of non-photographic originated dirt we can."

Warner does a better job than most studios on classics. Fox would be the king of wax. Speaking of wax, has Universal released anything before 1950 on high-def?

Warner does a better job than most studios on classics. Fox would be the king of wax. Speaking of wax, has Universal released anything before 1950 on high-def?

So wait, your interpretation is there is no tampering just with old movies?

So he should have said "We dont condone tampering with the oldies, just everything else!"

George Feltenstein has been the best in the business at the classics for twenty years now. I want to believe him.

So he should have said "We dont condone tampering with the oldies, just everything else!"
That's exactly what he should have said. Hell I've been saying it for a year, Warner sucks but they do a great job with their classic catalog titles.
How the west was won, Blazing Saddles, and LA Confidential all look fantastic.

TDK on the other hand doesn't look as good as those.

Warner does a better job than most studios on classics. Fox would be the king of wax. Speaking of wax, has Universal released anything before 1950 on high-def?
I think you're off base about Fox there. AFAIK, the only two releases from Fox that have any DNR whatsoever were titles that were contracted out. Nothing else from Fox on Blu-ray, to my knowledge, has DNR issues.

Warner has handled their few classics on Blu-ray quite well to my knowledge...admittingly I've not viewed them yet. While not classics in the same sense, I can state the Dirty Harry and Eastwood movies I've seen were handled very well. However, it's true many of their catalog titles suffer from filtering and the often low bit rates probably don't help either. I think part of the problem is some of these products were in the pipeline a long time ago and are residual problems. Let's see how things progress throughout the year.

Fox has done a very good job on their catalog titles for the most part (exceptions like Patton, of course) - the ones I've been viewing have grain well intact.

Sound issues have also drawn ire from many consumers hungry for high-def audio on Golden Age films. Some have complained about the lack of a Dolby TrueHD track on 'Casablanca' and the upcoming 'An American in Paris.' Feltenstein insists he will always try to fashion an HD audio track, but only if it can be created naturally through the film's original multiple channel recordings. Both 'Casablanca' and 'An American in Paris' were recorded in mono, so monaural tracks were used on their respective Blu-ray discs to preserve each film's authenticity.

So use LPCM 2.0 or TrueHD 2.0, genius. Bandai Visual and most other Japanese studios don't have any problem using it on their mono and stereo releases. Or at least use a higher bitrate if you're going to use Dolby Digital, 192kbps just isn't enough, even if it's just one channel's worth of information.

I think you're off base about Fox there. AFAIK, the only two releases from Fox that have any DNR whatsoever were titles that were contracted out. Nothing else from Fox on Blu-ray, to my knowledge, has DNR issues.

Predator 2 has a bit of EE and DNR, although that's so far only been released in Europe and Japan.

Universal and New Line are the king and queen of wax by far although Paramount is gaining speed.

i want to know why so many think the dark knight looks bad and why was it so hard to spell the dam name its not TDK. yeah WB is not my favorite studio low ass bit rate movies if there trying lets see what thet got Bonnie & Clyde was allmost perfect

Same reason people type WB instead of Warner Brothers--it's faster, and in the appropriate context people will understand what you mean.

Same reason people type WB instead of Warner Brothers--it's faster, and in the appropriate context people will understand what you mean.

too be honest never thought of that my bad :cool:

I think you're off base about Fox there. AFAIK, the only two releases from Fox that have any DNR whatsoever were titles that were contracted out. Nothing else from Fox on Blu-ray, to my knowledge, has DNR issues.

Fox titles with DNR issues:
The Happening
The Longest Day (1962)
Patton (1970)
Predator 2 (1990)
Street Kings (2008) (minor)
The middle 3 are transfer based. The other two most likely DI based.
Fox titles are usually free of blatant DNR issues. On the other hand they have two of the worst howlers as well.

I am scratching my head on this one. The article is long, I will post one of the head scratcher parts. The ENTIRE article can be found here.

Nothing strange really, the rumor that Warner DNR their movies comes from member board like this. And there are no real proof presented for that fact.

Just continious reapeting until its regarded as a fact.

Remember when someone took a screencap from the apple trailer of "The Departed" and compared it to the HD/BD release. The problem was that the Apple trailer had sharpening applied in post. So it looked sharper, but it was the one that was filtered.

TDK is of course a rare exception, but that wasnt really studio policy but the way the master looked.

They don't condone tampering with the grain. They just strangle the bitrate so the grain will either be lost among the compression artifacts, or has to be pre-filtered. :rolleyes:

I will admit that they've never released any real waxjobs, and they're to be commended for that, but that their classics are all problem free is absolutely ridiculous. The typical Warner catalogue release looks fairly soft, high frequency-filtered, often grain-reduced, but rarely waxy. Some scenes have more grain, others less, like they're arbitrarily selecting scenes to filter.

It's like that article about Blade Runner where they said they were reducing the grain on certain scenes to bring them in line with the rest, only they're not bringing them in line, they're reducing too much and bringing them out of line in the other direction.

The number of older Warner titles with fine and/or very consistent grain that look completely untampered with, are few and far between. Plus even then there's always the potential for compression issues.

They don't condone tampering with the grain. They just strangle the bitrate so the grain will either be lost among the compression artifacts, or has to be pre-filtered. :rolleyes:


If they could handle the massive grain in 300, bitrate doesnt seem to be a big problem for this issue.

Remember when someone took a screencap from the apple trailer of "The Departed" and compared it to the HD/BD release. The problem was that the Apple trailer had sharpening applied in post. So it looked sharper, but it was the one that was filtered.
Yes, of course, it was the trailer that was sharpened. There's no chance the BD was filtered.

Never mind that they've had trouble with artifact-free grain compression at just below 20 Mbps and many movies from that era were around 13-14 Mbps.

Never mind that there were several different movies that all exhibited similar looks.

Never mind that they were all from Warner and no other studio seemed as affected.

It's like someone said a while ago: How fortunate that Warner happens to have all the movies that don't require high bitrates.

And 300 is quite good and somewhat of an oddity, but it isn't exactly artifact free.

I will admit that they've never released any real waxjobs, and they're to be commended for that, but that their classics are all problem free is absolutely ridiculous. The typical Warner catalogue release looks fairly soft, high frequency-filtered, often grain-reduced, but rarely waxy.

Seconded. The Warner apologism on this forum is totally irrational.

Who's a better batter, the one with a higher batting average but no home runs or the one with some strikeouts but a lot more home runs?

(sorry if I'm inaccurate with the baseball lingo - I'm European!)

Yes, of course, it was the trailer that was sharpened. There's no chance the BD was filtered.

Never mind that they've had trouble with artifact-free grain compression at just below 20 Mbps and many movies from that era were around 13-14 Mbps.

Never mind that there were several different movies that all exhibited similar looks.

Never mind that they were all from Warner and no other studio seemed as affected.

It's like someone said a while ago: How fortunate that Warner happens to have all the movies that don't require high bitrates.

And 300 is quite good and somewhat of an oddity, but it isn't exactly artifact free.

