Bill Hunt over at The Digital Bits is reporting today (2/25) that The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly will be released on 5/12.

I'm so excited!!

I just rewatched the Leone / Eastwood "Man with no name" trilogy this weekend on the crappy old sd-dvds (TERRIBLE pq) ... but man do I love these movies. Please please please let them do a bang up job with this disc!

Wow this is awesome news!!! Can't wait!!

I am counting on this looking good and film like. I am basing it on what I have seen so far on HDnet movies and from what transfers of Clint's movies we have to date. For a Few Dollars More, etc. I am optimistic.

Great news!

I am counting on this looking good and film like. I am basing it on what I have seen so far on HDnet movies and from what transfers of Clint's movies we have to date. For a Few Dollars More, etc. I am optimistic.

About 2 years ago they showed this on HDNet, and it did not look very good. However, the one they showed a few months ago was a huge improvement PQ-wise.

Excellent news! Let's just hope they do it justice.

Yes,very much looking foward to trhis. Keeping my fingers crossed.

Art

I really, really, really hope this will look every bit as good as the Italian restored edition of A Fistful of Dollars, which looks fantastic. Other items on the wishlist are:

US theatrical cut (missing on the DVD)
Original English mono (missing on the DVD)
Original Italian mono
English subtitles to go with the Italian audio (not HoH)

I'm probably setting myself up for a disappointment, but I don't want to wait another 5 years for an ultimate edition.

I may cancel my German order if this turns out anywhere close to comparable.

German cover art:
http://s41.radikal.ru/i093/0902/fb/38445771877a.jpg

Disc Specifications:
Picture format: 2.35:1
System: HD 1080p
Media: BD50
Packaging: Amaray

Language tracks:
- DTS HD 5.1 English
- DTS 5.1 German
- Dolby Digital 5.1 Spanish
- Dolby Digital 1.0 English
- Dolby Digital 2.0 (mono) Italian
- Dolby Digital 5.1 French
- Dolby Digital 5.1 Portuguese
- Dolby Digital 2.0 Thai

Subtitles:
- English for Hard of Hearing, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Mandarin, Korean, Thai

Extra Features:
- Audio Commentary by film historian Richard Schickel
- Audio Commentary by Sir Christopher Frayling
Documentaries:
- Leone's West
- Leone's Style
- The Man Who Lost The Civil War
- Restoration Italian Style: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
- Il Maestro: Ennio Morricone (I)
- Il Maestro: Ennio Morricone (II)
- Deleted Scenes
- Theatrical Trailer

Source: Cinefacts

I may cancel my German order if this turns out anywhere close to comparable.

It should be, it's the same disc.

Ah! Great flick!

Let's hope the grain is fully intact on this sucker, and that no one whines about it. It would a HUGE shame if this is cleaned up by DNR.

This was shot in Techniscope (not anamorphic), which was only a 2-perf 35mm pull-down instead of 4-perf. Thus... smaller negative height; thus... pretty darn grainy with those old film stocks.

It's SUPPOSED to be grainy; let's keep it that way!!!

It's SUPPOSED to be grainy; let's keep it that way!!!

Man, if they de-grain the post-production optical zooms, I will be pissed!

Very nice. I was hoping for the Leone anthology box set, but this will do.

I'm really looking forward to retiring the oversized packaging of my DVD edition. I really want this release in a standard Blu-ray case!

I'm really looking forward to retiring the oversized packaging of my DVD edition. I really want this release in a standard Blu-ray case!

The packaging for the initial standalone 2-disc DVD release is awkward. I tossed that thing in the garbage along with those photo cards as soon as I got it.

Very nice. I was hoping for the Leone anthology box set, but this will do.
I did too. It would have been nice with a Blu-ray box similar to the DVD edition, which looked great (though wasn't too practical with an 8-disc Digipak.)

I may cancel my German order if this turns out anywhere close to comparable.

:D Any idea what the german title says? something about two..............

I love this movie. Keeping my fingers crossed for a great transfer!

This is a favorite of mine... here's hoping that they can clean it up nice for BD

Personally, Once Upon a Time in the West is the one I'm pining for, but this will do nicely until then.

I'm definitely buying this on day 1.
Personally, Once Upon a Time in the West is the one I'm pining for, but this will do nicely until then.

That one ought to come out good, I saw a new print projected last September and was very impressive.

:D Any idea what the german title says? something about two..............

It says "Two Glorious Scoundrels". :)

Looking forward to this, too.

Personally, Once Upon a Time in the West is the one I'm pining for, but this will do nicely until then.

Yeah, that's the other one I'm pining for. :D

Thanks. I don't buy too many BDs, but yeah...I'll get this one.

It says "Two Glorious Scoundrels". :)

Looking forward to this, too.
Thanks, I had a feeling it has nothing to do with the original title. :)

http://images.dvdempire.com/gen/movies/1455581h.jpg

Call me a cynic, but I just know that something about this release is going to leave me wanting- there are too many things that can go wrong. I want the original mono Italian soundtrack, with real English subtitles, not just closed-captions. I also want the original Italian titles, at the least as a branching option. This is before we get into the question of image post-processing. Oy!

I'm crossing my fingers really hard on this one.

I have just received the German Blu-ray and have to say:

BAD JOB!!!! :(

Excessive DNR in addition of strong edge enhancement. Soft picture with few detail and dull contrast. This BD looks worse than the italian releases of Fistful of Dollars and For a few Dollars more.

I have just received the German Blu-ray and have to say:

BAD JOB!!!! :(

Excessive DNR in addition of strong edge enhancement. Soft picture with few detail and dull contrast. This BD looks worse than the italian releases of Fistful of Dollars and For a few Dollars more.

I thought someone said the Italian releases were great with the grain structure preserved ?

I sure hope MGM hasn't decided to smooth the image for the upcoming release and i got fingers and toes crossed for this one.

I thought someone said the Italian releases were great with the grain structure preserved ?

I sure hope MGM hasn't decided to smooth the image for the upcoming release and i got fingers and toes crossed for this one.

I don't know if you have understood what I wrote. The German MGM Blu-ray of The Good, the Bad & the Ugly is vastly DNR'd and has EE all over the place. The Italian BDs of Fistful and For a few Dollars more look actually far better than the German GBU Blu-ray.

I don't know if you have understood what I wrote. The German MGM Blu-ray of The Good, the Bad & the Ugly is vastly DNR'd and has EE all over the place. The Italian BDs of Fistful and For a few Dollars more look actually far better than the German GBU Blu-ray.

I get you now.

They probably DNRed the German release then thought it looked too soft and sharpened it and thus EE. Silly thing for them to do really and you have to wonder what size of monitor they used when overseeing the transfer.

What a letdown. This is going to be worse than Patton.

One of the best of C.Eastwood's movie,can't hardly wait.

What a letdown. This is going to be worse than Patton.

Lets wait and see what we get before passing judgement.

What a letdown. This is going to be worse than Patton.

Is that the sky falling, too?

Today I also read a couple words of the Scandinavian release of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and it doesn't look so good. But I still hope I have missunderstood the comparings with some really good looking discs. And I haven't seen any of the comparative discs so theres maby a little hope.

I don't know if you have understood what I wrote. The German MGM Blu-ray of The Good, the Bad & the Ugly is vastly DNR'd and has EE all over the place. The Italian BDs of Fistful and For a few Dollars more look actually far better than the German GBU Blu-ray.

I guess it wasn't remastered like Fistful and Dollars, because they look insanely good. Good Bad and Ugly was on HDNet a few years ago, it was loaded with DNR and EE too. Guess they used that master.

Frickin idiots, just take DNR and EE out of the toolbox already, all they do is destroy detail.

Is that the sky falling, too?


Get back to me in about a month when you see all the complaints here. I was making a simple comment, the transfer is heavy on the DNR so I was let down. "Worse than Patton" is what I think the fallout will be here on AVS.

I'm done with this topic, have fun.

Frickin idiots, just take DNR and EE out of the toolbox already, all they do is destroy detail.

bu i haet dat dert on da screan man! An deze betar ful my screne ^, 50 gergs of spaec n u cnt giev me da fuel scraen? wtf iz dat?

Sadly that is how some people look at it... I wish DNR and EE didn't exist, but sadly they do.

Great film ! I remember vividly waiting for the school bus to attend 7th grade hearing the theme sond.:cool:

Hope for the best here.

Art

Get back to me in about a month when you see all the complaints here. I was making a simple comment, the transfer is heavy on the DNR so I was let down. "Worse than Patton" is what I think the fallout will be here on AVS.

I'm done with this topic, have fun.

No offense intended, and you may indeed be proven correct. I was only responding to the way things get quite spun up before an actual product is even available (German BD does not necessarily equal American BD). I'm with Art and hoping for the best!

No offense intended, and you may indeed be proven correct. I was only responding to the way things get quite spun up before an actual product is even available (German BD does not necessarily equal American BD). I'm with Art and hoping for the best!

My feeling is if MGM/FOX is releasing this in Germany then it will be the same transfer for the rest of the world.

The only exceptions i see to this rule are when a different company owns the rights and does their own master/transfer or if a few years have passed and a new master/transfer gets struck for an anniversary or special edition release.

Call me a cynic, but I just know that something about this release is going to leave me wanting- there are too many things that can go wrong. I want the original mono Italian soundtrack, with real English subtitles, not just closed-captions. I also want the original Italian titles, at the least as a branching option. This is before we get into the question of image post-processing. Oy!

I'm crossing my fingers really hard on this one.

I'm with you 100% on this. It will be interesting to see what we actually get.

Once Upon a Time in the West has undergone a full restoration (I've seen a restored print at The Academy Theater) so I am really looking forward to that one as well.

Still hoping for the best here, but this doesn't sound very good. :(

This film has been seen with my own eyes, the restored version, in a theater on a HUGE screen and it looked great and had plenty of grain, so I am not surprised to hear they are ****ing it up. But it will be a travesty if they do here in the states. this is a MAJOR release and deserves only the best.

This film has been seen with my own eyes, the restored version, in a theater on a HUGE screen and it looked great and had plenty of grain, so I am not surprised to hear they are ****ing it up. But it will be a travesty if they do here in the states. this is a MAJOR release and deserves only the best.

I didn't even realize that The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly had been restored. Cool.

As Foxy said: realistically, what are the chances the same outfit will use a different transfer somewhere else? Serious question, because like you guys I hope there is a chance they will. Has it happened before?

They won't. The only chance for a good picture master would be to wait for the Italian Blu-ray. However, the chances of English audio on that would be really thin (as the restoration and re-recording of the English language track is owned by MGM). Also, the Italian version does not contain the "Grotto" sequence.

Did they just use the previous master for this Blu-Ray, or what? Unfortunately, we'll see a lot more of these, I think. It's the easy way.

Dvdbeaver has it's review up of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare3/goodbadugly.htm

It's a French release by FOX but the reviewer suspects it will be the same as the US version as it has English menus and takes up 48GBs of space. I'll still probably pick it up as I haven't ever seen it but there is definitely mild DNR in a few shots.

It's a French release by FOX but the reviewer suspects it will be the same as the US version as it has English menus and takes up 48GBs of space.

:confused: What does the size of the encode have to do with what version appears in which territory? Every region of the world that has Blu-ray has both BD-25s and BD-50s...

Slightly OT, but anyone interested, HDNet Movies will be showing Once Upon A Time in The West in a few days.

Slightly OT, but anyone interested, HDNet Movies will be showing Once Upon A Time in The West in a few days.

:cool:

Going by the DVDBeaver shots, this is filtered out the wazzoo. I, too, saw the 2003 restoration on the big screen, and it was shockingly sharp and detailed for Techniscope. These caps look nothing like that. It doesn't even look like actual noise reduction, more like filtering of high-frequency detail... to compress better, maybe?

Dvdbeaver has it's review up of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare3/goodbadugly.htm

It's a French release by FOX but the reviewer suspects it will be the same as the US version as it has English menus and takes up 48GBs of space. I'll still probably pick it up as I haven't ever seen it but there is definitely mild DNR in a few shots.

Argh. I wouldn't call it "mild DNR". From the screenshots posted there, I'd say this is our worst DNR nightmare come true. Looks like I might be holding onto the (excellent quality) extended DVD edition instead... and this was a title I was really looking forward to.

It doesn't look promising, but I'll hold on to my pre-order. Not much could keep me from buying one of my favorite films. Well, it's that and I simply need more movies to buy. :p

From the screenshots posted there, I'd say this is our worst DNR nightmare come true.

Worst nightmare? Come now- it does not look as bad as Zulu or The Longest Day!

Looks like I might be holding onto the (excellent quality) extended DVD edition instead...

Because it looks better than the BD?! :confused::eek:

@spectator, I was only repeating what the reviewer said. I think what he was getting at was that it wasn't a bit starved hack job (just a DNR hack job) and that he felt that the size represented FOX's commitment to the film.

@Steel_Breeze, I said mild because I was one of the fools who ran out and bought Patton and the Longest Day (still love the films) so that's my reference for DNR jobs. Compared to them this is mild. Still, I was hoping that none would have been used and that it would look like the Italian copy.

I can't say i'm impressed by the screenshots but i'll wait until one of you that i trust reviews it before deciding on whether to buy it or not.

Worst nightmare? Come now- it does not look as bad as Zulu or The Longest Day!



Because it looks better than the BD?! :confused::eek:

Okay... maybe I was being overdramatic with "worst nightmare". But yeah, I'd take a standard-def DVD upconverted on my trusty Oppo over a BD that removes all the grain from this supposed-to-be-grainy 2-perf Techniscope film. In a heartbeat. I just hope the grain isn't as absent as it looks from those screenshots.

Not as bad as The Longest Day, but absolutely noise reduced. That is not what I saw in a theater. A theater with a massive screen and a projectionist who knows what he is doing.

I'll pass. Rental only.

We're passing judgment based on what...one review so far?

We're passing judgment based on what...one review so far?

My posts are not "based on one review" at all. In fact, I didn't even read the review; they never see DNR over at dvdbeaver.com anyway. I'm going off the frame grabs which compare it directly to the previous DVD releases. It's a fairly accurate gauge of what we can expect to see, I think.

First I think I will wait until they actually release the North American version. Then I will wait for some one to get some lossless screen captures. Then I will make a decision.

Don't let me stop the lynch mob though. It sort of goes with the theme of the movie.

I just don't want us to go jumping off a cliff prematurely.

