Let's take it to its logical conclusion.

You buy the VHS. It's not the best VHS in the world, but you've not seen it for years.

Then the DVD comes out and it's a poor DVD. By the logic expressed here, if it's not as good a DVD as it could be, they'll have stuck with the VHS.

The the Blu-ray isn't as good as it could be, so they don't buy that.

They have a projector-based system costing thousands, and they're watching VHS.

Now the DVD for TGTBATU isn't as good as it could have been, so if they've bought it, may I ask why?

Steve W

:D

It's a slippery slope. There is no easy or absolute correct answer here.

I have no problem at all with people (even the so called "extremists") being pissed about what they perceive as serious PQ issues and refusing to buy the BD on that basis even if it is better than the DVD in many respects.

Why? Because if everybody buys the BD even if it suffers from many PQ issues and could have easily been better, how will the studios get the message that they need to do better?

I don't know the answer to this question. It could be argued that classic titles that do not sell well is because people are only interested in "new" titles, and they (the studios) will never even consider that it may be because of a PQ defect.

Again, there is no easy answer here.

Personally, if a title that I really like comes out on BD (such as the one being discussed here) and it is noticeably better than my DVD version and is otherwise not a monstrocity of some sort, I will go ahead and purchase it even if it could/should have been better.

I love movies too much to deprive myself of owning the best version available.....even if it could have been better.

This should not be interpreted as thinking that screwing up transfers with EE or DNR etc. is in any way acceptable.

Again, there is no easy answer here.

Personally, if a title that I really like comes out on BD (such as the one being discussed here) and it is noticeably better than my DVD version and is otherwise not a monstrocity of some sort, I will go ahead and purchase it even if it could/should have been better.

I love movies too much to deprive myself of owning the best version available.....even if it could have been better.

This should not be interpreted as thinking that screwing up transfers with EE or DNR etc. is in any way acceptable.

This is my position and method, precisely.

I find my Patton BD a shockingly better watch than my Patton DVD. I would also buy an improved Patton BD re-release so fast, it would make a heartbeat's head spin.

I will not purchase a title if it is cut/censored, not in the correct aspect-ratio or missing the original soundtrack or music cues. However, if the only BD of a movie is a poorly transferred and/or encoded release, it's still, in all likelihood, going to be the best version available, short of paying hundreds or thousands for a grey-market film print. If buying (and enjoying) the best version available to date makes me not a "film lover", you can have my membership card.

this is my position and method, precisely.

I find my patton bd a shockingly better watch than my patton dvd. I would also buy an improved patton bd re-release so fast, it would make a heartbeat's head spin.

I will not purchase a title if it is cut/censored, not in the correct aspect-ratio or missing the original soundtrack or music cues. However, if the only bd of a movie is a poorly transferred and/or encoded release, it's still, in all likelihood, going to be the best version available, short of paying hundreds or thousands for a grey-market film print. If buying (and enjoying) the best version available to date makes me not a "film lover", you can have my membership card.

+1

What some people here are saying is that no matter how grainy the image, and no matter how little of that grain the director intended, they want all the grain on the print left on the BD.



Steve W

You seem to now be arguing for arguments sake because you already know very well that this film had a restoration and is not too grainy at all.

They should have just given us the restoration as it was without applying a layer of DNR on to the image.

You simply can't keep arguing when you know the facts and you know this film had a complete and dedicated restoration Steve so why are you still saying it's too grainy and trying to infer it needed the DNR.

Your last post reads to me like you are saying this release is taken from an aged print so it needed DNR to remove grain which wasn't on the original prints and wasn't what the director intended. Simply not true and it is misinformation to say that.

For the last time let me say it again. This film had a complete and thorough restoration and one done to a very high standard.

This should have been one of the releases of the year but it isn't. That's all i'm now going to say ( i'm disappointed )

Saw it on the shelf at Target this morning. It was $19.99 and I didn't buy it. I have the SD DVD and I'll stand pat for now.

...I have no problem at all with people (even the so called "extremists") being pissed about what they perceive as serious PQ issues and refusing to buy the BD on that basis even if it is better than the DVD in many respects.

Why? Because if everybody buys the BD even if it suffers from many PQ issues and could have easily been better, how will the studios get the message that they need to do better?

But it is May 2009. And "poor" releases keep happening, with no apparent rhyme or reason. How many *PIX* threads have there been? Yet the problem continues. So what is actually being accomplished? How many *PIX* threads need to happen before the "studios get the message"?

As far as I can tell, these threads have done nothing to curb this behavior. Something tells me there will be poor releases in 2010, 2011.....it's the nature of the beast I am afraid.

But it is May 2009. And "poor" releases keep happening, with no apparent rhyme or reason. How many *PIX* threads have there been? Yet the problem continues. So what is actually being accomplished? How many *PIX* threads need to happen before the "studios get the message"?

As far as I can tell, these threads have done nothing to curb this behavior. Something tells me there will be poor releases in 2010, 2011.....it's the nature of the beast I am afraid.

Do you think the studios read the *PIX* threads?

Do you think the studios read the *PIX* threads?

I sure hope not :p

I sure hope they did, but at least it helps us enthusiasts to better choose our purchases.

Do you think the studios read the *PIX* threads?

Don't know, but the *PIX* threads certainly get other people at other places in a tizzy. And it is my understanding that these other people do indeed talk with the studios from time to time.

I am still waiting to see another release pop out with lossy audio.;) Seems like that improved, without the need for a likeminded *AUDIO* thread.

But it is May 2009. And "poor" releases keep happening, with no apparent rhyme or reason. How many *PIX* threads have there been? Yet the problem continues. So what is actually being accomplished? How many *PIX* threads need to happen before the "studios get the message"?

As far as I can tell, these threads have done nothing to curb this behavior. Something tells me there will be poor releases in 2010, 2011.....it's the nature of the beast I am afraid.There's two things going on here:

On Rob's point, I have to agree. I have no problem with people making their own choices about the quality of the release. Where I do have a problem is when they misrepresent the extent (as done in this thread), when they use unreasonable or disgusting language to describe it ("rape" being at the top of the list), and/or when they attack the studios and other members for even positing that there's a debatable level or position.