Completely agree.

I will admit that they've never released any real waxjobs...

Have a look at the screenshots here:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=436&show=review

Yes, of course, it was the trailer that was sharpened. There's no chance the BD was filtered.


The trailer was sharpend (very common for trailers) Test yourself and apply sharpening to the BD. And you see how close they look.


Never mind that they've had trouble with artifact-free grain compression at just below 20 Mbps and many movies from that era were around 13-14 Mbps.


Every movie has artifacts if you look hard enough, the question is what does the movie look during playback.


Never mind that there were several different movies that all exhibited similar looks.


Thats how film usually looks when you dont apply sharpening filters.


Never mind that they were all from Warner and no other studio seemed as affected.


Why does the Disney version of the Prestige looks so close to the Warner version of the prestige, if Warner filters their movies and Disney dont?


It's like someone said a while ago: How fortunate that Warner happens to have all the movies that don't require high bitrates.


Bitrate isnt determined that way. Just because a movie is 27GB large doesnt equal that it has to be 27GB large to hit transparency.

Yes you can feed a movie with more bits, but after a while its just dimishing returns. So the movies ABR is directly linked to the bitbudget that is given the movie, not the ABR the PQ demands.

Remember BDs was from the beginning designed for Mpeg2 compression, not AVC or VC1.


And 300 is quite good and somewhat of an oddity, but it isn't exactly artifact free.

Neither is movies with alot higher bitrate. Because bitrate isnt the only variable that effects PQ.

The orginal movie, the mastering, precompression, encoding tools, workhours, compressionist skills, nr of passes.

And no bitrate in the world can make a movie like Pale Rider looks like High School musical 3.

And no bitrate in the world can make a movie like Pale Rider looks like High School musical 3.

Nice strawman there. I don't think anybody here is asking for or expecting that.

Warner are hit and miss.

Some releases look fabulous and film like and faithful to the original elements but other releases look poor and a number would fall into the average looking could be better category.

Recent release that is very poor would appear to be A History Of Violence.....Now ok it's New Line but Warner now controls them and i would expect controls their releases since they have now dropped 7.1 DTS Master Audio which indicates Warner is in control.

Like others have said i too feel Warner likes to sometimes drop the bitrate too low and the grain structure can often fall apart when that happens - Sometimes i wonder if they are experimenting with their new tools to see how low they can go and i wish they would experiment and see how high they can go instead. This isn't always the case though so like i said it's currently hit and miss with Warner.

Bitrate is a variable that affects grain structure and too low a bitrate will result in a less than satisfactory image no matter how good the compressionist working on the transfer is. Now i'm not a bitrate fanatic but i recognize that fact.

Who's a better batter, the one with a higher batting average but no home runs or the one with some strikeouts but a lot more home runs?

(sorry if I'm inaccurate with the baseball lingo - I'm European!)

As a Yankees fan, I would modify that analogy to a Derek Jeter vs. A-Roid argument. One can actually hit when it counts, while the other knocks many home runs when the team is already ahead by 10 runs. :p

Yeah, we need to keep the baseball analogies out of this thread.

Nice strawman there. I don't think anybody here is asking for or expecting that.

I think "some" believe that bitrate effects the movie more then it really does.

That they forget that there are so many other factors involved in the percieved PQ.

If anyone list a movie that they think looks good and a title they dont think looks good.

We can break down each movies component to easier evaluate whats the difference is.

So use LPCM 2.0 or TrueHD 2.0, genius.

No kidding. It's as if he really believes that uncompressed or lossless digital audio only works for multichannel tracks. Given the situation with Being There, someone at Warner knows that this isn't the case.

seconded. The warner apologism on this forum is totally irrational.



+1

That they forget that there are so many other factors involved in the percieved PQ.


Precisely (scanning/remastering/color correction/compression).

Hence, if the studio neglects any one of those steps (including being stingy with your bitrates), the result will be inferior.

I think "some" believe that bitrate effects the movie more then it really does.

That they forget that there are so many other factors involved in the percieved PQ.

If anyone list a movie that they think looks good and a title they dont think looks good.

We can break down each movies component to easier evaluate whats the difference is.
I have to agree with you. The worst Blu-ray transfer I've seen to date is BFI's encode of Salo. This according to BD info is encoded in AVC/MPEG-4 with average video bitrate of 20 Mbps and peak 38 Mbps, but is riddled with smeared, filtered, and heaven knows what other types of artifacts.

I have to agree with you. The worst Blu-ray transfer I've seen to date is BFI's encode of Salo. This according to BD info is encoded in AVC/MPEG-4 with average video bitrate of 20 Mbps and peak 38 Mbps, but is riddled with smeared, filtered, and heaven knows what other types of artifacts.

Because the scan was botched. See Torsten Kaiser's posts.

Remember the hi-end audio motto, "a sound system is as good as the worst of its components"?

Fox titles with DNR issues:
The Happening
The Longest Day (1962)
Patton (1970)
Predator 2 (1990)
Street Kings (2008) (minor)
The middle 3 are transfer based. The other two most likely DI based.
Fox titles are usually free of blatant DNR issues. On the other hand they have two of the worst howlers as well.
Yes, and Patton and The Longest Day were the two titles they contracted out. And if The Happening and Street Kings were DI based than the only one they're directly responsible for would be Predator 2, a movie that hasn't even been released on Blu-ray over here.

Hopefully they've learned their lesson and they won't be contracting out anymore work to the people who botched those two releases.

It's pretty sad that less than 5% of Fox releases (6 out of over 120) had serious DNR issues, with 2 of those 6 contracted out, yet some people still believe that they're the "kings of wax".

Nothing strange really, the rumor that Warner DNR their movies comes from member board like this. And there are no real proof presented for that fact..
Some titles' look speaks for itself. For example Twister. That transfer is definitely filtered, whether they deny it or not.

Yes, and Patton and The Longest Day were the two titles they contracted out. And if The Happening and Street Kings were DI based than the only one they're directly responsible for would be Predator 2, a movie that hasn't even been released on Blu-ray over here.

Hopefully they've learned their lesson and they won't be contracting out anymore work to the people who botched those two releases.


I believe the company who worked on Patton and The Longest Day also worked on Kingdom of Heaven which looks great despite using the older MPEG 2 codec.

Therefore it was a worker for the company who did it and who is probably now working at McDonald's serving fast food.

For me Paramount are the worst studio for catalogue releases but you know Warner definately filter some releases.

Fox and Sony are the best studio's ( i think )

It's pretty sad that less than 5% of Fox releases (6 out of over 120) had serious DNR issues, with 2 of those 6 contracted out, yet some people still believe that they're the "kings of wax".
They are not, more the high price kings. :)

Neither is movies with alot higher bitrate.
They're still better than most of Warner's titles. But if you want to believe that the issues with their products are all because they were simply unlucky and none of the films could look any better no matter what, then fine. Personally I've seen enough of a systematic difference between Warner and most of the other big studios to not give them the benefit of the doubt.