To me, those grabs clearly look like they have been scrubbed of some high frequency detail and grain, but they are not as bad as many other screen grabs I have seen.

Looks like crap IMO (based on those screenshots). No fine detail and a fuzzy image overall. I guess they forgot to sharpen the hell out of it. If you're gonna ruin the image you might as well go the whole 9 yards.

If that is indeed the same encode as the USA release it is very disappointing. One of my favorite films of all time, and we'll be stuck with this for a long time I would think.

To be expected though considering these studios probably get more complaining from the average customer about Grain than about over DNR-ing. It's sad but true. You would think the studios would realize their audience with these classic films though.

i was stupid enough to buy the german version before actually checking out this thread and i can tell you i am pissed. the quality is so unbelievable bad. it is even worse then fight club.

there is almost no noise in the picture. the face of van cleef looks like it has gone through a wax machine.

Soft as hell, a bit washed-out, and not even close to the Italian restored edition of A Fistful of Dollars. Going to have to pass until they do it justice. Here's to another 5 years of waiting... :mad:

The Good - This great movie is getting release on BLU
The Bad - Setting high expectations
The Ugly - Picture Quality:D

Stop the bickering and stick to movie, please.

larry

We're passing judgment based on what...one review so far?

The reviews for the UK edition of The Silence Of The Lambs are now out and its been confirmed it's the same MPEG2 transfer that America got and that's an MGM release just like this one.

Hence i fully expect the same encode used in Germany for The Good, The Bad and The ugly to hit America and anywhere else where MGM owns the rights.

Studio's which own the rights to a movie worldwide are doing one encode now instead of having to do multiple ones because of PAL and NTSC differences and unless this movie is released by another studio then this German encode will be the one we all get.

Can't say it pleases me to see a great movie get this sort of treatment but i'll keep my fingers and toes crossed for the best even though i now expect the worst.

What I don't understand is how several people claim to already have the German disc when it is released in Germany next friday (04-24). I'm in Germany myself and I don't know a single german online retailer that breaks the street date, certainly not amazon.de...

d3code, where did you get it?

Well i'm glad i saw this thread before i hit the buy button http://www.entertainment-place.info/smile/img/2464/*************************

Well i'm glad i saw this thread before i hit the buy button http://www.entertainment-place.info/smile/img/2464/*************************Yes, I canceled my pre-order until I see what's what.

larry

Was Clint Eastwood involved in the restoration process? It'd be great to know his take.

Was Clint Eastwood involved in the restoration process? It'd be great to know his take.

:confused:

Was Clint Eastwood involved in the restoration process? It'd be great to know his take.

Actually he was, but from what I know, it was to provide his voice to the extended scenes in the movie.

I dont think he had anything to do with the PQ restoration.

Wow, I was expecting a lot worse from the comments in this thread. The pictures at DVDBeaver do look de-grained (I don't know exactly what the original should look like, but I imagine it had to be at least slightly grainier considering other Leone films from the same period), but they at least aren't distractingly bad. I was fearing it'd be like Patton, with everyone looking waxy, or Gangs of New York, where the image just falls apart from super excessive EE and odd DNR/noise patterns crawling over everything. I will hold final judgment for when I actually see the disc, but I don't see the Patton/GoNY nightmare that others claim to.

Wow, I was expecting a lot worse from the comments in this thread. The pictures at DVDBeaver do look de-grained (I don't know exactly what the original should look like, but I imagine it had to be at least slightly grainier considering other Leone films from the same period), but they at least aren't distractingly bad. I was fearing it'd be like Patton, with everyone looking waxy, or Gangs of New York, where the image just falls apart from super excessive EE and odd DNR/noise patterns crawling over everything. I will hold final judgment for when I actually see the disc, but I don't see the Patton/GoNY nightmare that others claim to.

I agree with you.

I would comment on the similarities with what I saw on HDNet Movies showing of Once Upon a Time in the West, but apparently that is off topic and not allowed in this thread.

While I do lament the DNR applied to this film, it surely isn't as bad as in this one:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/the%20arrival_blu-ray.htm

I don't mean to go off topic, just saying that it could be worse.

i got it today and poped it in for a sec and there still is grain. i rather watch the movie then scan every screen shot and bitch about. if you like the movie watch it enjoy it yes DNR is evil

i got it today and poped it in for a sec and there still is grain. i rather watch the movie then scan every screen shot and bitch about. if you like the movie watch it enjoy it yes DNR is evil

You got the U.S. blu ray?!

i got it from a friend of mine who owns a german retailer shop. he also send to me fightclub bluray 2 days before official release date.

i buy a lot from this guy so i get certain privileges which is cool :)

the biggest gap i ever had with a release was x-men 2 dvd. i had it 11 days before it was officialy released.

Was hoping for the US Theatrical cut instead of the Extended cut :(

There is an extra "Reconstructing The Good, The Bad & The Ugly" that explains what they did when they restored the movie in 2002. It seems they added back the 17 minutes that were originally removed from the U.S. version and additionally they put back one scene that was originally in an Italian premiere version but was also removed from later Italian release. So this cut should be pretty close to the Italian version that was first shown in an Italian premiere. An interesting point was that there didn't exist English audio for the added scenes so they had asked Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach to newly do voice parts for those scenes almost 40 years later and some other actor was found to do missing parts for Lee Van Cleef.

Dvdbeaver has it's review of the US version here:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/good_bad_and_the_ugly_blu-ray.htm
They say it looks identical to the European one and I would agree, it has just as much DNR. As mentioned already, this is not the worst DNR job ever, but it's a shame that it happened. I'll probably pick it up, but not until it's around $18 or so (here in Canada).

Dvdbeaver has it's review of the US version here:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/good_bad_and_the_ugly_blu-ray.htm
They say it looks identical to the European one and I would agree, it has just as much DNR. As mentioned already, this is not the worst DNR job ever, but it's a shame that it happened. I'll probably pick it up, but not until it's around $18 or so (here in Canada).

Is this American release definately the extended edition which was released on DVD a few years back and which Clint and Eli recorded some new vocals for ?

It could've been worse and to quote the reviewer at DVDbeaver: " My complaint would be that grain structure is not as prominent as I would have liked but The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has certainly never looked this good for home theater." And I tend to agree. What ya gonna do? :)

larry

If the audio is the same as the most recent DVD, then no deal. I'd like to punch the idiot who thought replacing all of the gunshot foley (and other sound effects) was a good idea. The film no longer sounds like a spaghetti western anymore.

Looks like they sqeezed everything onto one disc. It was enough with all the unnecessary audio, the extras too:( Its the best GBU to date, i'll take it:D Now the wait for a 4K version:eek:

Given the fact that this was shot in Techniscope, I think this is maybe as good as it'll ever look on home video.

The original English & Italian soundtracks are there along with the 5.1 mix.

Finally, three hours + extras (short, and mainly in SD) will fit easily onto 41gb.

Steve W

I've had this disc for some time now, and it's a sorely disappointing release.

The video has been scrubbed clean of grain, leaving the picture void of any detail - and it does indeed reach a 'Patton-level' from time to time. The only grain left to be seen has been transformed into a sluggish crawling pattern.

Perhaps not totally relevant, but this release also featured some of the 'hairs' near the bottom of the frame that Xylon noticed in 'South Pacific'.

It's sad to see the original trailer on the same disc looking more natural than the actual release. I had a chance to see the recent (I presume European) remaster of the movie a few months ago, and it had a gorgeous grain structure and great detail troughout. It also inexplicable why this movie continues to be released without the original mono soundtrack. The DTS-HD track is hardly an upgrade over the old 5.1 track, which was lackluster to begin with.

On the whole this release is lazy attempt by MGM/FOX, and no way to treat an important classic. I'd really advise you to stay away from this release, and wait for a proper release - there's a much better master in existence.


I also purchased Fargo. Grain was intact, but the image had some of the worst cases of edge enhancement I've seen on Blu-ray so far.

Given the fact that this was shot in Techniscope, I think this is maybe as good as it'll ever look on home video.
Compare this release (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/good_bad_and_the_ugly_blu-ray.htm) to the Italian restored edition of A Fistful of Dollars (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/fistful_of_dollars_blu-ray.htm) and it becomes clear this is not the case at all.

It's a crap release of an old, crappy transfer, end of story.

Well that seals it, I'm cancelling my preorder. Incredibly disappointing...

Yeah, I don't need to upgrade this film, at least not now, and not until at least they do a great restorative process that makes this look as nice as How the West Was Won.

Yeah, I don't need to upgrade this film, at least not now, and not until at least they do a great restorative process that makes this look as nice as How the West Was Won.
Each frame of HTWWW is composed of information from THREE full frames of 35mm film.
Not even taking into account the differences in lenses, film stock, lighting style, and the expertise of people originally behind the camera or in the lab- how can we expect any film to have this level of image quality when you are starting out with three times the resolution (at least).
To compare even an anamorphic film to cinerama seems to to be like expecting a 16mm print to look like a 35mm one. And isn't Techniscope more comparable to Super 35 (masking off image area in the 35mm frame, rather than distorting it via the lens to use all frame res available)?
Also, just because one Leone film from the same area looks one way, doesn't mean every single other film will share the same end look- especially after being handled for 40+ years.
Grain - in and of itself- is not always indicitive of higher source fidelity. If you dupe a print several generations from the OCN, you'll see plenty of grain...but that doesn't mean you're seeing the film properly presented. Could it be possible that the DNR'd passages some people are noticing is to account for variances in condition/look of elements utilized in reconstructing a more complete cut of the film?

Each frame of HTWWW is composed of information from THREE full frames of 35mm film.
Not even taking into account the differences in lenses, film stock, lighting style, and the expertise of people originally behind the camera or in the lab- how can we expect any film to have this level of image quality when you are starting out with three times the resolution (at least).
To compare even an anamorphic film to cinerama seems to to be like expecting a 16mm print to look like a 35mm one. And isn't Techniscope more comparable to Super 35 (masking off image area in the 35mm frame, rather than distorting it via the lens to use all frame res available)?
Also, just because one Leone film from the same area looks one way, doesn't mean every single other film will share the same end look- especially after being handled for 40+ years.
Grain - in and of itself- is not always indicitive of higher source fidelity. If you dupe a print several generations from the OCN, you'll see plenty of grain...but that doesn't mean you're seeing the film properly presented. Could it be possible that the DNR'd passages some people are noticing is to account for variances in condition/look of elements utilized in reconstructing a more complete cut of the film?

I was not aware of how How the West Was Won was filmed compared to this film. So you are absolutely correct. I can't expect that kind of picture quality. All I know is I had seen screen grabs of HTWWW and it was just... amazing!

But I didn't need to be schooled in grain 101, I'm well aware that grain = good as long as it is the way the film looks. Seriously.

I don't know about the DNR, I can't comment on that because I haven't seen the transfer.

I've had this disc for some time now, and it's a sorely disappointing release.

The video has been scrubbed clean of grain, leaving the picture void of any detail - and it does indeed reach a 'Patton-level' from time to time. The only grain left to be seen has been transformed into a sluggish crawling pattern.

I think people here are becoming too used to certain over-simplifications. They see a film on Blu-ray Disc. There's not as much detail as another film they've seen on Blu-ray Disc. It must have been 'DNR'd to death'.

Compare this release (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/good_bad_and_the_ugly_blu-ray.htm) to the Italian restored edition of A Fistful of Dollars (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/fistful_of_dollars_blu-ray.htm) and it becomes clear this is not the case at all.

It's a crap release of an old, crappy transfer, end of story.

Looking at the differences between TGTBATU and AFFOD, I think that any differences are fairly minimal.

This isn't a playground. Using hyperbole and saying 'end of story' doesn't make you right.

There's definitely still grain on TGTBATU, and grain on AFFOD is far from as much as it should be, given the film format used and the film's age.

Compare these two shots:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/good%20bad%20ugly%20blu-ray/large/large%20good%20bad%20ugly%20blu-ray5.jpg

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/fistful%20of%20dollars%20blu-ray/large/large%20fistfulfo%20dollars%20blu-ray11.jpg

There is barely any difference between the amount of detail or grain.

Each frame of HTWWW is composed of information from THREE full frames of 35mm film.

And each frame of TGTBATU is only half of a standard 35mm frame.

A standard camera negative of 35mm film will resolve c.6,000 lines of information, if it's brand newand in 100% prime condition. If you'd filmed something in Techniscope yesterday you'd get c.3,000 lines of information, if it was in perfect, undamaged condition.

A 40 year old, low-budget film, whose negatives have been kept by a small independent company?

Steve W

Finally, three hours + extras (short, and mainly in SD) will fit easily onto 41gb.

Steve W

Disc size 48,394,575,533:)

I think people here are becoming too used to certain over-simplifications. They see a film on Blu-ray Disc. There's not as much detail as another film they've seen on Blu-ray Disc. It must have been 'DNR'd to death'.
Steve W

I must admit linking the absence of detail directly to DNR is a flawed statement but, if anything, you are misinterpreting and oversimplifying my statements.

You are not basing your arguments purely on the dvdbeaver shots?
I can tell the difference between a variation in detail and an overuse of DNR- this release is the latter.

In motion the image looks persistently waxy, soft and washed out. Furthermore, the grain pattern that is shown in the dvdbeaver shots, is hardly visible, look sluggish in motion, and pops up randomly. I'm not part of the DNR-police, but this classic did not deserve the treatment it has been given.

Comparing AFFOD (which I also happen to own) to GBU, they are nothing alike. AFFOD looks colourfull, sharp, and perhaps more important, it looks like film. Comparing this release of GBU to the European restoration I got to see recently, it doesn't take an expert to notice how messed up this Blu-ray is. There is simply a much, much better master out there and it looks beautiful.

BsRoz, What European restoration do u speak of? Is it Blu ray?

I'm not part of the DNR-police, but this classic did not deserve the treatment it has been given.



It's never too late to join the force.

I agree with your statement and i am getting fed up with great catalog titles getting these abysmal poor transfers. The studio's need to realise they will damage their reputation and lose sales if this continues as the average typical viewer doesn't buy into catalog as much as the enthuasist on forums like this that really enjoy catalog titles and buy them.

What with this and Trek i am finding so many catalog titles ruined by the use of excessive DNR.

I think people here are becoming too used to certain over-simplifications. They see a film on Blu-ray Disc. There's not as much detail as another film they've seen on Blu-ray Disc. It must have been 'DNR'd to death'.