On your point, I only partially agree. I do think that studios have been paying attention to enthusiasts' reactions. That's been more or less confirmed. As to whether or not they're still paying attention, I can't say. At least one owner/moderator of an enthusiast board said that Fox had gotten so sick of the constant attacks (few of which included any actual pleas to change) around Patton and TLD--despite the quality of other classics like The Sand Pebbles that were released by Fox at the same time--that they'd stopped reading. And after accusations (all of which are the actual words I've actually read at the various HT enthusiast forums) of being rapists, threats of being shot in the head or back, promises of physical beatings, being called insane or idiots or desecrators, and generally being attacked continuously with little to no actual requests to improve , I can't really say I blame them. Nor can I blame fellow enthusiasts who get attacked with similar epithets and sentiments merely for pointing any of this out.

It may be "the nature of the beast", but that's (IMO) due in part to the disgusting rhetoric a very small but very vocal minority of enthusiasts have levied against the studios. Anyone who has offered only criticism with no offers of education or requests for change basically has themselves to blame for studios ignoring the situation.

There's two things going on here:

On Rob's point, I have to agree. I have no problem with people making their own choices about the quality of the release. Where I do have a problem is when they misrepresent the extent (as done in this thread), when they use unreasonable or disgusting language to describe it ("rape" being at the top of the list), and/or when they attack the studios and other members for even positing that there's a debatable level or position.

On your point, I only partially agree. I do think that studios have been paying attention to enthusiasts' reactions. That's been more or less confirmed. As to whether or not they're still paying attention, I can't say. At least one owner/moderator of an enthusiast board said that Fox had gotten so sick of the constant attacks (few of which included any actual pleas to change) around Patton and TLD--despite the quality of other classics like The Sand Pebbles that were released by Fox at the same time--that they'd stopped reading. And after accusations (all of which are the actual words I've actually read at the various HT enthusiast forums) of being rapists, threats of being shot in the head or back, promises of physical beatings, being called insane or idiots or desecrators, and generally being attacked continuously with little to no actual requests to improve , I can't really say I blame them. Nor can I blame fellow enthusiasts who get attacked with similar epithets and sentiments merely for pointing any of this out.

It may be "the nature of the beast", but that's (IMO) due in part to the disgusting rhetoric a very small but very vocal minority of enthusiasts have levied against the studios. Anyone who has offered only criticism with no offers of education or requests for change basically has themselves to blame for studios ignoring the situation.

Nice post. I agree 100%.

The squeaky wheel usually gets the grease...but the squeaky wheel does NOT have such as "colorful" of a vocabulary as some here (as you rightfully noted above). People don't think it is a problem but it is. They would not conduct themselves in a work meeting as such if they had disagreements or differing opinions. Because they would either be asked to leave, fired, or laughed out of the room.

Thats right and i was one of those people but there comes a point where you get a little older and you think what the hell am i doing buying something for marginal improvements. I bought into Blu Ray because i wanted the theatrical experience in my home.

Me, I got into this hobby because I love movies, and want to watch them in the best editions available. Sometimes that "best edition" doesn't achieve absolute perfection. But, so long as it's better than the last edition, that's a positive development in my book.

When a transfer is flawed, we should criticize it. However, the hysteria frequently generated on these boards is just exhausting. And I really don't understand the mentality of someone who would deprive him/herself of the best overall version of a movie they like, and would settle for a far inferior version, just because the new version isn't perfect in every way. How many things in life are perfect?

I've reviewed a lot of Blu-ray discs. I've given a lot of those discs low scores. Some of them, I've been downright scathing in my criticism of. But that certainly doesn't mean I won't ever watch them again. I'm even still hanging onto my Blu-ray copy of Gangs of New York until a better remaster comes along. What's the alternative, watch it on the even worse DVD? That makes no sense at all to me.

YMMV.

Me, I got into this hobby because I love movies, and want to watch them in the best editions available. Sometimes that "best edition" doesn't achieve absolute perfection. But, so long as it's better than the last edition, that's a positive development in my book.

When a transfer is flawed, we should criticize it. However, the hysteria frequently generated on these boards is just exhausting. And I really don't understand the mentality of someone who would deprive him/herself of the best overall version of a movie they like, and would settle for a far inferior version, just because the new version isn't perfect in every way. How many things in life are perfect?

I've reviewed a lot of Blu-ray discs. I've given a lot of those discs low scores. Some of them, I've been downright scathing in my criticism of. But that certainly doesn't mean I won't ever watch them again. I'm even still hanging onto my Blu-ray copy of Gangs of New York until a better remaster comes along. What's the alternative, watch it on the even worse DVD? That makes no sense at all to me.

YMMV.

I guess some people just have the money to do that Josh but i do not.

As a film fan i generally already have seen most of the releases that are catalog and come to Blu Ray and will only buy if they do the transfer right. Is that really asking too much.

You seem to infer that because you will accept anything that you are more of a film fan. It's as if being picky about what you buy is a bad thing. I love movies but i bought into high definition because it promised the ultimate viewing experience. A new way to see those old classics that i have watched hundreds of times. So why should i buy mediocre crap ?

You talk about hysteria but i just don't see it. Really Josh i don't think reviewers like yourself do enough to mark out bad transfers. We could perhaps do with a little more support from reviewers when bad transfers hit the market instead of this constant rubbishing of this forum with your hysteria claims.

I'm fussy so hey shoot me but don't think you are somehow a bigger fan just because i will not accept any old garbage they throw our way.

I'm disappointed in your comments as i think you are a fine reviewer but i also think you need to stop with this hysteria stuff you keep throwing about when you pay AVS a visit. The mentality Josh is simple. Money does not grow on trees and i will not buy something of low quality and there is also a thing called standards which i will not lower just because it's a great movie. If i drop my standards and others drop their standards then studio's will just take the low road. Is that so hard to understand because i feel like sometimes people on these boards have no passion and don't care enough.

As i get older and learn more about this hobby of mine so too does my standards for what is acceptable to me rise. I ask myself will i be happy owning a substandard release and the answer is no. With DVD i knew the format had severe limitations but with Blu Ray we know what it is capable of and thus the standard is higher and when they lower it i will not accept it.

You may accept it but do not label it hysteria just because others take exception to poor quality releases. I don't care if it's better than the DVD and frankly that's another debate as with high definition certain things stick out more if the transfer is not up to par so in some cases i believe it's worse.