And just to be clear I don't really care if the issues are due to the mastering people, the tools or the compressionists, I was just using bitrate as a scapegoat since it's likely to be one of the major influences. Although I'm beginning to give less and less credence to that. Given what other studios have managed at similar bitrates I'm tempted to say Warner is simply lazy and sucks.

Still, there's no need to even be playing around and trying to optimize for 15-20 Mbps to begin with when you've got 50GB of space. Oh wait, that's right, I forgot. Warner only has 25. :p

They are not, more the high price kings. :)

As I said, I'm more comfortable paying $23 for Raging Bull than $15 for Amadeus.

I believe the company who worked on Patton and The Longest Day also worked on Kingdom of Heaven which looks great despite using the older MPEG 2 codec.

Therefore it was a worker for the company who did it and who is probably now working at McDonald's serving fast food.

The order to perform grain removal on Patton came directly from Fox.

The order to perform grain removal on Patton came directly from Fox.

That's like you tell your son to get a haircut and he up and shaves his head. 'But, dad, you told me to get a haircut!'

Using 300 as an example of a Warner title with good grain structure isn't a very good arguement since the grain was artificially added in post production.

Firstly it's sad state of things when Warner HOME VIDEO needs a cheerleader!

Blu ray is a core business for them.

Perhaps they are catering to folks with sub 60 inch flat panel systems.

Firstly it's sad state of things when Warner HOME VIDEO needs a cheerleader!

Blu ray is a core business for them.

Perhaps they are catering to folks with sub 60 inch flat panel systems.

For Amadeus my guess would be that the master was in bad shape and this is the best they could offer without a major restoration.

+1

Seconded. The Warner apologism on this forum is totally irrational.

+2. They are an embarrassment to High Definition.

That they forget that there are so many other factors involved in the percieved PQ.

If anyone list a movie that they think looks good and a title they dont think looks good.

We can break down each movies component to easier evaluate whats the difference is.

Well we could look at the Lionsgate edition of Rambo and then look at the Warner German edition of Rambo which they call John Rambo.

There is a thread out there with pictures which show the Warner edition had grain reduction applied and less detail as a result. Easy to evaluate that DNR was done in order so Warner could use lower bitrates as grain needs a higher bitrate to stay intact. Otherwise why apply the grain reduction ?

I think this happened on a number of Warner titles.

Using 300 as an example of a Warner title with good grain structure isn't a very good arguement since the grain was artificially added in post production.

It doesnt really matter for the encoder if the grain got there in post. Unless the encoder itselfs adds the grain during the encode.

Well we could look at the Lionsgate edition of Rambo and then look at the Warner German edition of Rambo which they call John Rambo.

There is a thread out there with pictures which show the Warner edition had grain reduction applied and less detail as a result. Easy to evaluate that DNR was done in order so Warner could use lower bitrates as grain needs a higher bitrate to stay intact. Otherwise why apply the grain reduction ?

I think this happened on a number of Warner titles.

While I agree that one screencap of the warner encode with Rambo could be better, its not evidence that DNR was applied to the movie.

And if you look at the lionsgate encode, its gets even more strange that the Warner encode was DNRed?

Firstly it's sad state of things when Warner HOME VIDEO needs a cheerleader!

Blu ray is a core business for them.

Perhaps they are catering to folks with sub 60 inch flat panel systems.

For Amadeus my guess would be that the master was in bad shape and this is the best they could offer without a major restoration.

If they were removing grain and such wouldn't that be(by thier thinking) more for guys with bigger displays?(60"+)
Not the other way around like you are saying.

They're still better than most of Warner's titles. But if you want to believe that the issues with their products are all because they were simply unlucky and none of the films could look any better no matter what, then fine. Personally I've seen enough of a systematic difference between Warner and most of the other big studios to not give them the benefit of the doubt.


Warner release a much greater variaty then other studios. Many studios hold back releases because the movies are in such bad shape. Its not fair to say that Warner releases are much worse when they give us alot of quality movies (in terms of movie and not PQ) when another studio wouldnt even release a movie like that. When a studio like Disney mostly gives us Bruckheimer popcorn movies.

Yes Bruckheimer movies usually are more demomaterial in terms of PQ and AQ, when you look on how the production was done.


Still, there's no need to even be playing around and trying to optimize for 15-20 Mbps to begin with when you've got 50GB of space. Oh wait, that's right, I forgot. Warner only has 25. :p

I prefer BD25 with warner prices, over BD50 with some other studios prices. And since I dont believe it effects the final PQ. Its just something that looks impressive on paper.

And if bitrate really was important, how come so many Warner movies looks so good, with the same bitrate as lesser looking Warner titles.

The order to perform grain removal on Patton came directly from Fox.

Not to be a jerk, but what is the source for this?

Please dont say "Some super secret fox guy I know":D

Warner release a much greater variaty then other studios. Many studios hold back releases because the movies are in such bad shape. Its not fair to say that Warner releases are much worse when they give us alot of quality movies (in terms of movie and not PQ) when another studio wouldnt even release a movie like that. When a studio like Disney mostly gives us Bruckheimer popcorn movies.

Yes Bruckheimer movies usually are more demomaterial in terms of PQ and AQ, when you look on how the production was done.

Oh come on. Do you want me to count how many Steven Seagal movies Warner has put out?

I have in my collection non-Bruckheimer titles from Disney such as Kill Bill (with very good PQ), Nightmare Before Christmas, and Sleeping Beauty. Fox is putting out great indie movies (Donnie Darko, Sideways) as well as classics (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Sand Pebbles, Planet of the Apes).

Warner does have a stronger catalog (especially if we include their MGM and RKO library). Which makes it all the more infuriating when they neuter it upon release.

Oh come on. Do you want me to count how many Steven Seagal movies Warner has put out?


Im not saying that every Warner movie is a good one, but have given us alot of movies I doubt would had made it to BD if another studio controlled them.



I have in my collection non-Bruckheimer titles from Disney such as Kill Bill (with very good PQ), Nightmare Before Christmas, and Sleeping Beauty. Fox is putting out great indie movies (Donnie Darko, Sideways) as well as classics (The Day the Earth Stood Still, Sand Pebbles, Planet of the Apes).


I also have non Bruckheimer Disney movies, and it is not a rule that a movie must be produced by him to look good. But his movies looks really good and and large % of the Disney movies are produced by him.

And the main reason is the lighting. He lights his movies like they were a commercial. And yes that makes wonders for the percived PQ of a movie, and the biggest reason why you get 3D pop of a movie.

Sure there is nothing that limits any other studio to use the same type of lighting, but they doesnt seem to use it as consistent as Bruckheimer does in his movies. Some directors doesnt even like to light a movie that heavy since they think it looks artifical, but if they doesnt light enough the footage becomes very flat and 2D.

Im hoping that I some day can put out here a visual presentation of the impact of lighting.