Looking at the differences between TGTBATU and AFFOD, I think that any differences are fairly minimal.

This isn't a playground. Using hyperbole and saying 'end of story' doesn't make you right.

There's definitely still grain on TGTBATU, and grain on AFFOD is far from as much as it should be, given the film format used and the film's age.

Compare these two shots:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/good%20bad%20ugly%20blu-ray/large/large%20good%20bad%20ugly%20blu-ray5.jpg

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/fistful%20of%20dollars%20blu-ray/large/large%20fistfulfo%20dollars%20blu-ray11.jpg

There is barely any difference between the amount of detail or grain.



And each frame of TGTBATU is only half of a standard 35mm frame.

A standard camera negative of 35mm film will resolve c.6,000 lines of information, if it's brand newand in 100% prime condition. If you'd filmed something in Techniscope yesterday you'd get c.3,000 lines of information, if it was in perfect, undamaged condition.

A 40 year old, low-budget film, whose negatives have been kept by a small independent company?

Steve W
You make too much sense so you're not qualified to post in threads like this.
:D

I'd really advise you to stay away from this release, and wait for a proper release - there's a much better master in existence.


Provide a BD based on a better master, then I will "stay away from this release" and gladly buy your version. :D

You make too much sense so you're not qualified to post in threads like this.
:D

You make no sense whatsoever so would do best to keep out of these threads and stick to your audio threads.

Gee i forgot my smiley so does that mean i'm a bad boy.

Compare these two shots:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/good%20bad%20ugly%20blu-ray/large/large%20good%20bad%20ugly%20blu-ray5.jpg

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/fistful%20of%20dollars%20blu-ray/large/large%20fistfulfo%20dollars%20blu-ray11.jpg

We need a sticky or something for dvdbeaver links to screen caps. Everytime anyone links them with what seems to be the full and proper url, they always default to the main page and then one has to go a searching for the right caps. :rolleyes:

Rant over.

I think people here are becoming too used to certain over-simplifications. They see a film on Blu-ray Disc. There's not as much detail as another film they've seen on Blu-ray Disc. It must have been 'DNR'd to death'.

Looking at the differences between TGTBATU and AFFOD, I think that any differences are fairly minimal.
I'm sorry? Fairly minimal?!

As you say, there are technical properties to the film which mean the actual image detail on Fistful might not be that remarkable. But if you don't see how superior it is in terms of everything from colours to sharpness to overall filmlike image then there's really not much to discuss in my opinion. You can call me childish and elitist if you want to.

From what I've seen the grain on TGTBTU is a light blobbish noise. It's an incredibly blurry, smeary mess.

...

Not quite. Techniscope is the same width as standard 35mm. The height is cut in half, but the width stays the same. So it still has the same resolution across the width of the frame as "standard" 35mm.

Vincent

Vincent beat me to it! :cool:

We need a sticky or something for dvdbeaver links to screen caps. Everytime anyone links them with what seems to be the full and proper url, they always default to the main page and then one has to go a searching for the right caps. :rolleyes:

Rant over.

Thats weird. When I clicked on those links earlier this afternoon, it took me to the appropriate page. After I updated to IE8, the links took me to the main page. Maybe its the browser?

Thats weird. When I clicked on those links earlier this afternoon, it took me to the appropriate page. After I updated to IE8, the links took me to the main page. Maybe its the browser?

I don't know how it happens, but since the url is correct and I have found the same that the link works at first, maybe their is some weird time limit where pages on that site turn back into a (pumpkin) main page defaults. I.T. guys would know. :confused:

Thats weird. When I clicked on those links earlier this afternoon, it took me to the appropriate page. After I updated to IE8, the links took me to the main page. Maybe its the browser?

It takes me to the homepage too w/Mozilla

Well, I have not had the time to watch The Good ,The Bad And The Ugly on the "big screen" ( got the disc on Friday ) only viewing part of it on a 42" 1080 lcd. I also have the Italian version of A Fistful Of Dollars so a comparison between the two using the pj will be in order ( 128" 2:35 ). From what I have seen TGTBATU looks pretty decent on the smaller set. I definitely prefer it over the SD version. I'm not an expert and do not know the film intimately regarding grain etc. so it's all subjective. It is obvious that some will find it acceptable while others will not. Until the majority have their own copies a guess the real critical analysis will have to wait. Regardless, I have been enjoying it so far.

It takes me to the homepage too w/Mozilla
Same with Safari.

Not quite. Techniscope is the same width as standard 35mm. The height is cut in half, but the width stays the same. So it still has the same resolution across the width of the frame as "standard" 35mm.

Vincent

Yes, that fits in exactly with what I said. A frame of Techniscope is half of a standard 35mm frame. I didn't say it was half height as opposed to half width...but I thought that the shape of the frame would have made that fairly obvious.

:D

Steve W

...

No it doesn't fit in with what you posted because you listed a resolution spec- you said and I quote "A standard camera negative of 35mm film will resolve c.6,000 lines of information, if it's brand newand in 100% prime condition. If you'd filmed something in Techniscope yesterday you'd get c.3,000 lines of information, if it was in perfect, undamaged condition...".

When resolution is talked about in film terms- i.e., 4K or 6K- the figure is a measurement across the width of the frame, and since Techniscope uses the same frame width, it would have the same resolution figure. Obviously the height of the frame is cropped in half so the overall pixel count will be halved, but horizontally the resolution is the same.

Vincent

Like this?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/Techniscope_2_perf_35_mm_film.png/800px-Techniscope_2_perf_35_mm_film.png

This is what the review at DVD Beaver states about the PQ

"Mostly this looks as expected - no gloss, a dusty, grittier, and sometimes an even duller, look but the frequent absence of grain makes one think momentarily of DNR (Digital Noise Reduction). While I suspect it in some scenes it is absent throughout most and if it was applied - wasn't blanketed"

So here we have a professional reviewer, actually looking for DNR, saying that while it effects a handful of scenes, for the most part, it is not there.

So who am I supposed to believe here? A hyper critic on AVS forums that posts nothing but his hatred for DNR. Or an objective professional reviewer that is doing his job.

BTW, after looking at the screenshot, if DNR was used, it was NO WHERE near the amount used in Patton or even Zulu, because I see every single skin pore and whisker in Eli Wallach's ugly mug.

No it doesn't fit in with what you posted because you listed a resolution spec- you said and I quote "A standard camera negative of 35mm film will resolve c.6,000 lines of information, if it's brand newand in 100% prime condition. If you'd filmed something in Techniscope yesterday you'd get c.3,000 lines of information, if it was in perfect, undamaged condition...".

When resolution is talked about in film terms- i.e., 4K or 6K- the figure is a measurement across the width of the frame, and since Techniscope uses the same frame width, it would have the same resolution figure. Obviously the height of the frame is cropped in half so the overall pixel count will be halved, but horizontally the resolution is the same.

Vincent

Vincent, my apologies - we appear to have our wires crossed. My fault for not being clearer.

Yes, if you have digital scans, etc, the figure is for measurements across the width of the frame - horizontal resolution.

However, that's not what I was referring to. As we know, film doesn’t have lines of information, but it's theoretical equivalent can be measured, and my understanding is that the theoretical resolution of a 35mm film camera negative is around 6,000 horizontal lines. Subsequently, a half-height 2-perf Techniscope frame can resolve around 3,000 lines.

In my defence I wouls point out that, whilst terms like 2k & 4k are often used, when talking about horizontal and vertical resolution we always use the number of lines high and pixels across.

My fault for not being clearer. Apologies again, and best wishes.

Steve W

Like this?:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/Techniscope_2_perf_35_mm_film.png/800px-Techniscope_2_perf_35_mm_film.png

Spot on, Rob.

Let's do a little comparison for a second.

Have we all seen the BD/HD DVD of 2001: A Space Odyssey? I suspect we have. Does is look gorgeous? It most certainly does. Does it look perfect? Well, not quite, but it looks fantastic - maybe just at the edge of the very best PQ we can expect. If they'd done as good a job with TGTBATU we'd be over the moon, right? of 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good benchmark.

Now as we know, that film was shot on 65mm Super Panavision 70, just like Lawrence of Arabia. A 65mm film frame has dimensions of 52.69 x 23.0 mm = 1211.87mm sq, whilst Techniscope (as you've shown above) has dimensions of 9.47 x 22 mm = 208.34mm sq.

This means that each frame of that glorious 2001: A Space Odyssey restoration we've seen has a surface area of almost six times larger than each frame of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Looked at that way, if we use 2001: A Space Odyssey as a benchmark, I don't think they've done too bad a job on this one.

Just my opinion.

Steve W

Spot on, Rob.

Let's do a little comparison for a second.

Have we all seen the BD/HD DVD of 2001: A Space Odyssey? I suspect we have. Does is look gorgeous? It most certainly does. Does it look perfect? Well, not quite, but it looks fantastic - maybe just at the edge of the very best PQ we can expect. If they'd done as good a job with TGTBATU we'd be over the moon, right? of 2001: A Space Odyssey is a good benchmark.

Now as we know, that film was shot on 65mm Super Panavision 70, just like Lawrence of Arabia. A 65mm film frame has dimensions of 52.69 x 23.0 mm = 1211.87mm sq, whilst Techniscope (as you've shown above) has dimensions of 9.47 x 22 mm = 208.34mm sq.

This means that each frame of that glorious 2001: A Space Odyssey restoration we've seen has a surface area of almost six times larger than each frame of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Looked at that way, if we use 2001: A Space Odyssey as a benchmark, I don't think they've done too bad a job on this one.

Just my opinion.

Steve W

I would never use 2001 as a benchmark simply because they used sharpening on it thus it's less than ideal.

2001 has a level of EE baked into the master. It's unfortunate.

I'm terribly disappointed that both TGTBTU and the TREK films have clearly been DVNR'd into submission. It just never ends.

I'm terribly disappointed that both TGTBTU and the TREK films have clearly been DVNR'd into submission. It just never ends.:confused:

From all accounts, TGTBTU doesn't have anywhere near the DVNR of the Trek films, let alone something like Patton or Dark City. I can understand disappointment, but over-generalizing vastly different uses of DVNR is ridiculous. The same goes for characterizing the treatment of a decidedly small minority of releases as "it just never ends".

:confused:

From all accounts, TGTBTU doesn't have anywhere near the DVNR of the Trek films, let alone something like Patton or Dark City. I can understand disappointment, but over-generalizing vastly different uses of DVNR is ridiculous. The same goes for characterizing the treatment of a decidedly small minority of releases as "it just never ends".

From my 60" Elite, it seems DNR is applied but is in no way as intense as PATTON or DARK CITY.

I would never use 2001 as a benchmark simply because they used sharpening on it thus it's less than ideal.

What 40(ish) year old film - let's say from between 1965 & 1970 - would you use?

Steve W

I'm terribly disappointed that both TGTBTU and the TREK films have clearly been DVNR'd into submission.

"DVNR'd into submission."

Thanks - I'll add that to the hyperbole list.

'Butchered'. 'Raped'. 'DNR'd to death'. 'Looks no better than the DVD'. 'Wax City'.

Does anyone have any others?

We should start on the sound. 'Wax Cylinder City', perhaps?

Steve W

Sorry, but it is true. It never ends. The fight against Hollywood and its stupid desire to dumb down home entertainment and ruin the experience for those of us with true knowledge is driving me insane. With every battle won (widescreen) another comes up.

Sorry, but it is true. It never ends. The fight against Hollywood and its stupid desire to dumb down home entertainment and ruin the experience for those of us with true knowledge is driving me insane. With every battle won (widescreen) another comes up.I don't think that hyperbolizing even very slightly affected releases into travesties, depending on screenshots on sub-42" monitors instead of large-screen displays in motion, and saying that releases with obviously huge differences in DNR application look identical is really helping said cause. Most of us don't like DNR, but we're not going to claim vastly different PQ is the same when it's not. It's like politics: The consumer won't listen to the extremists on either side. Presenting yourself as an someone who doesn't bother to educate, but instead lumps moderation with overuse and insults everything outside of the orthodoxy only serves to marginalize your view as extreme instead.

To further the metaphor, take this advice from David Frum, as it's as applicable to the DNR argument as it is to power:Be more calm, more judicious, and more fair-minded. Don’t be provoked. Don’t throw wild allegations. Don’t boycott. Don’t lose your temper.

Instead, we get Anger Theater. It’s not smart. And it’s not working.

What 40(ish) year old film - let's say from between 1965 & 1970 - would you use?

Steve W


The Professionals. ( Incidentally also 1966 like this film although obviously not shot with the same camera system or film stock )

I was stunned at how good this looked when i first watched it.

Well that seals it, I'm cancelling my preorder. Incredibly disappointing...

Really? After eyeballing the DVDBeaver caps, I'm anticipating this release even more than before. Looks pretty great to me. To each his own, I guess. [shrug]

Same with Safari.

From what I was told by an IT friend, he said there is an script embedded in the caps/links that defaults to the home page of DVD beaver.

From what I was told by an IT friend, he said there is an script embedded in the caps/links that defaults to the home page of DVD beaver.

Thanks, I wonder why DVD beaver wants us not to be able to go directly to a certain page? :confused:

I don't think that hyperbolizing even very slightly affected releases into travesties, depending on screenshots on sub-42" monitors instead of large-screen displays in motion, and saying that releases with obviously huge differences in DNR application look identical is really helping said cause. Most of us don't like DNR, but we're not going to claim vastly different PQ is the same when it's not. It's like politics: The consumer won't listen to the extremists on either side. Presenting yourself as an someone who doesn't bother to educate, but instead lumps moderation with overuse and insults everything outside of the orthodoxy only serves to marginalize your view as extreme instead.
:rolleyes: This is really insulting. It seems that any time this issue comes up, the other side starts to use the "extremist" labels. That is truly sad and just groan inducing.

For the record, as mentioned in another thread, I am no longer relying on a monitor and screen grabs. I have watched scenes from TMP and KHAN on a whopping 105 inch 1080p screen. In motion, mind you. The 1080i mpeg2 HBO broadcasts have superior detail than the BD more often than not. The BD's are not TERRIBLE. They have superior color balance, but they are clearly grain scrubbed. Had they just skipped the DVNR we would have pure perfection. But they didn't. So these are flawed.

And by the way, screen grabs, when uncomprssed, don't lie. Time and time again guys like Xylon prove that to be true.