Whats the alternative with your Gangs Of New York Blu Ray disc ? Well here is an idea. Send it to the studio who released it and point out you are a reviewer and are advising people not to buy the disc as it is substandard rubbish and mention that you would like your money back. If enough reviewers did that then studios would start to think about sales and take better care with what they release.

I mean that and it's not hysteria or an overreaction. Be proactive and get your contacts in the review industry involved.

As a reviewer you have more power than you think and perhaps should work to stop this sort of thing happening with movie releases.

Oh and Josh i am quite willing to settle for no version of a movie unless they do it right be it on DVD with the limitations of that format or Blu Ray or for that matter VHS. I remember back in the VHS days after they started releasing films in widescreen and if one of my favorites was 2.35:1 and never got released in original aspect ratio then i never bought it. I deprived myself because the alternative was horrendous to me. I would not give them money for something i consider an inferior product i would just not do it.

Nobody asks for absolute perfection and for you to even try to bring that into this thread is frankly just not on. There should be a minimum standard for high definition movies and that standard should be higher than we are seeing on many releases. Perfection is something to aim for but if they fail then the minimum standard should be applied. That would stop poor quality releases if every one had to meet certain criteria and it would mean we could all just have pleasant conversations and not say one of us is a better movie fan than the other.

I'm older and frankly less tolerant of crap these days.

You don't consider talk of rape, vomit, eyeball gouging, assassination and other act of violence hysteria?

And we are all getting older and guess what, we are still individual. You want something pristine and you wont buy what you consider perfect release, good for you. It is your choice and I respect it.

But your financial problem are your own and they will still sell those disk to someone else. As much as I love AVS, we are not the market that studio are aiming for. They are targeting the silent majority who won't complain and will accept that level of quality. If they really screw up and those customer start screaming then they will do another release. But they won't do a thing for 12 to 15 Avs member.

My order of priority when I buy a movie is: Uncut/DC, original language with subs, intended ratio, better than DVD.

If I had waited for pristine version of the movie I buy I would never have bought about a third of my collection of 600+ DVD and BR. And that would have been tragic since I have quite a few gems and hard to find titles in that category.

The companies are trying to get Blu-ray established and perceive that consumers probably want movies to look like high-definition TV shows, so they scrub the grain on lots of titles, especially titles that they think are "entry titles" that will get people interested in buying the displays and players.

They will probably continue to do this in the foreseeable future, at least until the format gets established and people get educated. They are probably annoyed enough that they won't care if they end up killing the goose that lays the golden eggs: we, the collectors.

Me, I'm pouncing on Criterions I want, be they DVDs or not.

There's also netflix. I love the film Gangs Of New York but I don't care if the BD is the best version available, I WON'T buy it. If I HAVE to see it again, I can put it in my netflix queue and it's here in two days. Just because something is the best version out doesn't necessarily make it a quality product. At this point in my life with a family, I for one don't spend my money on substandard product anymore. Not when we know it can be done better. It's lazy of the company and shows complete disrespect for their customers. They knew that transfer was horrific and they just didn't care...

Do you think the studios read the *PIX* threads?

That's the problem. It seems only Sony wants to get feedback from and satisfy the enthusiasts who will drive the format towards mass acceptance.

Is it any wonder thay have been one of the most reliable studios?

Some of the other studios need to get their heads out of their arses.

Nice post. I agree 100%.

The squeaky wheel usually gets the grease...but the squeaky wheel does NOT have such as "colorful" of a vocabulary as some here (as you rightfully noted above). People don't think it is a problem but it is. They would not conduct themselves in a work meeting as such if they had disagreements or differing opinions. Because they would either be asked to leave, fired, or laughed out of the room.

The problem is that won't work. The people behind the poor transfers have no pride in their work and are most likely very lazy. It's a problem all over society, not just in HD transfers. Those of us with the attitude that "something worth doing is worth doing right" are dying out, and that's a disgusting fact. I guess it's all the parents who believe their children are born perfect and refuse to discipline their children we can blame. Even the teachers can't discipline children because same fruitcake parent will sue them and the school. Makes me sick.

I spoil my children rotten and give them as much freedom as possible, but you can be darn sure if they do something wrong, refuse to obey orders or don't take pride in their work there will be hell to pay.

Me, I got into this hobby because I love movies, and want to watch them in the best editions available. Sometimes that "best edition" doesn't achieve absolute perfection. But, so long as it's better than the last edition, that's a positive development in my book.

When a transfer is flawed, we should criticize it. However, the hysteria frequently generated on these boards is just exhausting. And I really don't understand the mentality of someone who would deprive him/herself of the best overall version of a movie they like, and would settle for a far inferior version, just because the new version isn't perfect in every way. How many things in life are perfect?

I've reviewed a lot of Blu-ray discs. I've given a lot of those discs low scores. Some of them, I've been downright scathing in my criticism of. But that certainly doesn't mean I won't ever watch them again. I'm even still hanging onto my Blu-ray copy of Gangs of New York until a better remaster comes along. What's the alternative, watch it on the even worse DVD? That makes no sense at all to me.

YMMV.

That's why God invented file hosting services. Make a horrible transfer, lose a sale and add to piracy. Like you said, a film is worth watching, but not all transfers are worth buying or renting. When the studios realize this, perhaps they will do films justice more often.

:D

It's a slippery slope. There is no easy or absolute correct answer here.

I have no problem at all with people (even the so called "extremists") being pissed about what they perceive as serious PQ issues and refusing to buy the BD on that basis even if it is better than the DVD in many respects.

Why? Because if everybody buys the BD even if it suffers from many PQ issues and could have easily been better, how will the studios get the message that they need to do better?

I don't know the answer to this question. It could be argued that classic titles that do not sell well is because people are only interested in "new" titles, and they (the studios) will never even consider that it may be because of a PQ defect.

Again, there is no easy answer here.

Personally, if a title that I really like comes out on BD (such as the one being discussed here) and it is noticeably better than my DVD version and is otherwise not a monstrocity of some sort, I will go ahead and purchase it even if it could/should have been better.

I love movies too much to deprive myself of owning the best version available.....even if it could have been better.

This should not be interpreted as thinking that screwing up transfers with EE or DNR etc. is in any way acceptable.