Getting back to the salient issue of the article, the lack of pre-70's classics on BD. It always amazes me that there are a number of British releases of things like AFFAIR TO REMEMBER, SEVENTH SEAL, ON THE WATERFRONT, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, BLACK NARCISSUS, STRAW DOGS, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Why is it that a market a fraction of the size of ours can support releases the studios won't touch here?

I'd actually rather see solid transfers vintage catalog titles, even if not in perfect shape than see them miss the HD boat entirely. In spite of specks and color fluctuation in my import BD of BLACK NARCISSUS, it looks like film warts and all, and is still better than any DVD I've seen.

Getting back to the salient issue of the article, the lack of pre-70's classics on BD. It always amazes me that there are a number of British releases of things like AFFAIR TO REMEMBER, SEVENTH SEAL, ON THE WATERFRONT, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, BLACK NARCISSUS, STRAW DOGS, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Why is it that a market a fraction of the size of ours can support releases the studios won't touch here?

I'd actually rather see solid transfers vintage catalog titles, even if not in perfect shape than see them miss the HD boat entirely. In spite of specks and color fluctuation in my import BD of BLACK NARCISSUS, it looks like film warts and all, and is still better than any DVD I've seen.

I surely would like to see some screencaps of Straw Dogs and Affair to Remember !
Anybody already did the work ?

Despite some technical issues Black Narcissus looks nice indeed, with film grain intact and all.

Not to be a jerk, but what is the source for this?

Please dont say "Some super secret fox guy I know":D

Josh Z is in the know. :D

They don't condone tampering with the grain. They just strangle the bitrate so the grain will either be lost among the compression artifacts, or has to be pre-filtered. :rolleyes:

I will admit that they've never released any real waxjobs, and they're to be commended for that, but that their classics are all problem free is absolutely ridiculous. The typical Warner catalogue release looks fairly soft, high frequency-filtered, often grain-reduced, but rarely waxy. Some scenes have more grain, others less, like they're arbitrarily selecting scenes to filter..


The number of older Warner titles with fine and/or very consistent grain that look completely untampered with, are few and far between. Plus even then there's always the potential for compression issues.

I'd say there's only two live action films unmolested from them: HTWWW and Poltergeist

Yes, of course, it was the trailer that was sharpened. There's no chance the BD was filtered.

Never mind that they've had trouble with artifact-free grain compression at just below 20 Mbps and many movies from that era were around 13-14 Mbps.

Never mind that there were several different movies that all exhibited similar looks.

Never mind that they were all from Warner and no other studio seemed as affected.

It's like someone said a while ago: How fortunate that Warner happens to have all the movies that don't require high bitrates.

And 300 is quite good and somewhat of an oddity, but it isn't exactly artifact free.

+1

Seconded. The Warner apologism on this forum is totally irrational.

Who's a better batter, the one with a higher batting average but no home runs or the one with some strikeouts but a lot more home runs?

Completely agreed.

They're still better than most of Warner's titles. But if you want to believe that the issues with their products are all because they were simply unlucky and none of the films could look any better no matter what, then fine. Personally I've seen enough of a systematic difference between Warner and most of the other big studios to not give them the benefit of the doubt.

And just to be clear I don't really care if the issues are due to the mastering people, the tools or the compressionists, I was just using bitrate as a scapegoat since it's likely to be one of the major influences. Although I'm beginning to give less and less credence to that. Given what other studios have managed at similar bitrates I'm tempted to say Warner is simply lazy and sucks.

Still, there's no need to even be playing around and trying to optimize for 15-20 Mbps to begin with when you've got 50GB of space. Oh wait, that's right, I forgot. Warner only has 25. :p

+1

+2. They are an embarrassment to High Definition.

++++++1

Warner release a much greater variaty then other studios. Many studios hold back releases because the movies are in such bad shape.

And in my opinion they are very much right to do that.

Not to be a jerk, but what is the source for this?

Please dont say "Some super secret fox guy I know":D

Some super secret Fox guy I know.

Sorry. :)

That info comes from the horse's mouth. However, the current powers-that-be in charge of the studio's back catalog have a different attitude about preserving film grain.

Also interesting to note is that all of Patton's opening titles were pulled out and recreated digitally.

I also have non Bruckheimer Disney movies, and it is not a rule that a movie must be produced by him to look good. But his movies looks really good and and large % of the Disney movies are produced by him.

And the main reason is the lighting. He lights his movies like they were a commercial. And yes that makes wonders for the percived PQ of a movie, and the biggest reason why you get 3D pop of a movie.

Sure there is nothing that limits any other studio to use the same type of lighting, but they doesnt seem to use it as consistent as Bruckheimer does in his movies. Some directors doesnt even like to light a movie that heavy since they think it looks artifical, but if they doesnt light enough the footage becomes very flat and 2D.

Im hoping that I some day can put out here a visual presentation of the impact of lighting.

I would also note that lighting a movie the way Bruckheimer does is expensive and time-consuming for the production. Bruckheimer likes his movies to have a high "gloss" factor, and spends a lot of money to achieve that. The mega budgets he pours into his movies aren't all spent on star salaries and visual effects (although those are a big part of it).

Some super secret Fox guy I know.

Sorry. :)

That info comes from the horse's mouth. However, the current powers-that-be in charge of the studio's back catalog have a different attitude about preserving film grain.

Also interesting to note is that all of Patton's opening titles were pulled out and recreated digitally.


I don't suppose you know if they plan on fixing that monstrosity, do you?

I am scratching my head on this one. The article is long, I will post one of the head scratcher parts. The ENTIRE article can be found here


http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/David_Krauss/Warner_Brothers/Industry_Trends/Blu_About_The_Slow_Release_of_Classic_Titles_On_Blu-ray_Take_Heart!/2502




"Perfection, he explains, doesn't mean compromising a film's original elements, such as grain structure, and Feltenstein is adamant that WHV does not condone such tampering, nor does it allow The Motion Picture Imaging Group, the company that produces its transfers, to artificially enhance images or apply digital noise reduction to achieve a more modern, sleek look. Black-and-white films of the 1930s and 1940s tend to exhibit more grain than movies made in the '50s and '60s, and sometimes that grain looks amplified when projected on a high-def display. When doing transfers, Feltenstein says, "we keep the grain, but get rid of every piece of non-photographic originated dirt we can."

Im guessing ether he does not have a HD TV to screen W blockbusters on or he has never screened their titles on a large projection system. As reference he should take a look at one of the other studios transfers.

I'd say there's only two live action films unmolested from them: HTWWW and Poltergeist

They've done a lot more very good titles besides those, and I don't have to be an apologist to admit that.

I remain optimistic for The Wizard of Oz and Gone With The Wind.

Warner? Are you listening? Please practice what you preach when it comes to quality. Specifically PQ and AQ.

Warner? Are you listening? Please practice what you preach when it comes to quality. Specifically PQ and AQ.

And if the movie (not the transfer) isnt up to your standard, should they filter it or not release it at all?

And if the movie (not the transfer) isnt up to your standard, should they filter it or not release it at all?
That's a false dilemma.

And if the movie (not the transfer) isnt up to your standard, should they filter it or not release it at all?