In regards to the TREK films, it is not even a debateable point right now, so I won't bother post here because the apologists are going to be screaming bloody murder for us "elitists" to shut up. Whatever. I saw it with mine own eyes.

:rolleyes: This is really insulting. It seems that any time this issue comes up, the other side starts to use the "extremist" labels. That is truly sad and just groan inducing.More hyperbole. It doesn't happen "any time this issue comes up". It happens when a fairly decent release like this one gets repeatedly slammed by a vocal minority when most forumgoers and reviewers don't see the extent of the problem that you claim. That's where the "extremist" label comes from. I mean, you mention below points as "not even debateable" (then why allow people to post anything at AVS?) and that's on an issue that most people agree with you on!
For the record, as mentioned in another thread, I am no longer relying on a monitor and screen grabs. I have watched scenes from TMP and KHAN on a whopping 105 inch 1080p screen.In regards to the TREK films, it is not even a debateable point right now, so I won't bother post here because the apologists are going to be screaming bloody murder for us "elitists" to shut up. Whatever. I saw it with mine own eyes.:confused:

This thread is about TGTBTU. There seems to be a general (but not unanimous) consensus on the DNR in the Trek films, so I don't know where you're coming up with the "screaming bloody murder" for people to shut up, but it sure illustrates the hyperbole point.
And by the way, screen grabs, when uncomprssed, don't lie. Time and time again guys like Xylon prove that to be true.Combined with the above quote, I have to wonder if you're posting in the right thread, since the only screenshots for TBTGTU we have are compressed.

In any case, you've managed to illustrate my point perfectly, as the posts in this thread and elsewhere seem to be a rejection of the rhetoric and false conflation. You could have moderated instead of rejected, educated instead of insulted, and people would have taken your point instead of dismissing it and hurting your otherwise agreeable argument.

I was talking about both TREK films and TGTBTU. My specifics were on the TREK BD's, which I have seen on a 105 inch screen.

You went into the entire DVNR debate, so I let loose with a response.

The general public is normally clueless. They were with widescreen and that was one hell of a battle. Time and time again the masses don't have a clue. How many of them said The Phantom Menace had no EE on the DVD release?

Whatever. I really don't care that you think you are high and mighty and a voice of reason. Youc an have your opinion and I can have mine. Good day.

To further the metaphor, take this advice from David Frum, as it's as applicable to the DNR argument as it is to power:

I know this has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, but I can't help myself: David Frum is an idiot.

I was talking about both TREK films and TGTBTU. My specifics were on the TREK BD's, which I have seen on a 105 inch screen.Which, as has been repeated by myself and most others in this thread, (and even in the screenshots) is two entirely different treatments. Even the various Trek movies have different treatments.
You went into the entire DVNR debate, so I let loose with a response.No, I was discussing your tactics and knee-jerk generalizations, not DNR as a whole. I have said at last twice now that I agree with the general sentiment.
The general public is normally clueless. They were with widescreen and that was one hell of a battle.IIRC, fullscreen-only releases (since there's no reason to attack being given a choice for widescreen) were a tiny percentage at inception and barely existed after the first couple of years, so I wonder where you're getting this from.
Time and time again the masses don't have a clue. How many of them said The Phantom Menace had no EE on the DVD release?Since I've never seen anyone saying there was no EE in TPM, I'm once again going to wonder where you're coming up with this.
Obviously, you have copious evidence to support this. Right?
Whatever. I really don't care that you think you are high and mighty and a voice of reason. Youc an have your opinion and I can have mine. Good day.Wow, point completely missed. It's amazing how the majority of informed viewers is "high and mighty" and no longer "voices of reason".

FWIW, I wasn't talking about opinion, I was talking about method. I even called your argument agreeable, because--and this might shock you--I agree with you. I just think you're tying any use of DNR to severe use of DNR, which undermines your argument because it becomes "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and pushes people away from your opinion. This thread is a perfect illustration of that stick vs. carrot method.

But, hey, you want to further marginalize the argument, by all means continue attacking those who support your point but not your tactics, because as we all know that works so well.
I know this has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, but I can't help myself: David Frum is an idiot.:D

99.9% of the time I agree, but I think he's got the right idea here.

So what's the final verdict on this one? Yay or nay?

So what's the final verdict on this one? Yay or nay?

It's a yah, no way around it. Could it of been better? Yes

I know this has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make, but I can't help myself: David Frum is an idiot.

I 2nd that. Came out of nowhere

So what's the final verdict on this one? Yay or nay?

You be the judge and check it out for yourself. In my opinion, this is not a clear-cut case.

My 2 cents? It's good. It's bad. It's ugly.

Brandon

My 2 cents? It's good. It's bad. It's ugly.

Brandon

Finally a voice of reason.

:D

What 40(ish) year old film - let's say from between 1965 & 1970 - would you use?

Steve W

It is reasonable to compare it to the first two dollar movies that both have been getting a proper treatment - it doesn't get more comparable than that.

It is reasonable to compare it to the first two dollar movies that both have been getting a proper treatment - it doesn't get more comparable than that.

uh...how about comparing the Bd to the films previous DVD release? That seems to me a little more sensible than comparing something to a theoretical perfect release that only exists in your minds eye-regardless of whatever entirely seperate films have influenced that fantasy image.

It is reasonable to compare it to the first two dollar movies that both have been getting a proper treatment - it doesn't get more comparable than that.

In which case there's not much in it.

Please remember these films may have been shot in slightly different ways, on slightly different film stock, and kept in quite different conditions. No two films will look identical.

Indeed, when watching another Techniscope film L'uccello dalle Piume di Cristallo (The Bird with the Crystal Plumage) the other night it was noticeable that virtually no two scenes within the same film had the same amount of grain or detail.

I’m not suggesting this transfer is perfect. But to me it looks there or thereabouts as good as we’re going to get. We’ll never, repeat never, end up with every one of our favourite films being shot, stored, restored, and transferred to exactly the same standards. We can only hope that each one will get a decent stab at it, and that appears to have happened here.

I wish TGTBATU had been shot on 70mm film, stored in conditions dictated by Robert Harris and restored by the same chap, and transferred to Blu-ray Disc by a multi-million dollar team of geniuses, none of whom was having an off day.

Me, I’ll put up with them doing as decent a job as it is reasonable to expect, given the vagaries of human limitations. The alternative is to not buy perhaps 50% of our favourite films when they arrive on BD, and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Steve W

:rolleyes: This is really insulting. It seems that any time this issue comes up, the other side starts to use the "extremist" labels.

There are extremists on all sides.

There are people who won't watch a film if they can see any grain.

There are some who call themselves 'grain lovers' (words cannot express...).

There are those who won't watch films unless they fill their 16:9 TVs.

There are those who won't watch anything but 'scope films.

There are those who I suspect never actually watch films, they just get them out of the packing, flick forward to Chapter 3, pause, and stare at the screen from 4 inches looking for grain, or DNR, or EE, or whatever the latest internet craze tells them they should.

It's not about being ignorant about any of these issues, it's about being knowledgeable and maintaining high standards whilst also being reasonable and pragmatic.

Steve W

I'm watching this release on a 105 inch screen tomorrow night. Will post my opinions on it Thursday.

Indeed, when watching another Techniscope film L'uccello dalle Piume di Cristallo (The Bird with the Crystal Plumage) the other night it was noticeable that virtually no two scenes within the same film had the same amount of grain or detail.

Yes, thats a very good point.

Alot of factors will effect the PQ.

Did they overexpose a certain scene, underexposed another? Did the weather change during the filming a outdoor scene. Did they change filmstock during the production. Did they tweak any scenes during the development.

And why does my cellphone produce so wastly different result from picture to picture? Its the same megapixel...

There are extremists on all sides.

There are people who won't watch a film if they can see any grain.

There are some who call themselves 'grain lovers' (words cannot express...).

There are those who won't watch films unless they fill their 16:9 TVs.

There are those who won't watch anything but 'scope films.

There are those who I suspect never actually watch films, they just get them out of the packing, flick forward to Chapter 3, pause, and stare at the screen from 4 inches looking for grain, or DNR, or EE, or whatever the latest internet craze tells them they should.

It's not about being ignorant about any of these issues, it's about being knowledgeable and maintaining high standards whilst also being reasonable and pragmatic.

Steve W

Just because i started a thread called Film Grain Allowed i suddenly got called a grain lover which incidentally is missing the entire point of that thread but hey it's not about being a film grain lover and i'm actually just a film buff who wants films presented as best as they can on Blu Ray - If the film has grain give it to us and if it doesn't have grain then that's fine also just give it to us the way it was shot but don't use the digital tools too much to alter the film look just for the Blu Ray release.

Hell i watch films on digital satellite that are smoothed over and robbed of most of their detail but i watch them on a smaller screen set. When i buy a Blu Ray i watch it projected at 106inches so i really do notice issues if they crop up and some can be an eyesore on that size of screen.

Final point though is that after years and years of double and triple dipping on DVD i have wised up and no longer do the double dip so if something comes out on Blu Ray that i feel isn't up to a certain standard then i just hold off and wait. It may take years but eventually i feel some substandard releases will get a better transfer and then i'll purchase. For me it isn't about getting something that is better than a DVD because lets face it all HD releases even the very bad ones will be better than the DVD due to the resolution factor.

For me it's about getting as close as possible on a home medium to the film experience so if it has grain i want it and if it's a film shot digitally with practically zero grain like Zodiac then i want it.

We all have different standards though and labelling people extremists does not help anyone as what you might consider an extremist i may consider something totally different. It's not extremist to want the cinema experience in your home and Blu Ray can provide that as long as the studio's lay off the DNR tools. Even a little too much of that can sour the cinema experience. ( for me )

There are those who I suspect never actually watch films, they just get them out of the packing, flick forward to Chapter 3, pause, and stare at the screen from 4 inches looking for grain, or DNR, or EE, or whatever the latest internet craze tells them they should.

This one made me laugh...mostly because I know it's true for some folks :)

Brandon

Just because i started a thread called Film Grain Allowed i suddenly got called a grain lover ...

Perhaps there is something between you guys that has gone on in other threads that I'm not aware of, but from my perspective I didn't take this as a shot at your thread. There are people who are self-proclaimed "grain lovers" on this forum (even in sigs), and I think that's what he/she was referencing.

Brandon

Im a grainlover, and proud of it. :)

Grain is good; make sure you get enough of it in your diet.

Perhaps there is something between you guys that has gone on in other threads that I'm not aware of, but from my perspective I didn't take this as a shot at your thread. There are people who are self-proclaimed "grain lovers" on this forum (even in sigs), and I think that's what he/she was referencing.

Brandon

Not at all i was just reading the comments and it reminded me that several people have made that remark at me because of the thread i started.

Pecker was not one of those people.

finally watched this all the way through
it really is Pattonized at times, what a disgrace :(

Just because i started a thread called Film Grain Allowed i suddenly got called a grain lover...

We all have different standards though and labelling people extremists does not help anyone as what you might consider an extremist i may consider something totally different.

1 - I never called you a grain lover. Who did? If you look closely someone else has it in their signature.

2 - Someone else used the word extremist - I was just responding.

If the film has grain give it to us and if it doesn't have grain then that's fine also just give it to us the way it was shot but don't use the digital tools too much to alter the film look just for the Blu Ray release.

I tentatively agree with that, but there are a few issues, and it's important not to be too over simplistic (not that I'm suggesting you are).

Firstly, grain increases with age, particularly with film that's not well kept. What do you do if there's more grain than the director intended?

Secondly, Techniscope was largely not an artistic decision but a commercial one. This from an article in American Cinematographer launching the system:

TECHNISCOPE is the trade-name of a new wide-screen film production method developed by engineers of Technicolor Corporation. It reduces by one-half the amount of negative film and negative processing required for a color motion picture, This saving is accomplished by reducing the negative picture area from the conventional four-perforation frame size to one only two-perforations in height. The frame width remains the same, (See "ASC Recommendation No. 13" relating to the Techniscope Process elsewhere in this issue...A motion picture ordinarily requiring 15,000 feet of color negative requires only half as much or 75,000 feet in the Techniscope process. This, says Technicolor Corporation. can save producers between $15,000 and $20,000 in "front end" production costs for a motion picture in color.

Now there's a philosophical argument that the film should look on Blu-ray Disc how it originally looked, even if that was different to what the director would have liked, and I'm happy to enter into that discussion. But here I'm not convinced Leone chose Techniscope for the grain, but that the producers chose it for the savings, and I'm not sure too much detail (if any at all) has been lost be drastic DNR on this particular Blu-ray Disc.

If we have as much detail as is possible from this release (or close) and the only grain removed is that which Leone probably never intended, then the problem is...?

I strongly suspect that if this release was very grainy and with the same amount of (lack of?) detail it would be being praised, which would be to miss the point entirely.

Steve W

I never called you a grain lover. Who did? If you look closely someone else has it in their signature.

Steve W

To be fair, I changed my signature after I did that post. ;)

1 - I never called you a grain lover. Who did? If you look closely someone else has it in their signature.







I strongly suspect that if this release was very grainy and with the same amount of (lack of?) detail it would be being praised, which would be to miss the point entirely.

Steve W

If you scroll up you will see i made it clear that i was not saying you called me a grain lover but was referring to the fact others had labelled me that.

Also for me it's about preserving the film look and not going too far into the HD television look. I can deal with a little DNR that removes some grain but if they go too far and the result is too smooth then it just looks horrible to me and loses the film look it originally had. Leone was a great director and Techniscope was not a bad camera format

Information: Source is Wikipedia

Techniscope's disadvantages against CinemaScope:


Enlarging the image to the 35mm print also enlarges the negative's film grain. (Although some cineastes sought this visual feel for the story; e.g. westerns photographed to appear unpolished, thereby enhancing the period settings' verisimilitude.) This step is also an additional production expense. If the enlargement process is done optically, the generation loss will add even more grain and reduce the image sharpness. Alternatively, the enlargement can be done as part of the Digital Intermediate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Intermediate) (DI) process. This involves digitally scanning the 2 perf film negative. Output to film is done with a film recorder, such as the Arrilaser.



Two-perforation cameras and telecine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine) installations are rare. (Note: As of early 2008 Aaton is coming out with their newly-designed 2 perf-native (3 perf user-switchable) Penelope camera. Konvas cameras have been available in 2 perf for a while, and Arri is making 2 perf gates for their Arricams soon, available only through the rental dealers though. And more and more telecine suites have 2 perf gates for their film scanners.)