I try to only rent Blu-Rays that I find lacking and that I HAVE to watch at some point - it is not like I will not find it anymore when I revisit it in the future.

TGTBTU for example is a great movie but I watch it maybe once every two or three years. So by the time I watch it again I will rent it or preferably get a better version of it.
Should get a little message across and it is not hard to do either.

Of course I also made the mistake to buy some of the lesser efforts and now use two of them regularly to show how things should not be done :D

What gets me is that many of the people arguing that being better than DVD isn't good enough are the same people who, just a couple years ago, would have spent exhorbitant amounts of money to import foreign DVDs of their favorite movies just to get a DTS soundtrack or a marginally better DVD transfer.

Yes. They are now looking at their shelves and see 4 versions of the same film and consider adding the 5th which may be still not even close to what it should be. Some are simply fed up with the endless milking and say for the first time: No, I have had it. Deliver the quality the format and (film) master allows or lose me as a once more repeat costumer.
:)

Me, I got into this hobby because I love movies, and want to watch them in the best editions available. Sometimes that "best edition" doesn't achieve absolute perfection. But, so long as it's better than the last edition, that's a positive development in my book.
.
A Blu Ray being better than a DVD is an absolutely trivial accomplishment. As is a DVD that is better than a VHS tape. Within the formats there is still a vast range of possible quality levels. Being better than last time is not negative, but it sure as hell it's not really positive either if it's poor compared to what could have easily been without even spending more money. And these grotesquely overfiltered cases a la Star Trek are exactly that, additionally spent money to degrade image quality. Money much better invested in a high bit rate disk from the master tape before the sledgehammer filtering was applied.

The acid test would be a comment from Leone himself. Sadly he's no longer here, so I'll settle for the next best thing.

This disc contains a new audio commentary by Sir Christopher Frayling, which appears to have been recorded recently, and exclusively for this Blu-ray Disc release.

He is the world's expert on Leone, spaghetti westerns and the different formats of 2.35:1 photography (cinemascope, Techniscope, etc).

He's probably seen TGTBATU more times than the rest of us put together, on every home video format available, as well as at the cinema, in both old and restored versions.

He has been knighted for his services to the arts, particularly the cinema, and this is his area of expertise.

He'll have seen the film on every home video format available, and dozens of times at the cinema, both old and restored versions.

If he's seen the BD and doesn't say anything wrong about the PQ, then any discussion about it is just tech-heads arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Good enough for Sir Chris? Good enough for me!

If every person at these forums thought the PQ was poor by Sir Chris liked it, I'd line up with him every day of the week, and twice a day at weekends.

If you're seeing problems that he didn't, you are looking too closely.

Guys, if you're arguing with him, you're arguing with the world's undisputed expert on the film.

Steve W

It's obvious...he's a studio apologist covering for the criminal p. poor transfer to BD of TGTB&TU:):D:)

No offense Sir Frayling.

I'm on my way to Target to see if they put it out early.

If he's seen the BD and doesn't say anything wrong about the PQ, then any discussion about it is just tech-heads arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Good enough for Sir Chris? Good enough for me!

If every person at these forums thought the PQ was poor by Sir Chris liked it, I'd line up with him every day of the week, and twice a day at weekends.

If you're seeing problems that he didn't, you are looking too closely.

Guys, if you're arguing with him, you're arguing with the world's undisputed expert on the film.

Robert Harris? :D

Nothing will ever make DNR to this extreme okay. Even if Sergio Leone's ghost was at the controls in the telecine room.

Good enough for Sir Chris? Good enough for me!

If every person at these forums thought the PQ was poor by Sir Chris liked it, I'd line up with him every day of the week, and twice a day at weekends.

Classic argument from authority technique. "I'm right because authority X agrees with me". It means nothing. Besides the fact that you can't cite an explicit approval of the transfer from this person, an endorsement would NOT obviate the problems people are seeing. The same goes for endorsements of Patton, The Longest Day, or any other transfer. NOTHING you say changes the fact that this transfer SHOULD have been much better and VERY easily COULD have been much better. PERIOD.

Classic argument from authority technique. "I'm right because authority X agrees with me". It means nothing.

You're right of course, Frayling hasn't got a clue. I'll petition the Palace for the removal of his 'K' immediately - I understand they're very impressed with what 'some blokes on the internet' have to say, and they'll probably have his head on a pole by the end of the month.

Steve W

Before you read any further, may I apologise for the necessarily rushed nature of the following post.

Rather than wait for Uncle John to come over for a viewing, I decided to take a peek last night, and concentrate on the PQ a little.

It was interesting to watch this transfer not too long after viewing The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (also shot in Techniscope), as the authors of these two Blu-ray Discs have approached their tasks in quite different ways.

There has been much talk of all grain being scrubbed clean from the transfers, and I’m please to confirm that this is complete rubbish. There’s a fairly reliable way to check if the author has set the DNR level to full for the entire film, and that’s to look at the titles.

When a film is created in a camera it has no titles. When the titles are added we get an extra layer of printing, resulting in an increase in grain. Unfortunately, the titles for this film are completely separate to the rest of the presentation, and can’t be used as a match. Fortunately for us Leone decided to add extra titles to the opening of the film, at the end of the scenes where we are introduced to the main characters: the ugly, the bad, the good.

We’re almost scuppered here, too. The title for the ugly (Tuco) is captured in freeze frame as he flies through a window – the motion necessarily blurring the entire image. The bad (Angeleyes) is titled in a very dark interior nightime scene (more of that later). Fortunately Clint comes to our rescue and the good is titled against a day lit sky, in a shot quite typical of the rest of the film – and the increased grain becomes both heavy and apparent. If anyone tells you all of the grain has been removed, simply check this out and you’ll find you can completely discount any other comments they make about the transfer.

If I may refer back to The Bird with the Crystal Plumage again, I found the biggest problem with the Blu-ray Disc was the inconsistency with the grain. Some scenes were extremely clear and relatively grain-free whilst others were substantially grainy. This is clearly a problem beyond directorial intent – the amount of grain changes not only between scenes, but between shots within a scene. It was a very jarring experience, and clearly distracts from Argento’s original vision.