I dont think his standard is all that hard to achieve. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why cant they just do it right in the first place?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Blu-ray MUST be superior to a DVD or the format should close up shop.

That is irrelevant. The salient factor is how good can it look on Blu-ray, which should be like film.

If is doesn't, it fails! These discs are not selling for $2.99. Perfection is easily attained.

Scan the film. Don't make changes.

RAH

It's pretty sad that less than 5% of Fox releases (6 out of over 120) had serious DNR issues, with 2 of those 6 contracted out, yet some people still believe that they're the "kings of wax".

I think part of that is at least one of the films ruined was one of the greatest ever made and loved by many here. It's almost like hearing about bullies on the news but suddenly it starts happening to one of your children.

Art

I dont think his standard is all that hard to achieve. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why cant they just do it right in the first place?

Movies have very different looks to them, depending on alot of factors. Most of the factor takes place even before any transfer to a digital medium occurs.

sure I want the best possible transfer aswell, but I dont think best possible transfer will make every movie to look that good that some here are requesting.

And even worse if people complain to much we risk getting edge enhancment on titles just to please the consumer.

And if the movie (not the transfer) isnt up to your standard, should they filter it or not release it at all?

Look, all I am asking is that they don't add additional things like DNR and EE, and using low bitrate transfers when there is capacity and bandwidth to spare. See the comments posted by inspector from Robert Harris. I am not a DNR freak. I actually purchased Amadeus on Blu-Ray. It is clearly superior to the DVD version, DNR and all. But I can still be disappointed, can't I? I think it is very valid that we voice our opinions even if they are not positive. I do commend Warner for releasing as many films as they have on Blu-Ray and for the diversity of their releases. But skimping on lossless tracks, video bitrate, and adding things like DNR and EE is not a commitment to quality IMHO.

Blu-Ray is a premium product. I expect more. Especially when I typically pay $10-15 more than the DVD version of the same movie.

Look, all I am asking is that they don't add additional things like DNR and EE, and using low bitrate transfers when there is capacity and bandwidth to spare.

Well I dont want DNR or EE either. Im just not convinced that Warner uses it on their movies.

As for bitrate, thats usually an effect of the bitbudget. So it shouldnt really effect the quality. If the master is good, so should the encode be, even if its on a BD25 only.

An update on HDD regarding the article:
Editor's Note - We have corrected the portion of this story relating to Warner Home Video and it's audio policies for Blu-ray releases. Mr. Feltenstein has noted that from this point forward, Warner intends to release all catalog titles with TrueHD audio tracks. Whether or not the films have multitrack audio elements, the studio believes each release deserves the absolute best audio possible.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/David_Krauss/Warner_Brothers/Industry_Trends/Blu_About_The_Slow_Release_of_Classic_Titles_On_Blu-ray_Take_Heart!_(UPDATED)/2502

+2. They are an embarrassment to High Definition.

An "embarrassment"? Really?

I don't suppose you know if they plan on fixing that monstrosity, do you?

No. Although they acknowledged that they were too aggressive with the grain removal on Patton, they were otherwise pleased with the title and (at the time I spoke to them) had no plans to remaster it.

I recall getting that assurance once before as well almost a year ago. BTW your link is broken.

Yeah, I will believe it when I see it as well, but at least they are on the record. Fixed the link. Thanks.

Editor's Note - We have corrected the portion of this story relating to Warner Home Video and it's audio policies for Blu-ray releases. Mr. Feltenstein has noted that from this point forward, Warner intends to release all catalog titles with TrueHD audio tracks. Whether or not the films have multitrack audio elements, the studio believes each release deserves the absolute best audio possible.

This is an issue that I was harping on a long time ago. It made no sense for Warner to used lossy compressed audio tracks for monaural sound, considering that there would be plenty of space for even a PCM mono track, and using lossless compression makes it an even easier choice. It only took 2+ years for Warner to come around to this idea. Slow progress is better than no progress at all!

An "embarrassment"? Really?

Yes, really.

Well I dont want DNR or EE either. Im just not convinced that Warner uses it on their movies.

I don't wanna sound like an ass, but I am entirely convinced.

They've done a lot more very good titles besides those, and I don't have to be an apologist to admit that.

I understand you, but I really haven't seen anything besides those two (considering only live action films as I noted).

I have been kindly reminded by a friend through MP of The Road Warrior and Rio Bravo. But I'm not sure I agree, maybe on Road Warrior (I would have to look up Rio Bravo again), but then again, they still screwed up with the lack of lossles audio.

No. Although they acknowledged that they were too aggressive with the grain removal on Patton, they were otherwise pleased with the title and (at the time I spoke to them) had no plans to remaster it.

Too bad.:( I love that film.

Art

Too bad.:( I love that film.

Me, too. I'd buy a fixed replacement in a heartbeat. I'd even pay MSRP.

Warner are hit and miss.
This is what happens when a huge catalog of older and newer titles are overseen by different people.

As far as Feltenstein is concerned, I wish he oversaw everything.

Im guessing ether he does not have a HD TV to screen W blockbusters on or he has never screened their titles on a large projection system. As reference he should take a look at one of the other studios transfers.
I don't believe Feltenstein oversees the entire WB catalog, although I wish he did.

Universal and New Line are the king and queen of wax by far although Paramount is gaining speed.

There's the real head-scratcher in this entire thread. :confused:



:rolleyes:

There's the real head-scratcher in this entire thread. :confused:



:rolleyes:
Actually, Universal has applied DNR to a good number of their catalog titles on Blu-ray - titles that had no DNR (or at least less) on HD-DVD.

I have in my collection non-Bruckheimer titles from Disney such as Kill Bill (with very good PQ), Nightmare Before Christmas, and Sleeping Beauty.

Let me get this straight, you are putting down WB classics while saying two DNR films and a Cartoon that Disney made to look like it was made in 2008 are better examples?
I can only assume you are basing judgements on studio labels and not output.

I pray Disney does not give Pinocchio the same treatment as Sleepy Beauty but they probably will, I prefer something closer to what the film looked like when it came out, the WB cartoons put on the Adventures of Robin Hood HD-DVD were closer to that look.

Not all of the WBs HD classics are great, but a good chunk of them are pretty damn good PQ and I dont give the New Line titles a free pass, WB bought a NL catalog with awful DNR & EE on all the titles and should stop releasing any more them until the transfer masters are redone.

Despite claims otherwise all of the studios have had mixed results on the classics and hopefully have learned from the PQ duds they have put on the market.

Me, too. I'd buy a fixed replacement in a heartbeat. I'd even pay MSRP.

Me too. This is a tremendous film,one of the best in all of film but it is just tragic.:(

Art

Feltenstein is a good man to have in the industry, especially with WB classics. I believe his statement on the first page, the one this thread is about. After visiting WB last fall and seeing the work being done on these classics on their studio lot, his statement is 100% true. Unfortunately for some people, the final product may not be the "expectation" they have in their heads - an expectation that is a false reality based on what they believe a film should look like without any educated and real reference. And then, of course, taking a next step at ranting against the release and convincing others not to purchase it when in fact it's a fine product. Oh, and I'll bet that almost 100% these opinions are made without even seeing the final product...