The narrower frame line (between frames) emphasises imperfections (i.e. hairs in the gate, lens flares).

Note: When transferring a Techniscope film to a digital video format, the 2-perf negative or 2-perf interpositive A/B rolls can be used, bypassing any blown-up 4-perf element. Many DVD editions have been transferred this way and the results have frequently been stunning, ie. Blue Underground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blue_Underground_releases)'s The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bird_with_the_Crystal_Plumage) and MGM's special editions of Sergio Leone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Leone)'s Westerns.


So the question for me is how was this transfer done ?

Oh and incidentally The Ipcress File shot a year earlier pretty much has the grain structure intact and it too was shot using Techniscope and the same could be said for The Bird With The Crystal Plumage shot four years later so i would say you can compare the image quality of the Techniscope format to those even though the film themes are different.

Spectator......I disagree simply because some films shot in this format looked fabulous so how can it be such a bad camera format. It's like anything if used right you will get results and remember the old saying that a bad workman always blames his tools. Well the same can be said for film making.

Techniscope was not a bad camera format


I beg to differ, but I guess that's pretty much OT.

I beg to differ, but I guess that's pretty much OT.

Really? I'm surprised that you think so. Clearly there are advantages and disadvantages to Techniscope, but I would never call it a "bad camera format". It served it's purpose well, and gave some directors exactly what they wanted from the format (see Sergio Leone) even if it also meant some compromises.

Leone could not get the extreme closeups without having noticeable distortion if he had to use an anamorphic lens, for example. No such issues with spherical lenses.

Well, like any camera format, Techniscope has some advantages over other formats (and, yes, in this case, those advantages are quite well suited to Leone's style - or vise-versa), but if you're going to call anything a "bad" camera format (which it's somewhat appropriate to do, so that the corollary has some meaning), I can think of nary another with as few identifiable/arguable advantages. It's all highly subjective and YMMV (and, of course, the crux is to match your format to your material well, as Leone certainly did), but something has to be at the bottom end of the list and, for me, Techniscope brings up the rear nicely!

Besides, Techniscope near the bottom makes for a good bookend with Technirama up near the top. :D

Well, like any camera format, Techniscope has some advantages over other formats (and, yes, in this case, those advantages are quite well suited to Leone's style - or vise-versa), but if you're going to call anything a "bad" camera format (which it's somewhat appropriate to do, so that the corollary has some meaning), I can think of nary another with as few identifiable/arguable advantages. It's all highly subjective and YMMV (and, of course, the crux is to match your format to your material well, as Leone certainly did), but something has to be at the bottom end of the list and, for me, Techniscope brings up the rear nicely!

Besides, Techniscope near the bottom makes for a good bookend with Technirama up near the top. :D

Fair enough! :cool:

Having seen this twice, I can tell you that grain missing from the image = massive DVNR because this flick is riddled with grain. It's just the way it is. The film stock used, the way in which it was shot, etc. all conspire for obvious grain. but it doesn't distract. Grain is not a ****ing problem! People don't complain about grain when they are in a theater watching the fricken movie.

Again, I'll know for sure on this one tomorrow night.

In which case there's not much in it.

Please remember these films may have been shot in slightly different ways, on slightly different film stock, and kept in quite different conditions. No two films will look identical.

Indeed, when watching another Techniscope film L'uccello dalle Piume di Cristallo (The Bird with the Crystal Plumage) the other night it was noticeable that virtually no two scenes within the same film had the same amount of grain or detail.

I’m not suggesting this transfer is perfect. But to me it looks there or thereabouts as good as we’re going to get. We’ll never, repeat never, end up with every one of our favourite films being shot, stored, restored, and transferred to exactly the same standards. We can only hope that each one will get a decent stab at it, and that appears to have happened here.

I wish TGTBATU had been shot on 70mm film, stored in conditions dictated by Robert Harris and restored by the same chap, and transferred to Blu-ray Disc by a multi-million dollar team of geniuses, none of whom was having an off day.

Me, I’ll put up with them doing as decent a job as it is reasonable to expect, given the vagaries of human limitations. The alternative is to not buy perhaps 50% of our favourite films when they arrive on BD, and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Steve W

All the Dollar movies were shot by the same director in rather similar settings and circumstances in Techniscope over a period of a few years and to my knowledge with the same film stock. I was probably under the wrong impression that YOU asked for suggestions for movies that are more suited to be compared to TGTBATU than 2001 but I can see now that I was probably mistaken:

In which case there's not much in it.

Well suit yourself then, I still don't like what I see with TGTBATU.

*sigh*

You be the judge and check it out for yourself. In my opinion, this is not a clear-cut case.

If I was just going to check it for myself, then I wouldn't have asked. The great thing about the interweb these days is you can do PRODUCT RESEARCH before making the mistake of buying something you'll regret.

It's not about being ignorant about any of these issues, it's about being knowledgeable and maintaining high standards whilst also being reasonable and pragmatic.

Steve W

But being a purely subjective experience, some people's levels of being reasonable and pragmatic differ from the next. Neither being wrong. Chastizing people for wanting more from this disc and thus not spending their hard-earned cash on it is wrong. Same with saying this is garbage and anyone who buys it is stupid. Both are ignorant viewpoints.

People don't complain about grain when they are in a theater watching the fricken movie.

It's probably because their displays at home are uncalibrated and sharpened to a ridiculous degree, thereby exacerbating the grain. That, and the commercial theater experience for the average person is usually held at different standards.

Again, I'll know for sure on this one tomorrow night.

Please try not to have an aneurysm when you become dissatisfied with the results. :D

But being a purely subjective experience, some people's levels of being reasonable and pragmatic differ from the next. Neither being wrong. Chastizing people for wanting more from this disc and thus not spending their hard-earned cash on it is wrong. Same with saying this is garbage and anyone who buys it is stupid. Both are ignorant viewpoints.

Well said. And calling someone an "extremist" on the issue does no good either, as it is a matter of perspective and priorities.

And calling someone an "extremist" on the issue does no good either...

Don't forget the usual argumentative tactic of calling people a "scientist" in a condescending manner for using screen grabs as an indicator of image quality. With so many scientists on this forum, I would expect productivity to be on the rise.

If I was just going to check it for myself, then I wouldn't have asked. The great thing about the interweb these days is you can do PRODUCT RESEARCH before making the mistake of buying something you'll regret.

Ah, I figured you could rent it. I'm not big on renting myself, but I've found that there are times when my tolerance and expectation of an image differs greatly from that of others.

The interweb is indeed an amazing invention, though. :)

Screenshots from the German Blu-ray and the German 2-DVD "Gold Edition". More Screenshots here (http://www.dvduell.de/artikel/screenshot-vergleich-zwei-glorreiche-halunken-1966-sergio-leone/).

http://www.dvduell.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/04-zwei-glorreiche-halunken-blu-ray-brd-mgm-007-42.jpg

http://www.dvduell.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/04-zwei-glorreiche-halunken-dvd-brd-mgm-007-25.jpg

http://www.dvduell.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/06-zwei-glorreiche-halunken-blu-ray-brd-mgm-032-07.jpg

http://www.dvduell.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/06-zwei-glorreiche-halunken-dvd-brd-mgm-030-49.jpg

One look at Lee van Cleef in the doorway says it all.

You can actually see his face on the Blu-ray Disc, rather than the blob on the SD DVD.

Maybe a little DNR has been used, but the idea that this has stripped all fine detail from the image is clearly overstatement.

Steve W

One look at Lee van Cleef in the doorway says it all.


Agreed


You can actually see his face on the Blu-ray Disc, rather than the blob on the SD DVD.


Well we se little more detail in his face, but we are talking about 1080P here. Then its very little.


Maybe a little DNR has been used, but the idea that this has stripped all fine detail from the image is clearly overstatement.


Its has been destroyed because heavy use of DNR. This is one of the few cases were I prefer the DVD (Not that it is preferable) because even if the DVD has less detail then the BD, It also has more filmlook.


Now hopefully the other BD release of this movie is better.

But being a purely subjective experience, some people's levels of being reasonable and pragmatic differ from the next. Neither being wrong. Chastizing people for wanting more from this disc and thus not spending their hard-earned cash on it is wrong. Same with saying this is garbage and anyone who buys it is stupid. Both are ignorant viewpoints.

Very good points.

I want more from every disc, and I've never said this one was perfect.

The only thing I've criticised is the hyperbole thrown around, and the suggestion that this disc falls so far short of what it could be that people shouldn't buy it.

If someone is such a perfectionist that 99% or 90% isn't good enough, that's down to their personal taste, and I won't question that.

The only things I'm questioning are that (A) this disc is a long way short of what it should have been (which it clearly isn't - not perfect perhaps, but pretty good) and (B) the ridiculous language being used. All these quotes are from this thread:

"Excessive DNR in addition of strong edge enhancement. Soft picture with few detail and dull contrast."

"The German MGM Blu-ray of The Good, the Bad & the Ugly is vastly DNR'd and has EE all over the place."

"... the transfer is heavy on the DNR..."

"From the screenshots posted there, I'd say this is our worst DNR nightmare come true..."

"No fine detail and a fuzzy image overall."

"…the quality is so unbelievable bad"

"...a sorely disappointing release...the video has been scrubbed clean of grain, leaving the picture void of any detail..."

"...a crap release of an old, crappy transfer..."

Clearly these statements are completely over the top.

When Rob Tomlin says "To me, those grabs clearly look like they have been scrubbed of some high frequency detail and grain, but they are not as bad as many other screen grabs I have seen" that's a lot nearer the mark.

I'd largely agree with RT's moderate comments than all this apocalyptic ranting.

Steve W

ps. A late addition "Its has been destroyed because heavy use of DNR."

"Destroyed"? "Heavy DNR"?

SW

Its destroyed, of course it aint just a blank screen.

But in terms of what it should look, its a wreck.


It doesnt look like film at all.

Its destoyed, of course it aint just a blank screen.

But in terms of what it should look, its a wreck.


It doesnt look like film at all.

Well, you've made your point.

It's up to each individual to have a look and decide for themselves.

Steve W

hey, even the guy who said it looked bad didn't mention anything about dumping his BD copy and keeping the sd version. Please!
Even w/ all the warts, bumps and bruises, each BD has looked better than the dvd which was better than the vhs. Nothing is w/o flaw.
Can't wait for my copy to get here.

Its has been destroyed because heavy use of DNR. This is one of the few cases were I prefer the DVD (Not that it is preferable) because even if the DVD has less detail then the BD, It also has more filmlook.

LOL

The DVD version is just a mess of artifacts and looks digital in the extreme and nothing like film at all.

The BD is good. Not perfect, but a very clear step up from the DVD.

LOL
The DVD version is just a mess of artifacts and looks digital in the extreme and nothing like film at all.


I never said the DVD was a good option, just that the BD is even worse. It looks like cartoon filter has been used. (Im still talking about the german release)


The BD is good. Not perfect, but a very clear step up from the DVD.

Give me a break. Its not good at all. Its terrible processed. And since the DVD is free right now (since I already own a DVD). I see no point in wasting any money on a BD that is this much filtered. (still talking about the German version)

I never said the DVD was a good option, just that the BD is even worse. It looks like cartoon filter has been used. (Im still talking about the german release)



Give me a break. Its not good at all. Its terrible processed. And since the DVD is free right now (since I already own a DVD). I see no point in wasting any money on a BD that is this much filtered. (still talking about the German version)

I'll gladly pay shipping if you'll send your BD copy to me. German or US is OK.

hey, even the guy who said it looked bad didn't mention anything about dumping his BD copy and keeping the sd version. Please!
Even w/ all the warts, bumps and bruises, each BD has looked better than the dvd which was better than the vhs. Nothing is w/o flaw.
Can't wait for my copy to get here.

The higher resolution that Blu Ray has over DVD means you see more detail but it doesn't mean you are getting the film look and it certainly doesn't mean you are seeing all the potential detail that could be there for this Blu Ray.

To me it looks like processed HD satellite broadcasts and far too smooth an image.

Now if all you want is an upgrade on your old DVD then this will satisfy you but if you are watching on a projection system and want your films to look cinematic then the smooth look of this film will annoy the hell out of you.

It's all about choices and i know some people just want the upgrade over the DVD and this will get you that. I want a little more than that.

I don't think the Blu Ray is good. To me good would be less smooth and less processed looking. Of course if you are just comparing to a DVD edition which has six times less resolution then yes it's probably good.

Go check out The Ipcress File for how a good looking Techniscope production can look and for a great western filmed the same year i suggest The Professionals. The German edition of this film does not look good to my eyes. I hope but very much doubt the American edition will look better as i believe MGM will be using the same edition the Germans have received.

The higher resolution that Blu Ray has over DVD means you see more detail but it doesn't mean you are getting the film look and it certainly doesn't mean you are seeing all the potential detail that could be there for this Blu Ray.

To me it looks like processed HD satellite broadcasts and far too smooth an image.

Now if all you want is an upgrade on your old DVD then this will satisfy you but if you are watching on a projection system and want your films to look cinematic then the smooth look of this film will annoy the hell out of you.

It's all about choices and i know some people just want the upgrade over the DVD and this will get you that. I want a little more than that.

I don't think the Blu Ray is good. To me good would be less smooth and less processed looking. Of course if you are just comparing to a DVD edition which has six times less resolution then yes it's probably good.

Go check out The Ipcress File for how a good looking Techniscope production can look and for a great western filmed the same year i suggest The Professionals. The German edition of this film does not look good to my eyes. I hope but very much doubt the American edition will look better as i believe MGM will be using the same edition the Germans have received.

All good points - I understand what you mean be a 'film-like look'.

May I offer an alternative viewpoint? I'm not disagreeing with what you've said, just noting a different aspect of the problem.

We've discussed the Blu-ray Disc of The Bird with the Crystal Plumage. However, there are many things about that transfer which are annoying. I'm sure it's the best it can be in many respects, but the grain is extremely uneven throughout. I'm absolutely positive that Argento didn't mean for that amount of fluctuation - it doesn't follow the mood of the scenes in any thematic way, and is extremely jarring and distracting.

In short, what we see with that Blu-ray Disc, good as it is (and it is very good) is not what the director intended in these respects. Only that's in quite a different way to what we're seeing here.

The unpalatable truth is that, for many films we'll almost certainly never see what the director intended, because it no longer exists on the film, and is impossible to re-create.