The makers of this Blu-ray Disc have opted for a different, but no less valid approach. Grain has not been removed so much as tamed, and subsequently we do not get the same jarring shifts in grain level. This is replaced with a little loss of fine detail and some facial waxiness on occasion. However, the detail which has presumably been lost is usually slight. The detail on offer is far in excess of what we’ve seen on previous SD DVD releases, and it’s difficult not to be impressed with much of what we can now see.

Using a variety of other films as benchmarks, I can see no dramatic reduction in fine detail. The aforementioned The Bird with the Crystal Plumage, which has maintained heavy grain in parts, is not particularly more detailed, for example.

Sadly other parts of the film are inconsistent in other ways. The scene where Tuco escapes the desert and robs the gun store is unusually soft. We do not have waxy faces, or a different level of grain, we just get a scene where the entire frame appears to be soft and blurry. This would appear to be down to the quality of the film elements available, or possibly deficiencies at the time of shooting, but it appears to have little to do with DNR or grain removal.

I said earlier that it was interesting to compare the different approaches taken by the authors of this Blu-ray Disc and The Bird with the Crystal Plumage. Both have allowed grain to remain and both have used some DNR, but the authors of TBWTCP have opted for a grainier look, whilst with TGTBATH they appear to have opted to use a little more DNR.

The comparative results show just what a difficult task they face, and indicate that there is no correct answer.

With TBWTCP, on the plus side we have what in many ways is a more ‘authentic’, film-like transfer. But on the downside we have jarring shifts in grain level which substantially distract from the director’s vision.

With TGTBATU, on the plus side we have far fewer distracting shift, but a slightly less film-like look in some scenes.

As a brief aside, interestingly the restoration documentary shows that similar problems were encountered earlier in the work. The restorers discovered the original, full-length Tuco Torture scene, and wanted to re-insert it into the film. Unfortunately, the only source they found for it was – you guessed it – too poor, and caused a jarring shift in image quality which did not fit in with the director’s intent. Those insisting on keeping all grain intact, no matter how jarring, should take note.

Some people appear to be grain fanatics. I should be clear, that I totally oppose the removal of grain which has been used intentionally by a director. However, a few people have apparently learned since the advent of Blu-ray Disc that grain can be used as an artistic tool, and now feel it is their duty to oppose the removal of any grain whatsoever, irrespective of how it got there, or whether or not it was part of a director’s vision.

For my perspective there are both pluses and minuses to removing excessive grain, and there are plusses and minuses to leaving it in. No one approach is ‘better’, or more faithful than the other, and whichever path the authors decide to take will result in compromises. What we should expect is that, without currently unforeseeable advance in technology, we will never see what Argento or Leone originally intended us to see, and we will have to settle for a compromise.

The attitude of some, (who consider themselves ‘purists’) that every grain should be left intact, is in itself just as much of a compromise of directorial vision as evening the picture out.

One final point, I had to stop watching the film after 100 minutes or so. In trying to study the picture quality for the purposes of posting these comments, I was continually distracted by the film. Every few minutes I found myself wanting to stop watching the grain and start watching the film.

The truth is, if Uncle John had been round and we’d just settled down to enjoy Leone’s masterpiece, I don’t think that any of the above issues would have encroached on my enjoyment at all.

Sadly, for some, it’s all about watching the picture rather than the film. The ‘experts’ on grain, DNR and waxy faces often appear to be completely ignorant of (or unable to post about) the film’s qualities in terms of editing, mise en scène, cinematography, narrative, representation, cinematography, lighting and colour, or any of the other aspects of cinema.

We should always guard ourselves against listening to the picture fans over and above real cinema fans, and remember that our enjoyment should always be dominated by the quality of the film, not marginal differences in PQ.

Steve W

No one approach is ‘better’, or more faithful than the other, and whichever path the authors decide to take will result in compromises.


Well one approch looks like film, the other does not. So I consider one alot better then the other.


What we should expect is that, without currently unforeseeable advance in technology, we will never see what Argento or Leone originally intended us to see, and we will have to settle for a compromise.

No need to compromise, the technology is there (Dont use DNR), and if you want to clean it up there are several people in the market who can handle the movie with great respect.

Im very sure Leone wanted this movie to look like film.

Sadly, for some, it’s all about watching the picture rather than the film. The ‘experts’ on grain, DNR and waxy faces often appear to be completely ignorant of (or unable to post about) the film’s qualities in terms of editing, mise en scène, cinematography, narrative, representation, cinematography, lighting and colour, or any of the other aspects of cinema.

Well I can go on for hours and hours about every little aspect of the movie, but this is basicly the wrong forum for it (even if one or two aspect relates to each other)

Just give up, some people are a lost cause. ;)

Well one approch looks like film, the other does not. So I consider one alot better then the other...I'm very sure Leone wanted this movie to look like film.

In general I don't dismiss that opinion (though I feel 'doesn't look like film' is perhaps a tad strong).

I'm just asking you to consider another opinion:

One approach looks very uneven, with jarring differences; whilst the other one doesn't...I'm very sure Leone didn't want the film to look extremely uneven.

It's not a question of one approach being right or wrong; it's a question of accepting the limitations and benefits of both, and understanding that whatever you do won't be perfect, but the lesser of two evils.

I don't dismiss either point of view, and can see both sides. I'm not so dogmatic as to say that my personal preference as to which is the lesser of two evils is definitely more accurate to the director's vision than the other.

Personally, I'd have put up with a little more grain and a slightly less consistency, but not a lot less.

I'm just asking for a little more perspective, a little less hyperbole, and more understanding of our ignorance as to what Leone would have liked.

Steve W

Thanks for your impressions, Pecker!. Surely, Pecker is a voice of reason in this forum.

Thanks for your impressions, Pecker!. Surely, Pecker is a voice of reason in this forum.

I agree. I've decided to pick this one up on Tuesday.

Just give up, some people are a lost cause. ;)
Which one are you referring to though? :D

I don't think that the pattonized appearance is what BD should be about. The BD should give us as close to the best film there is. The alterations ,irrespective of what stage they were applied, takes us from that.

Now to say that I will not watch this because of it getting "the treatment" I'd not go that far.

I will also say that there needs to be someone who recognizes the excessive smoothing,what it does to films and holds out to a level of excellence a level IMO that this does not aspire to.

Those here complaining about the DNR are those and they serve a very useful purpose.