...give me a break.:rolleyes:

I'll join the chorus of those complaining about Warner. It's pretty sad that it's taken them this long to get the idea that lossless audio should be used even on classic titles. Now if they'd stop mucking with the picture and use BD50 (and bitrates to match) for everything we'd be set.

This is an issue that I was harping on a long time ago. It made no sense for Warner to used lossy compressed audio tracks for monaural sound, considering that there would be plenty of space for even a PCM mono track, and using lossless compression makes it an even easier choice. It only took 2+ years for Warner to come around to this idea. Slow progress is better than no progress at all!

This is good as this seems to be the only time a Warner official has publicly stated they are going the lossless audio route.

I do find it odd that they state for all catalog releases but not for all releases.

Feltenstein is a good man to have in the industry, especially with WB classics. I believe his statement on the first page, the one this thread is about. After visiting WB last fall and seeing the work being done on these classics on their studio lot, his statement is 100% true. Unfortunately for some people, the final product may not be the "expectation" they have in their heads - an expectation that is a false reality based on what they believe a film should look like without any educated and real reference. And then, of course, taking a next step at ranting against the release and convincing others not to purchase it when in fact it's a fine product. Oh, and I'll bet that almost 100% these opinions are made without even seeing the final product...

...give me a break.:rolleyes:

Is this post for real ? Do you feel that we don't know what film looks like, general look of grain structure ,real film edges (not video outlines and halos), general resolution expectations etc ?



Art

Is this post for real ? Do you feel that we don't know what film looks like, general look of grain structure ,real film edges (not video outlines and halos), general resolution expectations etc ?



Art

Dont forget the predictable DNR practice used by W:(
At least we have a handful of other studios who deliver PQ above and beyond j6p quality.

...give me a break.:rolleyes:
How arrogant can you get...

Is this post for real ? Do you feel that we don't know what film looks like, general look of grain structure ,real film edges (not video outlines and halos), general resolution expectations etc ?

Art

Hi there,

For some of you - absolutely, I believe you do. Many others, no, I believe they don't.

Although the last point you made, that I've put in bold, is a very broad comment that can get all of us, including myself, into trouble. It's our own expectations vs. reality that gets posts like these all fired up with emotions and people taking sides. I don't want to get involved with that and it gets discussions nowhere. I feel that Warner Bros. has done a fine job with many releases, not to say they are perfect, but there are some higher ups that have the 100% best intentions, but as we know it doesn't always end up that way when the final product lands in the hands of the consumer. I'm just stating my opinion and am free to do that just as everyone else here has. It has nothing to do with arrogance as one poster commented.

To be clear, this post is directed a no one in particular. My the last part of my original comment was about a general observation I've seen on many forums.

I feel that Warner Bros. has done a fine job with many releases, not to say they are perfect, but there are some higher ups that have the 100% best intentions, but as we know it doesn't always end up that way when the final product lands in the hands of the consumer. .
They have a done a (very) good job with some of their releases, a mediocre one with many and a bad one with some. The complaints are about the hit and miss nature of their output and the stubborn sticking to technical parameters that have been left behind by other major studios for their A list titles (and often B list too) because with Blu Ray, you can do better.

One thing I wonder about,

If Warner does high frequency detail removal, whats the point of remastering in 4K.

Seems like a waste of money.

Stranger things happen.....The director shoots on 35mm film with this fabulous high resolution then the cinema gets it's worn print and displays it with barely 720p level of detail sometimes. ( Same sort of ballpark for this conversation )

Thats a difference, even if multiple copys degenerates the orginal film, its still better with multiple copys from a 35mm source, then it would, if they shoot the same thing on s16.

And before DI was used, shooting 35mm eliminated the optical conversion as any other format would have to deal with.

But as a fun little test we can do. List 3 bad looking Warner titles, and list 3 good looking.

Thats a difference, even if multiple copys degenerates the orginal film, its still better with multiple copys from a 35mm source, then it would, if they shoot the same thing on s16.

And before DI was used, shooting 35mm eliminated the optical conversion as any other format would have to deal with.

But as a fun little test we can do. List 3 bad looking Warner titles, and list 3 good looking.

Define good and bad as i believe my criteria might be different than some others here who may just want eye candy and 3D "POP" ( yuck )

Define good and bad as i believe my criteria might be different than some others here who may just want eye candy and 3D "POP" ( yuck )

Your criteria is good enough :), yes PQ is a very subjective thing.

Your criteria is good enough :), yes PQ is a very subjective thing.

There is picture quality as related to how a film was shot and is supposed to look and then there is the very silly expectation some have that films should all look like HD sports presentations and i believe studios have and will still use DNR to tone down the grain structure and try and make a film "pop" more....I am against that whenever it happens.

But getting back onto the subject matter i do firmly believe Warner have used and continue to use DNR tools to tone down the grain on a number of releases so that the encode is easier to do at low bitrates and the reason for this is in my opinion experimentation for them with their new VC-1 tools and "training" for their staff and not because of the last paragraph i wrote and i believe it will eventually stop and we will see higher bitrate encodes with the finer grain intact.

Like i said on the previous page though....At the moment they are hit and miss with too many films looking average rather than outright bad and i am talking about average as in how they could look in relation to how they were shot ( not 3D POP average )

Why settle for average when you can have great ?

I know that some people have expectations that older scope shot films should be super sharp like todays digital shot films but that is never going to happen unless they apply edge enhancement and frankly we don't want that but that has nothing to do with the feeling that Warner filters some detail away when making their Blu Ray transfers.

Can i prove it....Well taking into account what i see from Sony and Fox and taking into account the type of films and camera systems used and film stock and who the director is and cinematographer one could come to possible conclusions on this matter and say that Warner do filter some of the very finest detail away.

Can i give you three good and three bad looking titles.....Probably but since you are the main person saying Warner is great and doesn't filter then i would ask you to provide the titles and indeed since they have released so many i would ask for ten really good looking unfiltered titles. ( 300 doesn't count as it's had way too much manipulation to the image in the computer )

So name me ten please.

Can i give you three good and three bad looking titles.....Probably but since you are the main person saying Warner is great and doesn't filter then i would ask you to provide the titles and indeed since they have released so many i would ask for ten really good looking unfiltered titles. ( 300 doesn't count as it's had way too much manipulation to the image in the computer )

So name me ten please.

10 is harder because Im not sure if I even watched 10 warner movies the last 3 months. And I like to have a fresh memory. But lets give it a try. This is titles I believe gives a very good representation of the "orginal" look of the film (not demo, but true to how it should look)

Blade runner, Batman begins, Last Samurai, Corpses bride, Happy feet, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, March of the penguins, Rio Bravo, Troy DC, The Prestige, The Matrix. (Oh thats 11)

Im not sure about 2001, since I never saw it in its true form (70mm) and I dont know if they went 65mm - 8K - HD or if they went 65mm - 35mm - 2K(or 4K) - HD.