Subsequently, whatever the Blu-ray Disc serves up will be a compromise:

- Rampant, uneven and non-intended grain removed, but faces a little waxy;
- Natural and film-like in presentation, but with lots of uneven and non-intended grain;
- A compromise somewhere in between the above.

Each of us may have his or her own preference, but you can't say someone isn't a film lover for coming down on the side of one of those options (or closer to one than the others).

Please note - this is quite a different argument - indeed, it's a completely different argument to that about people wanting grain removed when a director intended it.

I want to see exactly what the director intended. I'm just suggesting that we need to have an intelligent and informed discussion as to what to do when that is simply not possible.

Steve W

The interesting thing about The Bird With The Crystal Plumage is that the director of photography ( Storaro ) wasn't allowed to dictate that the film be shown in a 2.0:1 aspect ratio on DVD or Blu Ray. Thank god for that and i wish Coppola would stand up and say no to that ratio for Apocalypse Now which i think may get a release this year due to it being the thirtieth anniversary.

I think restoration work was done on the movie and it's possible they used several different sources thus the fluctuation in the grain structure. In such cases i actually do not mind them making the grain even throughout especially if they can get competent people to do the job such as Lowry. An exception to what i wrote above is when night shots are filmed. In all movies even ones shot today if you shoot at night you will get an increase of grain and thus night scenes will have more grain and that should be retained on the disc.

Minor compromises are fine and it's excessive DNR that i dislike. The thing is from those German screenshots i think this could fall into excessive territory. I guess though i'll have to see what some of the reviews say and try to keep an open mind but it certainly looks a little too smooth for a film of that era shot in 35mm.

Reaction to screen captures:

http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/images/smilies/ughnevermind.gif

Those screenshots just reinforce my first impressions. Grain has been stripped away and with it, some high frequency detail. It's not like LONGEST DAY, but it certainly is problematic and bothersome on any large screen.

Minor compromises are fine and it's excessive DNR that i dislike.

I am in full agreement. The problem is where there's excessive (and unintended) grain, and a larger compromise is required, one way or the other.

The thing is from those German screenshots i think this could fall into excessive territory. I guess though i'll have to see what some of the reviews say and try to keep an open mind but it certainly looks a little too smooth for a film of that era shot in 35mm.

I think we're in the same ballpark there. To me there definitely looks to be an even grain structure. It is not anything like as grainy as I would expect from Techniscope, but I personally feel that the grain remaining gives it has a film-like texture, all be it far less textured than I’d expect to see with Techniscope, as I've said.

Meanwhile, there is more detail than the SD DVD, and due to the limitations of Techniscope (as we've discussed) there shouldn't be bucketloads more. So for me, some grain, some noticeable DNR, and roughly the amount of detail I'd expect. Just from my own personal point of view, that's not an appalling compromise.

I've got lucky on this one. Me Julie's uncle is a great spaghetti western fan, so he's coming over to watch it on the big screen. Subsequently I'll just have to sit back and watch the film, and won't be pausing it to check out the look, as I might otherwise have been tempted to do.

Ironically, this'll give me a far better idea of what the picture is really like when watching the film - which after all is how we should view it, I suppose.

Steve W

Those screenshots just reinforce my first impressions. Grain has been stripped away and with it, some high frequency detail. It's not like LONGEST DAY, but it certainly is problematic and bothersome on any large screen.

Matt, I have no problem with your opinion on that.

The problem is when two things get confused.

On the one hand we have people who hate grain, and would see it totally stripped out, even against a director's wishes.

On the other we have an idea of what the director intended, but that no longer being possible. A balance then has to be struck and a compromise made. Do you leave in excessive, uneven, unintended grain, or do you remove some of it to get to a level of grain closer to the director's intent, whilst compromising other areas? Or do you leave it excessively intact?

I'm not in the anti-artistic grain-stripping camp. I'm in the camp that understands that sometimes compromises have to be made one way or another, and that I'd personally prefer as even a look as possible.

I appreciate that you'd rather leave the grain, and I understand that position. It's just important not to lump myself and the people who created this disc in with the grain-haters.

Hope that makes sense.

Steve W

It is not anything like as grainy as I would expect from Techniscope, but I personally feel that the grain remaining gives it has a film-like texture, all be it far less textured than I’d expect to see with Techniscope, as I've said.

You've made yourself a tasty clause sandwich there. :D

On the other we have an idea of what the director intended, but that no longer being possible. A balance then has to be struck and a compromise made. Do you leave in excessive, uneven, unintended grain, or do you remove some of it to get to a level of grain closer to the director's intent, whilst compromising other areas? Or do you leave it excessively intact?



Steve W

The problem here is that the transfer of the original first film has already been released and this film should have struck the balance between how it looks and gave us a truer transfer to the source.
( and the first film looks very tasty )

They shouldn't have gone down the path of making this release smooth to the point where it no longer has the look of the first film and so the balance which was seen with the first release is now lost and those wanting the trilogy are stuck with at least one of the releases being overdone with noise reduction.

The other problem is trying to determine what is considered excessive grain because as already said night time shooting will have more grain in the image but i personally feel it should be left in.

This will be an upgrade from the DVD but is that enough these days when we have seen what the format can offer thus we always crave for the highest quality or at least i know i do and i get disappointed if the quality dips even a little. Expectations are high for films like this which are classic and are among the best ever made.

I sure wish i could type in the Trek thread but i'm serving my ban for going a little too far in my disgust of what has happened with those movies and the apologists that seem to think they are fine.

On the other we have an idea of what the director intended, but that no longer being possible. A balance then has to be struck and a compromise made. Do you leave in excessive, uneven, unintended grain, or do you remove some of it to get to a level of grain closer to the director's intent, whilst compromising other areas? Or do you leave it excessively intact?
No balance needs to be struck. They need to transfer what is on the actual print. THE SAND PEBBLES is a perfect example and the guy who supervised the entire process stated that they left the grain alone because had they filtered it out, they would have filtered out detail. He's right and that release is mind boggilingly awesome.

Transfer what is there and leave it alone because the people who are NOT leaving it alone are going in with nukes to completely erase it. They have no understanding of what they are doing and when I see the old STAR TREK II transfer and say wow, that has more detail and looks far more natural than the just released BD, then something is very wrong.

Only Lowery can handle grain reduction properly and even they go overboard more often than not. Some of the 007 flms look too shiny and their work on ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is very troubling because it does not look liek the film I saw in a theater last year.

The GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY has had more grain reduction than WEST. Tonight I will have a chance to spend a great deal of time with both (West via a DVR recording).

The problem here is that the transfer of the original first film has already been released and this film should have struck the balance between how it looks and gave us a truer transfer to the source.
( and the first film looks very tasty )

They shouldn't have gone down the path of making this release smooth to the point where it no longer has the look of the first film and so the balance which was seen with the first release is now lost and those wanting the trilogy are stuck with at least one of the releases being overdone with noise reduction.

The other problem is trying to determine what is considered excessive grain because as already said night time shooting will have more grain in the image but i personally feel it should be left in.

This will be an upgrade from the DVD but is that enough these days when we have seen what the format can offer thus we always crave for the highest quality or at least i know i do and i get disappointed if the quality dips even a little. Expectations are high for films like this which are classic and are among the best ever made.

I sure wish i could type in the Trek thread but i'm serving my ban for going a little too far in my disgust of what has happened with those movies and the apologists that seem to think they are fine.

The part I've highlighted is obviously in your opinion.

If someone wants intentional grain removed they're wromg.

If, on balance, you prefer a more film-like presentation to one without this excessive and unintended grain, then it becomes a matter of opinion.

Steve W

No balance needs to be struck. They need to transfer what is on the actual print. THE SAND PEBBLES is a perfect example and the guy who supervised the entire process stated that they left the grain alone because had they filtered it out, they would have filtered out detail. He's right and that release is mind boggilingly awesome.

Matt, The Sand Pebbles was shot in Panavision and had double the resolution of anything shot in Techniscope.

What you've said right there in that quote sums up the problem we have. People see a film from 1966 in 2.35:1 and then another of the same aspect ratio and year which looks different, and asks why they don't look the same.

We've already had someone suggesting it should look as good as 2001: A Space Odyssey, which has a camera negative nearly 6 times the size.

Have we even discussed the advantages of having your film stored by Fox to a low budget company in Italy?

I just feel that some people have already decided: "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - 'scope classic - should look as good as 2001."

I just think we need to bit a tad more realistic.

Transfer what is there and leave it alone...

I'll stick with trying to get what the director intended or as close as possible as my golden rule. What is 'there' on a (probably) poorly kept 40+ year old film shot on half-height 35mm will not get you this if you just whip it out and run it through the telecine.

Much as we'd all like it to be otherwise.

Steve W

What you've said right there in that quote sums up the problem we have. People see a film from 1966 in 2.35:1 and then another of the same aspect ratio and year which looks different, and asks why they don't look the same.



Steve W

Hence lets compare it to the Ipcress File which was shot the year before this film using in Techniscope and actually retains it's grain structure.

Hence lets compare it to the Ipcress File which was shot the year before this film using in Techniscope and actually retains it's grain structure.

Thanks for the tip. I love that film and haven't seen it in ages - I'll check it out and let you know what I think to the Blu-ray Disc.

Thanks for the discussion, everyone.

Steve W

Transfer what is there and leave it alone because the people who are NOT leaving it alone are going in with nukes to completely erase it.

Does this include dirt and scratches? You want that included too? Or should that be "nuked"?

How close to the original do you want to stay? So close that obvious problems like dirt and scratches are left in for all to see?

Matt, The Sand Pebbles was shot in Panavision and had double the resolution of anything shot in Techniscope.

What you've said right there in that quote sums up the problem we have. People see a film from 1966 in 2.35:1 and then another of the same aspect ratio and year which looks different, and asks why they don't look the same.

We've already had someone suggesting it should look as good as 2001: A Space Odyssey, which has a camera negative nearly 6 times the size.

Have we even discussed the advantages of having your film stored by Fox to a low budget company in Italy?

I just feel that some people have already decided: "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - 'scope classic - should look as good as 2001."

I just think we need to bit a tad more realistic.



I'll stick with trying to get what the director intended or as close as possible as my golden rule. What is 'there' on a (probably) poorly kept 40+ year old film shot on half-height 35mm will not get you this if you just whip it out and run it through the telecine.

Much as we'd all like it to be otherwise.

Steve W

Great post. Not really fair to expect the same results if the movies are on separate materials, one of them being inherently superior.

I feel compelled to post that I really appreciate the work FoxyM has done with his excellent thread, and that I totally appreciate the passion here for film to look as good as it possibly can.

The clamour to strip every grain from every film from some quarters is not healthy, and it's good that we have people prepared to stand their ground.

I just wanted to add a little balance, and look at things from a slightly different perspective.

I hope I've done this in a constructive way, and in as non-confrontational manner as possible.

I still firmly believe that, as our ultimate goal, we should aim for getting as close to what the director intended as is humanly possible, and that all discussion should be conducted under that banner. I just feel that the goalposts may be starting to shift slightly, and Matt’s request that we just transfer what’s on the film is perhaps confirmation of this.

Best wishes to all concerned.

Steve W

Matt, The Sand Pebbles was shot in Panavision and had double the resolution of anything shot in Techniscope.

Further, the restoration work on The Sand Pebbles was done entirely in the digital realm. That was not a photochemical restoration. The Sand Pebbles has probably had a lot more digital tinkering done than most of the "atrocities" that people complain about in these forums. A fair amount of the grain in that image is artificial.

:rolleyes: This is why I sometimes think I should just cancel my AVS membership and never post again. Never did I say Panavision and techniscope transfers should have the same results. I don't see anyone here making such statements, Steve.

I NEVER asked why they do not look the same. I have simply pointed out that for both the TREK films and TGTGTU there is a serious problem with grain reduction resulting in a loss in resolution and a loss in how the films should look.

With the STAR TREK films the DVNR is stupendously bad and makes me exceedingly angry. I'm furious at what they have done.

With TGTBTU I cannot go flame thrower yet because it looks like it isn't nearly as bad and ugly, but what I saw certainly looks like a lot of DVNR used to erase grain that is inherent to Techniscope films, including this one, which I saw on a huge theater screen, twice! The 35mm prints were pristine, but there was an obvious layer of grain throughout. Grain that is now missing. FISTFULL and A FEW also have grain, but moreso. I saw them in a theater as well (recently, not back in the 60's).

Let me repeat: The TREK BD's are certainly worse than TGTBTU. No contest.

And Steve, who the hell said to take an old 35mm print and just transfer it? This film has been restored, ON FILM. There is a brand new 35mm negative, which was created at quite a large cost and the 35mm prints that toured the art house circuit came from that new negative. Transfer what is there as best you can and leave it the hell alone! Do not apply ********e DVNR and erase part of the image. There are countless examples of how to do it right, including Paramount's recent GODFATHER films, which I saw one weekend on the big screen and then days later on Blu-Ray. There is no reason why this classic western cannot receive the same respct and treatment.

And I just want to scream when the apologists come in here and start with the loony tunes. Unless the film is named GRINDHOUSE, scratches and dirt are not meant to be there and can be removed. Who the hell said something was wrong with that?! Yeah, let's leave the scratches in The Godfather and Superman and Ben-Hur. Sounds like a plan to me. :rolleyes:

Matt, The Sand Pebbles was shot in Panavision and had double the resolution of anything shot in Techniscope.

What you've said right there in that quote sums up the problem we have. People see a film from 1966 in 2.35:1 and then another of the same aspect ratio and year which looks different, and asks why they don't look the same.

We've already had someone suggesting it should look as good as 2001: A Space Odyssey, which has a camera negative nearly 6 times the size.

I just feel that some people have already decided: "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - 'scope classic - should look as good as 2001."

I just think we need to bit a tad more realistic.

I'll stick with trying to get what the director intended or as close as possible as my golden rule. What is 'there' on a (probably) poorly kept 40+ year old film shot on half-height 35mm will not get you this if you just whip it out and run it through the telecine. Much as we'd all like it to be otherwise.

Steve W

Further, the restoration work on The Sand Pebbles was done entirely in the digital realm. That was not a photochemical restoration. The Sand Pebbles has probably had a lot more digital tinkering done than most of the "atrocities" that people complain about in these forums. A fair amount of the grain in that image is artificial.