It still astounds me when there are so many examples of older films treated well and how awesome they look yet there are those who feel this sort of thing is the right way to go.

I agree with some others here that at least people like Pecker it is a lost cause but it isn't a lost cause nor is it anything less than a necessary cause IMO.

Look at Fist Full of Dollars screen shots. It looks like film and it looks great.

Art

I prefer the film look (grain) myself, but lots of people don't. There are many people who prefer the processed look to the grainy look. With regards to HD I think this is especially so. This is why 120hz and all of the additional video processing is being sold on so many HDTV's. I think the studios should keep the film purists in mind (ie please don't Pattonize a movie), but I think it is a Catch-22 for the studios.

But these same people with their fancy 120hz sets also have DNR and can process the hell out of the image to their heart's content and achieve the same look. They don't NEED to do this to the disc itself. This way, everyone's happy. The people who like the natural, grainy look are happy. The people who like the digitally smoothed look can hit a button on their remote....

But these same people with their fancy 120hz sets also have DNR and can process the hell out of the image to their heart's content and achieve the same look. They don't NEED to do this to the disc itself. This way, everyone's happy. The people who like the natural, grainy look are happy. The people who like the digitally smoothed look can hit a button on their remote....

I totally agree. Unfortunately, it seems many people who don't understand grain often don't understand the options on their player and display.

totally agree, dave. Some people I know have no idea how to do things and call me up, ( I am known as video-geek dude) and I ask them, "did u read the manual?"

What gets me is that many of the people arguing that being better than DVD isn't good enough are the same people who, just a couple years ago, would have spent exhorbitant amounts of money to import foreign DVDs of their favorite movies just to get a DTS soundtrack or a marginally better DVD transfer.

Lucky for me, I never bought a single DVD in my life. I was never impressed with it and I knew something better was coming. I rented it. From 1998 until when I bought my first HDM in 2007. I can't even bring myself to buying from the $5 bargain bin. No thanks. DVD was a stop gap for my needs.

Excellent post. :) The issue that bugs me is that we get labeled as apologists, when in reality I see it more as fighting extremism and at the same time I want the best we can get that does come as close to possible to the way it was intended. As much as we all want to get closer to the theatrical presentation of a movie and as close to film like as possible, the reality is we are watching video at home.

And it works both ways. If we don't grin and bear it and buy these sub-par releases, we are labelled as whiney format-haters and portrayed as people who can't "relax and watch movies". Yeah, like this disc keeps me up at night, worrying about it. Funny how one group wants it their way or the highway.

If buying (and enjoying) the best version available to date makes me not a "film lover", you can have my membership card.

And if NOT buying a Blu-ray title because I don't feel the upgrade is worth it or for ANY reason actually makes me not a "film lover", you have also have my membership card.

Me, I got into this hobby because I love movies, and want to watch them in the best editions available. Sometimes that "best edition" doesn't achieve absolute perfection. But, so long as it's better than the last edition, that's a positive development in my book.


YMMV.

So the initial Blu-release of The Fifth Element was a "positive development" in your book? Really?



When a transfer is flawed, we should criticize it. However, the hysteria frequently generated on these boards is just exhausting.
YMMV.

LOL, I think we have vastly different views on what constitutes "hysteria". ;)

It's as if being picky about what you buy is a bad thing.

According to 1/2 the people in this thread, yes, being discriminate about your purchases is akin to hating movies. And god forbid you would actually DISCUSS it here to boot!

The acid test would be a comment from Leone himself. Sadly he's no longer here, so I'll settle for the next best thing.

This disc contains a new audio commentary by Sir Christopher Frayling, which appears to have been recorded recently, and exclusively for this Blu-ray Disc release.

He is the world's expert on Leone, spaghetti westerns and the different formats of 2.35:1 photography (cinemascope, Techniscope, etc).

He's probably seen TGTBATU more times than the rest of us put together, on every home video format available, as well as at the cinema, in both old and restored versions.

He has been knighted for his services to the arts, particularly the cinema, and this is his area of expertise.

He'll have seen the film on every home video format available, and dozens of times at the cinema, both old and restored versions.

If he's seen the BD and doesn't say anything wrong about the PQ, then any discussion about it is just tech-heads arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Good enough for Sir Chris? Good enough for me!

If every person at these forums thought the PQ was poor by Sir Chris liked it, I'd line up with him every day of the week, and twice a day at weekends.

If you're seeing problems that he didn't, you are looking too closely.

Guys, if you're arguing with him, you're arguing with the world's undisputed expert on the film.

Steve W



Need a ladder to get down from the soapbox or what?

And if NOT buying a Blu-ray title because I don't feel the upgrade is worth it or for ANY reason actually makes me not a "film lover", you have also have my membership card.

Favelle, I think you make some excellent points, and your opinion is more than vaild IMO.

As I've said, when deterioration in film stock means that we no longer have what the director intended, then compromises will sometimes need to be made during restoration. Some may prefer the compromises to go one way, some another, and I criticise neither side.

I only take issue with those who do, and who insist that the compromise they want is the only vaild one.

I posted an extremely wrong message yesterday, for anyone who finds it too long, I'll try something shorter:

After watching the new Blu-ray Disc I find it to be a big step up over the SD DVD. It's not as good as I'd hoped, and there are some issues with the transfer, but it's better enough than the DVD for it to have been worth my money.

Steve W

What I don't understand is why networked TV shows (which have a much bigger audience than Blu-Ray discs) don't appear to suffer from DNR, on Mad Men, Damages, Heroes etc, we see the HD image presented vey clearly and sharply (even those shots that are heavily-processed don't make use of DNR) - if the studios don't feel that millions will switch off in disgust, why employ it on a format with a much smaller audience base ?

What I don't understand is why networked TV shows (which have a much bigger audience than Blu-Ray discs) don't appear to suffer from DNR, on Mad Men, Damages, Heroes etc, we see the HD image presented vey clearly and sharply (even those shots that are heavily-processed don't make use of DNR) - if the studios don't feel that millions will switch off in disgust, why employ it on a format with a much smaller audience base ?

Some of those you've mentioned are shot digitally rather than on to film. No film = no grain. For those that are shot on film, newer film stocks are less grainy, and also haven't had time to deteriorate.

It's much easier to maintain the original grain structure and offer a film-like presentation with newer material, and that would apply equally to new films as it would new TV shows.