10 is harder because Im not sure if I even watched 10 warner movies the last 3 months. And I like to have a fresh memory. But lets give it a try. This is titles I believe gives a very good representation of the "orginal" look of the film (not demo, but true to how it should look)

Blade runner, Batman begins, Last Samurai, Corpses bride, Happy feet, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, March of the penguins, Rio Bravo, Troy DC, The Prestige, The Matrix. (Oh thats 11)

Im not sure about 2001, since I never saw it in its true form (70mm) and I dont know if they went 65mm - 8K - HD or if they went 65mm - 35mm - 2K(or 4K) - HD.

Some may argue The Matrix has had some filtering applied and has lost the absolute very finest detail possible but anyways that would be an argument for another thread but here's a thought.....Are there any Warner titles where you believe they could look better taking into account the intended look of the film ?

I believe the final cut edition of Blade Runner has some minor edge enhancement and looks a little processed but only in some scenes....Whether thats a result of tinkering with the film for it's cinema release or not i don't know but i do know the directors cut edition looks better than the final cut which has had it's colors altered and which i dislike because of that and it also has more of a processed look in some scenes but once again thats possibly because of what they did to it for this final cut release.
( don't know though )

Repost on above comments - Actually The Final Cut edition of Blade Runner is a perfect example of a film that has had grain reduction applied.

Some may argue The Matrix has had some filtering applied and has lost the absolute very finest detail possible but anyways that would be an argument for another thread but here's a thought.....Are there any Warner titles where you believe they could look better taking into account the intended look of the film ?

The obvious Lethal Weapon, Perfect Storm etc that used 1080i masters. Or Grand Prix that wasnt scanned from the orginal negative.

And of course any 35mm movie that was scanned in 2K could benefit from a 4K rescan, but I wouldnt expect a dramatic upgrade, just a marginal one.

Then we of course have movies like Amadeus, were I have no idea how it should look, since I never saw it in theater and have no reference on how it should look. But it doesnt directly have Blade runner lighting.

I believe the final cut edition of Blade Runner has some minor edge enhancement and looks a little processed but only in some scenes....Whether thats a result of tinkering with the film for it's cinema release or not i don't know but i do know the directors cut edition looks better than the final cut which has had it's colors altered and which i dislike because of that and it also has more of a processed look in some scenes but once again thats possibly because of what they did to it for this final cut release.
( don't know though )

Blade runner, do have a digital postwork to it like DNR and Simulated Grain. (And possible alot more) But it was done with great care and is what I classify as restoration work.

As for the colors they are creative, and not much to argue about. But the final cut should have an edge since it was from the orginal negative (4K and 8K) compared to the directors cut that supposed to come from the IP(?).

I may post some screen shots at some point with Blade Runner. My big complaint about the Final Cut is it is so green that compared to the Directors Cut color gradations are just hammered into submission. This negative effect is all over. I know it was a creative choice but ........:(

Art

Feltenstein is a good man to have in the industry, especially with WB classics. I believe his statement on the first page, the one this thread is about. After visiting WB last fall and seeing the work being done on these classics on their studio lot, his statement is 100% true. Unfortunately for some people, the final product may not be the "expectation" they have in their heads - an expectation that is a false reality based on what they believe a film should look like without any educated and real reference. And then, of course, taking a next step at ranting against the release and convincing others not to purchase it when in fact it's a fine product. Oh, and I'll bet that almost 100% these opinions are made without even seeing the final product...

...give me a break.:rolleyes:

I still think that this is a sweeping comment that really is worse than some of the comments we make regarding the overall quality of some of the BD presentations. By attempting to negate our concerns by essentially saying either we don't know what it is supposed to look like or we never saw it is in fact arrogant.

Many of us have enough experience with film,great looking HD (not just BD) and even great SD that it is easy to spot manipulation. Now, of course, one could argue till the cows come home where in the chain the issues were introduced but the proof is in the pudding (the final on screen presentation).

Art

...any 35mm movie that was scanned in 2K could benefit from a 4K rescan, but I wouldnt expect a dramatic upgrade, just a marginal one.

That is correct. Think of a 4K scan akin to analogue, in that the higher res the scan, the more analogue (or that film-like feeling we all desire) the 4K master will appear. 2K cannot capture the fine grain structure of the print that a 4K scan will, which is why studios who scan at a minimum of 4K can feel comfortable with making archive prints from it for preservation purposes. But now there is the feeling that 4K isn't enough for this purpose.

I once incorrectly thought that 4K would actually preserve & reproduce quite a bit more "real" picture information from the film, delivering greater depth and fine detail that if played back on a home theater one day, it would be leaps over what we currently have. While 4K certainly does render much smaller details, it's not to the degree one would expect: it was best seen under magnification (with 35mm film - the same won't hold true for higher res. formats). It's all about preserving grain, my friends...and it does boggle the mind when grain reduction is applied for a Blu-ray release after this fact.

Currently, WB attempts to 4K at minimum, while Fox uses 2K and selects 4K on a title-by-title basis.

I may post some screen shots at some point with Blade Runner. My big complaint about the Final Cut is it is so green that compared to the Directors Cut color gradations are just hammered into submission. This negative effect is all over. I know it was a creative choice but ........:(


Nobody that argue against your own preferences. Lucklily Warner gave you every version of Blade runner.

And if you are still not happy, how much would it be worth for you to get "color corrected" version of the final cut. ;)

Nobody that argue against your own preferences. Lucklily Warner gave you every version of Blade runner.

And if you are still not happy, how much would it be worth for you to get "color corrected" version of the final cut. ;)

Ha ha ! Good question. :o

Art

And if you are still not happy, how much would it be worth for you to get "color corrected" version of the final cut. ;)

He has a color-corrected version of the final cut. What he wants is a color-miscorrected version.

Currently, WB attempts to 4K at minimum, while Fox uses 2K and selects 4K on a title-by-title basis.

Interesting. But I guess it's proof of what happens after the scan will have a bigger effect on how a lot of these BD titles look.

Is it fair to say at 4k scanning, diminishing returns has been met, or will scanning > 4k have a truly visible benefit? Is it worth it to have each title be even more terabytes in raw form to go above 4k? Especially if post-processes try to remove the very grain that the higher-res scan and increased storage sought to preserve?

i want to know why so many think the dark knight looks bad and why was it so hard to spell the dam name its not TDK. yeah WB is not my favorite studio low ass bit rate movies if there trying lets see what thet got Bonnie & Clyde was allmost perfect

Why is it so damn hard to hit the shift key? Sentences start with upper-case, and it takes even less time than typing "TDK".

Sorry...it's an old post, but I just couldn't help myself.