Not according to the man who restored it, Josh. There is a huge article on that online.

No balance needs to be struck. They need to transfer what is on the actual print. THE SAND PEBBLES is a perfect example and the guy who supervised the entire process stated that they left the grain alone because had they filtered it out, they would have filtered out detail. He's right and that release is mind boggilingly awesome.

Transfer what is there and leave it alone because the people who are NOT leaving it alone are going in with nukes to completely erase it. They have no understanding of what they are doing and when I see the old STAR TREK II transfer and say wow, that has more detail and looks far more natural than the just released BD, then something is very wrong.

Only Lowery can handle grain reduction properly and even they go overboard more often than not. Some of the 007 flms look too shiny and their work on ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is very troubling because it does not look liek the film I saw in a theater last year.

The GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY has had more grain reduction than WEST. Tonight I will have a chance to spend a great deal of time with both (West via a DVR recording).

I am guessing that Once Upon A Time In The West you have recorded on your DVR is from HDnet? As we mentioned before, that tranfer is poor especially compared to For A Few Dollars More also shown on HDnet. For A Few...looked much better and had grain intact. I wouldn't use the HDnet of Once Upon A Time...for any kind of comparison as it looks like an upconvert.

Only Lowery can handle grain reduction properly and even they go overboard more often than not. Some of the 007 flms look too shiny and their work on ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is very troubling because it does not look liek the film I saw in a theater last year.



You should not expect Once Upon a Time in the West to look like the film that you saw in the theater last year (I saw the restored print last year as well).

The BD will not, and should not be expected to, have as much grain as the theatrical print.

Since this was shot in Techniscope, the transfer to BD will take out one of the steps that produces more grain in an exhibitiion print. Namely, the exhibition print!

As stated above, "When transferring a Techniscope film to a digital video format, the 2-perf negative or 2-perf interpositive A/B rolls can be used, bypassing any blown-up 4-perf element".

From the handout given at The Academy Theater viewing of the restored print:

"Restoration required that an interpositive be printed from the original negative. From the interpositive, an optical conversion was made to create a new preservation internegative. Using the new interpositive and internegative film stocks now available resulted in a sharper image and finer grain than in even the original prints".

So the restoration is: 9 mm x 21 mm Original negative -> 9 mm x 21 mm Interpositive -> Lens ->17.5 mm x 21 mm Internegative -> 17.5 mm x 21 mm Exhibition Print -> Projector Lens -> eye

But the transfer to BD would be:

9 mm x 21 mm Original negative -> 6K scan/2K Blu-ray -> Projector lens (if using front projection, otherwise no lens with some displays) -> eye

So I think the Blu-ray could look sharper and less grainy than the restored exhibition prints of Once Upon a Time in the West (which was admittedly very grainy).

Not according to the man who restored it, Josh. There is a huge article on that online.

What part are you disputing?

Was it a photochemical restoration? Once Upon a Time in the West was. This makes a big difference.

I don't remember the exact specifics, but they had a pretty good quality flm element to work with and after transfering, the man supervising (cannot remember this guy's name) skipped all noise or grain reduction streps because it woul "alter" the film. The article was in depth and a real eye opener. I have to sign off and start viewing THE GOOD THE BAD & THE UGLY on a projector in about five minutes so I cannot do a search. Maybe someone here can find it.

Ah, I figured you could rent it. I'm not big on renting myself, but I've found that there are times when my tolerance and expectation of an image differs greatly from that of others.

The interweb is indeed an amazing invention, though. :)

Yeah, you do run the risk of people's varying degree of what the deem as good or great PQ. Its a tough call. I really only plan on buying this movie one more time in my life so I want to make sure its worth it. :)

I understand your point, but could we be any more dramatic? :D

This one is important enough to me that I will withhold judgment until I have seen it for myself...live and in motion.

Ha ha yeah, I wee bit over-the-top, I agree. ;)

Yes, seeing it in motion should change things as well. Its just looks bad. Definitely not what I was hoping for...

Its just looks bad. Definitely not what I was hoping for...

Leaving aside The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for a moment, I think this is the problem we've hit.

We've seen some excellent transfers of all manner of films, and we're now expecting that. A number of people have built up their own pet hates (too much DNR, too much EE, too much grain, whatever) and are now studying every film for these.

The strange thing is that the cinema is far less reliable. Here in the UK on the BBC NEWS 24 channel we have a weekly technology programme called Click, and a few months ago they were discussing digital projection. They had a couple of film makers on who said that one of the main benefits of digital projection was the consistency of the image.

They said that when film prints are made they're of variable quality, and you might get a substantially different experience from watching one print in one cinema to watching another print in the cinema down the road. The differences between one print and the next may be huge.

Hold that thought, and let's think about The Dark Knight. Remember Xylon's excellent screen caps and all that EE? Remember when we discovered it had actually also been on the prints in cinemas to try to sharpen the standard film up to the IMAX standards? But no one had mentioned it at the cinema.

No one boycotted the cinema because of the EE on The Dark Knight. No one boycotted the cinema because of the large variation in image quality, even on prints of new films.

But many of us have had a lot of experience of Blu-ray Discs and, like Favelle (above) we hope for the best.

But I think we're getting far more people here effectively boycotting some Blu-ray Disc because of things about the image they don't like.

I wonder how many people would study screencaps of a film just out at the cinema and not go to see it because they didn't like the look of the picture?

Back to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Judging by those screencaps this Blu-ray Disc is easily the best image quality we’ve yet to see for home video. If we don’t buy it because, despite that, there are still elements of the picture we don’t like, where does that leave us?

Either watching the less-good SD DVD, or not watching it at all. Maybe waiting for a double dip which may well never come, and which may not be any better if it does.

We bang on about what the director intended, and wanting our home cinema to be as much like 'the real thing' as possible, whilst applying completely different standards to those exhibited by film goers for most of the last century.

Steve W

Leaving aside The Good, the Bad and the Ugly for a moment, I think this is the problem we've hit.

We've seen some excellent transfers of all manner of films, and we're now expecting that. A number of people have built up their own pet hates (too much DNR, too much EE, too much grain, whatever) and are now studying every film for these.

The strange thing is that the cinema is far less reliable. Here in the UK on the BBC NEWS 24 channel we have a weekly technology programme called Click, and a few months ago they were discussing digital projection. They had a couple of film makers on who said that one of the main benefits of digital projection was the consistency of the image.

They said that when film prints are made they're of variable quality, and you might get a substantially different experience from watching one print in one cinema to watching another print in the cinema down the road. The differences between one print and the next may be huge.

Hold that thought, and let's think about The Dark Knight. Remember Xylon's excellent screen caps and all that EE? Remember when we discovered it had actually also been on the prints in cinemas to try to sharpen the standard film up to the IMAX standards? But no one had mentioned it at the cinema.

No one boycotted the cinema because of the EE on The Dark Knight. No one boycotted the cinema because of the large variation in image quality, even on prints of new films.

But many of us have had a lot of experience of Blu-ray Discs and, like Favelle (above) we hope for the best.

But I think we're getting far more people here effectively boycotting some Blu-ray Disc because of things about the image they don't like.

I wonder how many people would study screencaps of a film just out at the cinema and not go to see it because they didn't like the look of the picture?

Back to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Judging by those screencaps this Blu-ray Disc is easily the best image quality we’ve yet to see for home video. If we don’t buy it because, despite that, there are still elements of the picture we don’t like, where does that leave us?

Either watching the less-good SD DVD, or not watching it at all. Maybe waiting for a double dip which may well never come, and which may not be any better if it does.

We bang on about what the director intended, and wanting our home cinema to be as much like 'the real thing' as possible, whilst applying completely different standards to those exhibited by film goers for most of the last century.

Steve W

The problem i have with what you say is this.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly had an extensive restoration and i assume a digital intermediate was made. By all accounts they probably used that for this Blu Ray but they added DNR to smooth the image and filter the high frequency detail thus detail is being lost.

Now regarding The Dark Knight. They used the IMAX print for the Blu Ray and it's only the IMAX print which had the 35mm segments sharpened which added EE.

They could have used the normal 35mm cinema prints which did not contain the EE you see on the Blu Ray.

So in effect the majority of viewers watching The Dark Knight at the cinema saw no EE because it was only on IMAX prints.

It's the use of DNR which incidentally even in small amounts removes some of the high frequency detail and thus we get softer, smoother images that is the issue here. There is a huge question mark over how much DNR was actually used and what you end up with is a higher resolution image but the filtering which comes with DNR means the very finest and best details of the original work which Blu Ray can produce are lost.

He's not going to listen. They never do.

I have to get on a plane (no snakes) so I don't have time to post much, but I spent four hours last night with THE GOOD BAG & UGLY, as well as the STAR TREK BD's.

It my opinion, based upon a 1080p presentation at 105 inches, that all are DVNR'd too much. GOOD BAD UGLY is exceedingly smooth and missing nearly all of the grain that was on the restored 35mm prints. There is some grain present, but it looks more like fake grain added after all grain is removed. It's very difficult to tell, but what is obvious is that detail has been lost and the BD people just went overboard. I cannot say it's a boycott. But most certainly it's a big disappointment and 100% uncalled for. There was no reason to do this. None.

Anyone that wants to argue this can stick their head in the sand for all I care.

Now regarding The Dark Knight. They used the IMAX print for the Blu Ray and it's only the IMAX print which had the 35mm segments sharpened which added EE.

They could have used the normal 35mm cinema prints which did not contain the EE you see on the Blu Ray.

So in effect the majority of viewers watching The Dark Knight at the cinema saw no EE because it was only on IMAX prints.

My point is that I never heard of anyone walking out of The Dark Knight at IMAX because of the EE, or even complaining about it or noticing it. And this despite the fact that the front row of an IMAX cinema has a seating distance of less than ¼ of the screen width.

So whilst I understand and largely agree with your point (that they could have used the normal 35mm print, and that this would have been better), my point is that, in criticising The Dark Knight, and in some cases people even boycotting the disc, we're applying a completely different set of standards to when we watch at the cinema.

The problem i have with what you say is this.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly had an extensive restoration and i assume a digital intermediate was made. By all accounts they probably used that for this Blu Ray but they added DNR to smooth the image and filter the high frequency detail thus detail is being lost.

I don't totally agree, but let's just accept that as fact for a moment.

What are we going to do?

Some people have cancelled their orders.

Some people appear to have got a few minutes in, turned the film off and sent it back.

The language used here - and I quoted much of it previously - is pretty extreme.

I'm not disagreeing with you when you say this BD isn't perfect, I'm just saying that some of these responses appear to be completely out of proportion (given that the disc is far better than the SD DVD) and completely at odds with how we respond to a film's picture quality in a real cinema.

In short, people appear to have become so obsessed with certain technical elements of the picture that they’re now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

If some people here are to be believed they’ll only ever see this film again on SD DVD, despite the Blu-ray Disc clearly being better. That’s got to be a disproportionate response, hasn’t it?

Steve W

He's not going to listen. They never do.

I have to get on a plane (no snakes) so I don't have time to post much, but I spent four hours last night with THE GOOD BAG & UGLY, as well as the STAR TREK BD's.

It my opinion, based upon a 1080p presentation at 105 inches, that all are DVNR'd too much. GOOD BAD UGLY is exceedingly smooth and missing nearly all of the grain that was on the restored 35mm prints. There is some grain present, but it looks more like fake grain added after all grain is removed. It's very difficult to tell, but what is obvious is that detail has been lost and the BD people just went overboard. I cannot say it's a boycott. But most certainly it's a big disappointment and 100% uncalled for. There was no reason to do this. None.

Anyone that wants to argue this can stick their head in the sand for all I care.

Matt, I'd like to think that I've tried to promote a little intelligent, reasoned debate into the subject.

I'm sorry if you feel that equates to me sticking my head in the sand.

Steve W

My point is that I never heard of anyone walking out of The Dark Knight at IMAX because of the EE, or even complaining about it or noticing it. And this despite the fact that the front row of an IMAX cinema has a seating distance of less than ¼ of the screen width.

So whilst I understand and largely agree with your point (that they could have used the normal 35mm print, and that this would have been better), my point is that, in criticising The Dark Knight, and in some cases people even boycotting the disc, we're applying a completely different set of standards to when we watch at the cinema.



I don't totally agree, but let's just accept that as fact for a moment.

What are we going to do?

Some people have cancelled their orders.

Some people appear to have got a few minutes in, turned the film off and sent it back.

The language used here - and I quoted much of it previously - is pretty extreme.

I'm not disagreeing with you when you say this BD isn't perfect, I'm just saying that some of these responses appear to be completely out of proportion (given that the disc is far better than the SD DVD) and completely at odds with how we respond to a film's picture quality in a real cinema.

In short, people appear to have become so obsessed with certain technical elements of the picture that they’re now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

If some people here are to be believed they’ll only ever see this film again on SD DVD, despite the Blu-ray Disc clearly being better. That’s got to be a disproportionate response, hasn’t it?

Steve W

You have to understand though this is an enthusiasts forum. Some people on these forums view on large screens and see the flaws that the average public does not and some of us just can't stand the DNR smooth look.

The problem i have with your assessment that the Blu Ray is better thus we should buy it is that it also sends out the message to the studio that people want this done to their films and remember it actually costs the studio more to use DNR but if everyone buys into it then this is the future of HD media and this is what you will get.

Thats why i believe kicking up a fuss is warranted and actually needed because although the average person in the street will still buy and be happy here on forums like this where knowledge is available we should not accept it and just say it's fine i'll buy it and be happy.

It's nothing to do with cutting off your nose to spite your face. Remember with catalog titles we have usually already seen the film thus owning it is only a priority for some of us if they have really gone the extra mile and made the transfer as good as they can and in this case they didn't. They didn't with the Trek movies either and i can name dozens of transfers which are lacking. I'm just not willing to spend money on this sort of stuff despite loving the film unless they have gone the extra mile.

I actually hope more people cancel their orders and email, write letters and phone MGM to say this is unacceptable and i hope Paramount gets the same for doing what they did with the Trek movies.

I don't consider this extreme i consider what they are doing to some of my favorite movies extreme and i resent that.

I really hate smoothness. Our digital satellite broadcasts in the UK are full of this smoothed over mush.

My point is that I never heard of anyone walking out of The Dark Knight at IMAX because of the EE, or even complaining about it or noticing it. And this despite the fact that the front row of an IMAX cinema has a seating distance of less than ¼ of the screen width.