Steve W

Some of those you've mentioned are shot digitally rather than on to film. No film = no grain. For those that are shot on film, newer film stocks are less grainy, and also haven't had time to deteriorate.

It's much easier to maintain the original grain structure and offer a film-like presentation with newer material, and that would apply equally to new films as it would new TV shows.

Steve W

That's all very well but these are popular shows (Heroes season 1 for example) and they can have significant amounts of grain in the image, yet it was clearly not felt they required any grain removal processing, as far as I'm aware, unlike the film under discussion.

And if NOT buying a Blu-ray title because I don't feel the upgrade is worth it or for ANY reason actually makes me not a "film lover", you have also have my membership card.According to 1/2 the people in this thread, yes, being discriminate about your purchases is akin to hating movies. And god forbid you would actually DISCUSS it here to boot!So? What's your point?

The only people who were told that they shouldn't even be discussing it and were accused by others of not being movie lovers are those who didn't feel that the release was bad to them.

Some of those you've mentioned are shot digitally rather than on to film. No film = no grain. For those that are shot on film, newer film stocks are less grainy, and also haven't had time to deteriorate.

It's much easier to maintain the original grain structure and offer a film-like presentation with newer material, and that would apply equally to new films as it would new TV shows.

Steve W

Video has a grain equivalent called noise. IMO all noise reduction should be done in camera when shooting video. Anything that remains should stay just as film grain should stay.

:D

It's a slippery slope. There is no easy or absolute correct answer here.

I have no problem at all with people (even the so called "extremists") being pissed about what they perceive as serious PQ issues and refusing to buy the BD on that basis even if it is better than the DVD in many respects.

Why? Because if everybody buys the BD even if it suffers from many PQ issues and could have easily been better, how will the studios get the message that they need to do better?

I don't know the answer to this question. It could be argued that classic titles that do not sell well is because people are only interested in "new" titles, and they (the studios) will never even consider that it may be because of a PQ defect.

Again, there is no easy answer here.

Personally, if a title that I really like comes out on BD (such as the one being discussed here) and it is noticeably better than my DVD version and is otherwise not a monstrocity of some sort, I will go ahead and purchase it even if it could/should have been better.

I love movies too much to deprive myself of owning the best version available.....even if it could have been better.

This should not be interpreted as thinking that screwing up transfers with EE or DNR etc. is in any way acceptable.

I feel EXACTLY the same way you do.

what we could actually do is contact Clint eastwood trough his agent.

i would love to know what Clint eastwood actually think if he see this bluray.

if there is 1 man with enough power to actually make a change. it is him.

as far as i know his agent is Leonard Hirshan from William Morris agency. so why not send him a mail , tell him how we feel? besides this movie is also part of his legacy.

we could bickering here all day. but why not try to get to the man himself :)

:D

It's a slippery slope. There is no easy or absolute correct answer here.

I have no problem at all with people (even the so called "extremists") being pissed about what they perceive as serious PQ issues and refusing to buy the BD on that basis even if it is better than the DVD in many respects.

Why? Because if everybody buys the BD even if it suffers from many PQ issues and could have easily been better, how will the studios get the message that they need to do better?

I don't know the answer to this question. It could be argued that classic titles that do not sell well is because people are only interested in "new" titles, and they (the studios) will never even consider that it may be because of a PQ defect.

Again, there is no easy answer here.

Personally, if a title that I really like comes out on BD (such as the one being discussed here) and it is noticeably better than my DVD version and is otherwise not a monstrocity of some sort, I will go ahead and purchase it even if it could/should have been better.

I love movies too much to deprive myself of owning the best version available.....even if it could have been better.

This should not be interpreted as thinking that screwing up transfers with EE or DNR etc. is in any way acceptable.

I agree as well. I will say this though. With these "buyer beware" types of movies I will often rent them first or wait for a good deal. If it is a transfer like "The Princess Bride", where the studio knocks it out of the park, I will buy it immediately and feel good about paying a little more now vs waiting for later (or renting).

Favelle, I think you make some excellent points, and your opinion is more than vaild IMO.

As I've said, when deterioration in film stock means that we no longer have what the director intended, then compromises will sometimes need to be made during restoration. Some may prefer the compromises to go one way, some another, and I criticise neither side.

I only take issue with those who do, and who insist that the compromise they want is the only vaild one.

I posted an extremely wrong message yesterday, for anyone who finds it too long, I'll try something shorter:

After watching the new Blu-ray Disc I find it to be a big step up over the SD DVD. It's not as good as I'd hoped, and there are some issues with the transfer, but it's better enough than the DVD for it to have been worth my money.

Steve W

I totally agree with everything you are saying. No question man. All I am saying is, everyone has different opinions on what is considered a worthwhile upgrade, and people shouldn't be chastized for discussing their opinion. Its no coincidence that MANY people are disappointed with this and not buying it. Not everyone buys every shovel load of crap the studios pile upon us. That doesn't make us film-haters or "hysterical".

Searching online, I can't find any place that stocks this!! Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart, Borders etc. ---all say the obligatory 'available online only'!!! Anyone else found this..........anywhere--where they can physically purchase it?

The other day, someone said they saw it out early on a shelf at a Target.


Anyone have any insight as to why on Earth all theses B & M retailers would skip stocking this disc? I've bought a lot of catalog titles at these stores which would have to be lower profile/lower sales releases than this one!

The other day, someone said they saw it out early on a shelf at a Target.


Anyone have any insight as to why on Earth all theses B & M retailers would skip stocking this disc? I've bought a lot of catalog titles at these stores which would have to be lower profile/lower sales releases than this one!

Thanks, Spec I will try Target-they are close by me too, and your right--this is a HIGH profile release for certain!! Those stores dropped the ball on this one.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Blu-ray, ......so ugly, even retail doesn't want it!












;)

Searching online, I can't find any place that stocks this!! Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, Wal-Mart, Borders etc. ---all say the obligatory 'available online only'!!! Anyone else found this..........anywhere--where they can physically purchase it?

I saw it at Target for $20 this morning. Left it on the shelf but might pick it up on my way home tonight. I bought too much already today.