ILJG,

I don't think it's the point of diminishing returns, although it's easy to think of it that way. Imagine taking a photograph from your old family photo album, and putting it on a flatbed scanner. Scanning it at a particular resolution may show all of the noticable detail the print has, but if you reprint that digital file as a photo again, it won't look the same because (keeping it general) other things are lost (our eye is a great organ and notices these things). The original textured look of the photo would be lost. The goal is to scan as high as possible to preserve the original texture of the whole image element, the film, or in this case, everything that makes a photo look like a photo when you pulled it out of your family's photo album, regardless of the "clarity" quality of the content on that print. You don't want a digital scan to "look digital." Scan higher and keep it looking analogue using digital technology.

Interesting. But I guess it's proof of what happens after the scan will have a bigger effect on how a lot of these BD titles look.

Is it fair to say at 4k scanning, diminishing returns has been met, or will scanning > 4k have a truly visible benefit? Is it worth it to have each title be even more terabytes in raw form to go above 4k? Especially if post-processes try to remove the very grain that the higher-res scan and increased storage sought to preserve?

I would like to see the difference myself between going from 6 or 8k to HD resolution and from 4k, I cannot really imagine that these would be visible when the conversion from 4k to HD resolution is properly done. I think it has more to do with being done with certain titles for a very long time by capturing all the info there is on the film elements. A case in point would be scanning 70mm at 8k and early Cinemascope at 4k. With scans that are higher than 4k there would also be a master that is perfectly sutied for use with 4k digital cinema projectors which is an added bonus. For example I expect Sony to demo their 4k technology with Lawrence of Arabia when they have finished work on that title and I think I heard somewhere that there also exists a 4k version of How The West Was Won that I also would expect to look excellent.

I agree with regard to things happening after the scan. With filtering grain and high frequency detail it is quite obvious that it does not make for a better Blu-Ray to have scanned in 4k in the first place - the added high frequency detail would never make it to Disc anyway.

ILJG,

I don't think it's the point of diminishing returns, although it's easy to think of it that way. Imagine taking a photograph from your old family photo album, and putting it on a flatbed scanner. Scanning it at a particular resolution may show all of the noticable detail the print has, but if you reprint that digital file as a photo again, it won't look the same because (keeping it general) other things are lost (our eye is a great organ and notices these things). The original textured look of the photo would be lost. The goal is to scan as high as possible to preserve the original texture of the whole image element, the film, or in this case, everything that makes a photo look like a photo when you pulled it out of your family's photo album, regardless of the "clarity" quality of the content on that print. You don't want a digital scan to "look digital." Scan higher and keep it looking analogue using digital technology.

I would like to add, since film and digital is to very different medium, you must oversample to be true to the other medium. Because digital is built up with square pixels and film is built up with more round grain. So after a scan, the more you zoom in, the easier will it be to spot that its a digital cap of a chemical medium.

And it would be the same the other way around. If you have a HD screencap 1920*1080, and you transfer it to film. The film will sooner or later fail to show the pixelblocks straight edges. It wouldnt matter if you transfered it to IMAX, sooner or later it will not be good enough. Just a question on how much you zoom in.

But of course, for normal conditions you will be fine because you dont sit "that close" to the screen.

Interesting. But I guess it's proof of what happens after the scan will have a bigger effect on how a lot of these BD titles look.

While certainly alot of stuff can happen after a scan, its not proof.
Because you must take into account what happens before the scan aswell.

Lets say I film something with a 35mm cam. Is that and a 4K scan all I need to make it look reference quality?´

Here is something people can test for themself. Take you digital cam. Turn off every enhancment that you can. Take about 11 pictures.

Indoors with flash, indoors without flash, outdoors, closeup, wideschoot, overexposed shoot, underexposed shoot, indoors with sunlight, indoors with lamplight, slow shutter and fast shutter.
Then look at the pictures, they will look like they came from different cams. But its the same sensor, the same postwork, the same compression and the same resolution.

While certainly alot of stuff can happen after a scan, its not proof.
Because you must take into account what happens before the scan aswell.

Lets say I film something with a 35mm cam. Is that and a 4K scan all I need to make it look reference quality?´

Here is something people can test for themself. Take you digital cam. Turn off every enhancment that you can. Take about 11 pictures.

Indoors with flash, indoors without flash, outdoors, closeup, wideschoot, overexposed shoot, underexposed shoot, indoors with sunlight, indoors with lamplight, slow shutter and fast shutter.
Then look at the pictures, they will look like they came from different cams. But its the same sensor, the same postwork, the same compression and the same resolution.

Not to mention focus. I think it's very difficult if not impossible to properly manual focus anything beyond 2K resolution with the tiny view screens and monitors that they use during filming.

I think I heard somewhere that there also exists a 4k version of How The West Was Won that I also would expect to look excellent.

The current Blu-ray release of How the West Was Won was mastered by scanning each of the three Cinerama panels at 2k resolution.

Why didn't we get HD supplements with the Blade Runner collection?

The current Blu-ray release of How the West Was Won was mastered by scanning each of the three Cinerama panels at 2k resolution.

Yep and apparently from that ~6k version both the Blu-Ray and the 4k version are derived. That should look nice on a 4k SXRD :)

Why didn't we get HD supplements with the Blade Runner collection?

Usually is cost a big factor. By reusing the same bonusdisc as the DVD version you actually make some big money savings.

And I have seen more studios taking after that model. I think my BD of Hellboy2 supplemented a standard DVD for bonus. (Excellent since I can watch that material everywere.)

from what I hear...I can't remember if it was on a HTF WB chat night or thedigitalbits as a source, the reason why the supplements (like deleted scenes) didn't get HD on the set is because WB ran out of time to hit street date. Remember that set came out when all of the studios were booking the BD space like crazy before that Christmas, so studios were sticking to tight schedules just to get the product out on time.

Usually is cost a big factor. By reusing the same bonusdisc as the DVD version you actually make some big money savings.

And I have seen more studios taking after that model. I think my BD of Hellboy2 supplemented a standard DVD for bonus. (Excellent since I can watch that material everywere.)

Yeah, this doesn't really bother me, especially if the extras are old and were never HD to begin with. And like you said, being able to watch the extras on the LCD in my bedroom is convenient.

Granted, I like having nice hi-def extras but if recycling the DVD bonus disc means that the studio won't have to lower the PQ/AQ of the movie itself (to fit it on the same disc) or drop the extras altogether then I'll gladly take it.

As long as we're discussing Warner's questionable track record on catalog releases I think their utterly stupidity of replacing older logos (80s and 90s) with their current cgi one should be brought up. A few other studios have done this but Warner is the biggest offender.

New cgi logo on a 1983 film
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t15935_twilight1.PNG (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i15935_twilight1.PNG)

If it was just the ones with the letters AOL in them it would be a good thing.

As long as we're discussing Warner's questionable track record on catalog releases I think their utterly stupidity of replacing older logos (80s and 90s) with their current cgi one should be brought up. A few other studios have done this but Warner is the biggest offender.

New cgi logo on a 1983 film
http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/t15935_twilight1.PNG (http://www.image-load.eu/out.php/i15935_twilight1.PNG)

Is this the logo that is on the main film? Lot of distributors will put their current logo before the actual film starts and I don't see anything wrong with that.