Grain has not been removed so much as tamed, and subsequently we do not get the same jarring shifts in grain level. This is replaced with a little loss of fine detail and some facial waxiness on occasion. However, the detail which has presumably been lost is usually slight. The detail on offer is far in excess of what we’ve seen on previous SD DVD releases, and it’s difficult not to be impressed with much of what we can now see.

Coming late to the discussion, but I think almost everyone in this and every other Blu-Ray thread here is missing the elephant in the room when it comes to DNR; i.e., everyone says DNR results in a loss of fine detail, but a loss of fine detail compared to WHAT? Given that very few people have an accurate recollection of how old movies like GBU or PATTON appeared on the big screen, obviously what they mean is that the Blu-Ray - at least in some instances - is resolving less detail than the DVD! While 2 million pixels (1080P) should theoretically always resolve more detail than 345,000 pixels (480P), that isn't always the case, because DNR, contrast alterations, and and other sorts of digital manipulation can have a huge effect on the quality of an image. For example, toggle between the Blu-Ray and DVD screencaps of Tuco leading Blondie across the dunes at the following page:

GBU Comparisons (http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?art=full&image=2&vergleich=the_good_the_bad_and_the_ugly&action=1#vergleich)

The DVD clearly resolves more detail in the background of that shot than the Blu-Ray, even though the overall image is more blocky. Lines in the dunes that are visible on the DVD vanish on the Blu-Ray, which is no doubt an effect of DNR and the overall lower contrast. If you look at other screencaps there, you can see that there are also many cases where the Blu-ray resolves more background detail than the DVD.

In general, I think it's safe to conclude that while Blu-ray generally produces a more accurate resolution of original film elements than DVD, digital manipulation may result in certain instances where it doesn't. The only important question then is: at what point does the ratio of loss/gain in resolution become high enough that upgrading to the Blu-Ray is no longer worth it? As far as I'm concerned, there really is no excuse for a Blu-Ray to ever reveal less detail than a DVD - not even in a single shot - and I'm simply not going to waste money on a disc that will in some instances be a less faithful reproduction than the DVD. Others may think that a Blu-Ray which is more accurate than the DVD 80% of the time and less accurate 15% of the time is enough of a difference to warrant a purchase.

In any case, all this discussion about how close Blu-Ray comes - in absolute terms - to capturing the look of original film elements is totally irrelevant. Also irrelevant is any discussion about film restoration or formats, etc., since none of us have any control over how these films are restored or how they were lensed in the first place. All that really matters to we as consumers is how much better (or worse) the Blu-Ray is at resolving the original film elements than the DVD equivalent. While the answer to that is not always cut and dried, we should at least be able to acknowledge that it's the only question that has any real relevance here.

In any case, all this discussion about how close Blu-Ray comes - in absolute terms - to capturing the look of original film elements is totally irrelevant.

Uh.....ok.

:confused:

Quote
Originally Posted by Mike999
In any case, all this discussion about how close Blu-Ray comes - in absolute terms - to capturing the look of original film elements is totally irrelevant

Uh.....ok.

:confused:

The format is what it is, so therefore I don't see how any question is relevant other than whether or not a particular Blu-Ray is worth purchasing over the DVD equivalent. Complaining about how Blu-Ray is or isn't capable of accurately capturing a 35mm film element is pointless since consumers have little or no control over what resolution standards are chosen for home video.

The format is what it is, so therefore I don't see how any question is relevant other than whether or not a particular Blu-Ray is worth purchasing over the DVD equivalent. Complaining about how Blu-Ray is or isn't capable of accurately capturing a 35mm film element is pointless since consumers have little or no control over what resolution standards are chosen for home video.

Yeah, I got your point.

I just (completely) disagree with it.

...toggle between the Blu-Ray and DVD screencaps of Tuco leading Blondie across the dunes at the following page:

GBU Comparisons (http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?art=full&image=2&vergleich=the_good_the_bad_and_the_ugly&action=1#vergleich)

The DVD clearly resolves more detail in the background of that shot than the Blu-Ray, even though the overall image is more blocky. Lines in the dunes that are visible on the DVD vanish on the Blu-Ray, which is no doubt an effect of DNR and the overall lower contrast. If you look at other screencaps there, you can see that there are also many cases where the Blu-ray resolves more background detail than the DVD.

The only 'detail' I see on the DVD but not on the Blu-ray Disc in that comparison is a lot of EE.

The DVD has large and distracting amounts of EE on every cap I've seen. Whatever your view of the Blu-ray Disc in general, it's clearly streets ahead of the DVD.

Steve W

LOL thanks for laying out the rules for us. The only problem you'll find is that many of us think your logic is poor.

In any case, all this discussion about how close Blu-Ray comes - in absolute terms - to capturing the look of original film elements is totally irrelevant. Also irrelevant is any discussion about film restoration or formats, etc., since none of us have any control over how these films are restored or how they were lensed in the first place. All that really matters to we as consumers is how much better (or worse) the Blu-Ray is at resolving the original film elements than the DVD equivalent. While the answer to that is not always cut and dried, we should at least be able to acknowledge that it's the only question that has any real relevance here.

Re: the Target sale prices on The Man With No Name movies:

Other than quite noticeable grain (I wonder if these movies and the extended BD's of The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest might actually look better with Sharpness knocked down a couple notches to make the grain a bit less visible?), they look pretty good to me, considering their age and having been filmed in Techniscope. The BD of TGTBATU makes things too clear at times - e.g., the prosthesis used on Clint Eastwood's face for his "sunburn" when he and Eli Wallach are at the runaway Confederate wagon where they learn about the buried gold. It may be apparent in the DVD, too, but I didn't look at the DVD.

Other than quite noticeable grain (I wonder if these movies and the extended BD's of The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest might actually look better with Sharpness knocked down a couple notches to make the grain a bit less visible?)

You should never use sharpening on your movies. Especially BD movies.

As for how good these films could look, look at the Italian BD of Fistful of dollars.

Aye, the Italian BD of Fistful is bee-yoo-tiful. Terrific restored mono audio, too.

Funnily enough I just rebought the original DVD of TGTBATU to get the proper mono track instead of the bastardised 5.1 remix and mono derivative thereof heard on the Blu-ray. It's 'only' the US theatrical cut on the DVD, but I can't stomach the new scenes because Clint's aged, redubbed voice - bless him - is so off-kilter it sounds like a bad impersonator.