Alot of people complained that the 35mm portions of the dark knight looked "bad" on IMAX theater, they just didnt know why it looked so bad. Now we know.


So whilst I understand and largely agree with your point (that they could have used the normal 35mm print, and that this would have been better), my point is that, in criticising The Dark Knight, and in some cases people even boycotting the disc, we're applying a completely different set of standards to when we watch at the cinema.


One difference is, that a movie I buy is not a one time experience. Thats what I have to live with.

And every single theatrical visit I have been to, every movie has looked like film. I would love if I could say the same thing to every BD release out there.


The language used here - and I quoted much of it previously - is pretty extreme.


Well what do you expect, this is our hobby. We love film. Movies in highdef gave us for the first time the possibilty to recreate the theatrical experience in our home.

And then they start to throw this quality to us. Of course we gonna use colorful metaphoric language, to express our fellings.


I'm not disagreeing with you when you say this BD isn't perfect, I'm just saying that some of these responses appear to be completely out of proportion (given that the disc is far better than the SD DVD) and completely at odds with how we respond to a film's picture quality in a real cinema.


I have never seen a theatrical movie have this bad quality. Every movie has look liked film to me in theaters.

Its not about resolution. I rather take 720P movie with filmlook intact, then a 4K DNR filtered movie, that has removd every trace of organic filmlook.

Yes its not the end of the world that they have done this to some releases, but its just sad that they did.


In short, people appear to have become so obsessed with certain technical elements of the picture that they’re now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

If some people here are to be believed they’ll only ever see this film again on SD DVD, despite the Blu-ray Disc clearly being better. That’s got to be a disproportionate response, hasn’t it?


I dont agree that the BD is clearly better (German release). It has a little more resolution. So I can just stick with my DVD and wait until they release a version that looks like it should.

Maybe you are not as sensitive to DNR as some of us are. But DNR was not the reason I went into BD.

I want every BD I buy to look like it once did in theater (or better). If a release fails with that, I would have to have pretty strong reason why I buy it.

Damn...no used copies of GBU on ebay yet. I guess i'll have to buy a new copy after all.
Maybe i'll wait till the end of next week, there should be several.:D

I want every BD I buy to look like it once did in theater (or better).

Me too!

If a release fails with that, I would have to have pretty strong reason why I buy it.

Okay, I'll give you that strong reason.

I'm a film lover. I want my films on Blu-ray Disc to look as good as possible. But I'm a film lover first, and the PQ is secondary to that, so I suppose you could say that I'm a film lover before I'm a PQ lover.

Looking at DVDs (even recent ones) and back catalogue Blu-ray Disc releases, it's clear that they don't all look the same, and they're not all presented in the best quality. Indeed, I'd guess that maybe 10% look as good as they could, given the limitations of the format. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying 90% look bad, but I'm sure that all but 10% could look at least a little better.

So there's your strong reason - I don't want to not buy 90% of my favourite films when they appear on Blu-ray Disc. Because you say "I want every BD I buy to look like it once did in theater (or better)...If a release fails with that, I would have to have pretty strong reason why I buy it..." , then the logical conclusion is that you won't be buying most of your favourite oldies on Blu-ray Disc because 90% of Blu-ray Disc catalogue releases don't look as good as they did in cinema, or better.

If you think this Blu-ray Disc looks better than the SD DVD (which apparently everyone does so far - even its detractors), but you refuse to buy it because the PQ could have been better still, then are you not dangerously close to being a lover of PQ before/over and above being a film lover?

You would appear to be putting your disappointment at the deficiencies in the PQ in front of your love for the film.

Steve W

What he said ^^^

I'll add, the reason I buy BD, the reason I look forward to new releases is because it always looks better than the film did in the "pathetic excuses for movie theatres" around here.

We'll leave out the rants about cell phones & chattering morons.

The chances of GBU coming back to a dlp theatre near me is...not in my lifetime.

When this movie came to theatres I was 10, I have no recollection of what it looked like or if I even went to see it. I've never seen it play again in any theatres in my adult life.

what he said ^^^

i'll add, the reason i buy bd, the reason i look forward to new releases is because it always looks better than the film did in the "pathetic excuses for movie theatres" around here.

We'll leave out the rants about cell phones & chattering morons.

The chances of gbu coming back to a dlp theatre near me is...not in my lifetime.

When this movie came to theatres i was 10, i have no recollection of what it looked like or if i even went to see it. I've never seen it play again in any theatres in my adult life.

+1

It's an interesting debate and you all make a wonderful effort to keep it civil while still stating your opinion. It is by no means a pointless venture, just reading the thread makes people reevaluate their perspective. But that doesn't mean the perspective will change, and what you're trying to do know is objectify the subjective.

Argumentative logic tells me loving film and loving PQ are two different animals. Neither contradicts the other, but here they often coexist. Yet they remain different scales governed by independent standards, individual standards. If this weren't the case, why would film lovers pursue PQ at all? And wouldn't the ones who don't be the better film lovers? That it is possible to find enjoyment purely in one of the two doesn't mean having the other as well wouldn't be desirable. It goes both ways, demo material et al.

It's all in the standard we apply, and who applies it. Other than the example above, some contradictions mentioned aren't really contradictions:

What we're trying to do is hit a double bullseye of content and quality. How much of each it takes for a specific application (cinema, home, DVD or BD) is different for everyone. I have different standards for going to the movies and buying it on disc. Of course I'm not going to walk out of a theater because I see EE, but I'll try to avoid a BD with EE. Try to, because if it's a film I dearly love it depends on the amount of EE, the price and if I already own a DVD. You get the idea. Remember that no one has to buy it on BD, it's not a question of seeing the film or not seeing it. This is the one person, many standards trap.

If we now add more people into the mix it gets complex. The people who didn't complain about EE in TDK either: saw the 35mm print, didn't see EE, didn't care, or didn't post about it on the web. Or they could have different standards for going to the movies and buying a BD. But saying that the people complaing here and the ones who saw it in IMAX and saw nothing are the same people, and that they can't have different standards for both scenarios, is quite a stretch.

In the end, not buying a BD, and that is what we're talking about here, because it doesn't meet your criteria for buying BDs sounds like the most compelling reason in the world to me.

Not according to the man who restored it, Josh. There is a huge article on that online.

Really? Because that would contradict what he told me when I spoke to him. :)

I don't remember the exact specifics, but they had a pretty good quality flm element to work with and after transfering, the man supervising (cannot remember this guy's name) skipped all noise or grain reduction streps because it woul "alter" the film. The article was in depth and a real eye opener.

They may not have DNR'ed The Sand Pebbles, but that restoration was done entirely in the digital realm. They did quite a bit of other digital tinkering with the image, and yes added in a fair amount of artificial grain to even out the grain structure.

Ironically, Patton had a full photochemical restoration prior to its transfer. Fox took the results of that, transferred it to digitial, and then DNRed it. :eek:

(For the record, different teams of people at the studio worked on these two titles.)

My point is that I never heard of anyone walking out of The Dark Knight at IMAX because of the EE, or even complaining about it or noticing it. And this despite the fact that the front row of an IMAX cinema has a seating distance of less than ¼ of the screen width.


I certainly complained about it after I saw the IMAX presentation. It was extremely clear from my seat.

Now regarding The Dark Knight. They used the IMAX print for the Blu Ray and it's only the IMAX print which had the 35mm segments sharpened which added EE.

They could have used the normal 35mm cinema prints which did not contain the EE you see on the Blu Ray.

I'm beginning to doubt that. I recently downloaded the movie from VUDU. Their HDX transfer was 2.35:1 throughout. That implies to me that it comes from the DVD master, which was sourced from the 35mm print. It had just as much e.e. as the Blu-ray in all the same places.

Ironically, Patton had a full photochemical restoration prior to its transfer. Fox took the results of that, transferred it to digitial, and then DNRed it. :eek:


Excellent news. Hopefully they'll do it justice soon.

Excellent news. Hopefully they'll do it justice soon.

Welcome to HopeSquad, soldier! Breath-holding is not advised.

Watched the first 30 minutes of my dutch blu-ray release of TGTBTU last night. I'm watching on a Panasonic Vierra 46' full hd from about 6 feet. I did a comparison with the NTSC 2 disc coll.ed. dvd from the Sergio Leone box set.

Has there been a degraining/smoothing of the image? Definitely.
Some shots it's really noticeable, others hardly. The original dvd did have a tremendous amount of trouble handling all the technicolor grain (I upconvert to 1080p on a Denon 2930) but close-ups of faces still displayed a waxiness on the blu-ray compared to the NTSC transfer (eyebrows, scars and crows feet, are all dead giveaways in that respect).

The scene where Tuco is shot of his horse and Clint forces the three men claiming him into a duel yielded a different question: the original dvd had in this segment quite a few white horizontal scratches running through the picture, and the blu-ray had much less of those in comparison (it wasn't completely gone, but instead of 6 scratches on the dvd I only noticed 1 obvious scratch on the blu-ray). Now this would indicate that some kind of further digital manipulation apart form the degraining has taken place. Or not?

I'll watch some more tonight.

BTW, I'm glad I have this on blu-ray: in motion the blu-ray yields a much better resolved picture. And anyway, there's no way I'll watch a dvd over even a half competent blu-ray on my setup.

My point is that I never heard of anyone walking out of The Dark Knight at IMAX because of the EE, or even complaining about it or noticing it. And this despite the fact that the front row of an IMAX cinema has a seating distance of less than ¼ of the screen width.

So whilst I understand and largely agree with your point (that they could have used the normal 35mm print, and that this would have been better), my point is that, in criticising The Dark Knight, and in some cases people even boycotting the disc, we're applying a completely different set of standards to when we watch at the cinema.



I don't totally agree, but let's just accept that as fact for a moment.

What are we going to do?

Some people have cancelled their orders.

Some people appear to have got a few minutes in, turned the film off and sent it back.

The language used here - and I quoted much of it previously - is pretty extreme.

I'm not disagreeing with you when you say this BD isn't perfect, I'm just saying that some of these responses appear to be completely out of proportion (given that the disc is far better than the SD DVD) and completely at odds with how we respond to a film's picture quality in a real cinema.

In short, people appear to have become so obsessed with certain technical elements of the picture that they’re now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

If some people here are to be believed they’ll only ever see this film again on SD DVD, despite the Blu-ray Disc clearly being better. That’s got to be a disproportionate response, hasn’t it?

Steve W

Sounds to me like maybe I should have picked up that SE DVD. Bet I can get it cheap.

Regarding Dark Knight, I wasn't thinking about it being EE, but the 35 mm footage looked so horrible in IMAX that it has made me not want to see another regularly shot film in IMAX. (Dark Knight was my first.) The IMAX footage looked great, but everything else looked horrid. I'd much rather have a digital presentation on a smaller screen than an ugly blowup of 35mm.

We bang on about what the director intended, and wanting our home cinema to be as much like 'the real thing' as possible, whilst applying completely different standards to those exhibited by film goers for most of the last century.
Steve W
Film goers for most of the last century had never to deal with DNR and EE because it did not exist. The usual problems they had to deal with were either part of film's reality or sloppy cinema standards. The latter you can avoid by frequenting cinemas that care. The former you have to live with.
Neither is a valid excuse for dumbing down Blu Ray versions of films where the medium allows some of film's issues to actually be avoided and cinema issues rendered irrelevant (at home you decide what happens). So with that kind of progress the last thing I want is new problems I never had in the cinema, on top of old problems (e.g. bad digital processing messing with the film's original look).

Sounds to me like maybe I should have picked up that SE DVD.

I'll sell you mine!

Me too!
I'm a film lover. I want my films on Blu-ray Disc to look as good as possible. But I'm a film lover first, and the PQ is secondary to that, so I suppose you could say that I'm a film lover before I'm a PQ lover.

A reasonable definition of image quality in the context of HD transfers must be built on the concept of faithfulness to the original and approved (film) masters the transfer comes from. It's first about accurate reproduction of the images so the intended effects (artistic, esthetic, intellectual, spiritual...) are properly achieved when watching the transfer using correct viewing conditions. So a film lover who wants to see the films as created and intended to be seen will by definition appreciate so defined image quality and hold it in high esteem. There is no choice to be made to be either a film lover or an image quality lover. One comes naturally with the other. If you are given the option to watch or even buy a version of the film where image quality in the above sense is lacking you can chose to decline or accept and both times still be a film lover. Which way you go is personal preference and may depend on the specific film itself as well. If you don't care about image quality in general you are less of a film lover than a lover of something else that (a) film is offering (such as distraction/entertainment, star x, topic y...).
That type of film lover may well be the vast majority in the general public.

A reasonable definition of image quality in the context of HD transfers must be built on the concept of faithfulness to the original and approved (film) masters the transfer comes from. It's first about accurate reproduction of the images so the intended effects (artistic, esthetic, intellectual, spiritual...) are properly achieved when watching the transfer using correct viewing conditions. So a film lover who wants to see the films as created and intended to be seen will by definition appreciate so defined image quality and hold it in high esteem. There is no choice to be made to be either a film lover or an image quality lover. One comes naturally with the other. If you are given the option to watch or even buy a version of the film where image quality in the above sense is lacking you can chose to decline or accept and both times still be a film lover. Which way you go is personal preference and may depend on the specific film itself as well. If you don't care about image quality in general you are less of a film lover than a lover of something else that (a) film is offering (such as distraction, star x, topic y...).
That type of film lover may well be the vast majority in the general public.

Edit: Don't take this personnaly, I'm using your comment for a general response.

I personally think you are asking a bit much of a medium that has 1/4 to 1/2 the definition of film if not less... Were you asking the same thing of DVD in 2000? Present day HD is limited to 1080p which is quite a bit less than film information wise.

You'll never get a 1:1 copy of a film unless you use a format that can carry the same amount of information. If you don't have that then something must be left behind and you'll end up with an approximation of the real thing but not the same.

I know quite a few film "lover" that were perfectly content during the VHS era, the laserisk era and the dvd era and never complained that what they were watching something that didn't look like film. And quite a few of those are in the movie making or broadcasting business now. They enjoyed the movie per say, the actors, the story, the technical aspect but they didn't care about the medium. They are movie lover not film strip texture lover and so am I.

I also have a problem when people tells me it doesn't look like when they saw it in theaters years ago. People have trouble remembering where they left their keys in their own home but they would remember that there was x number of grain in the upper corner of the 37546th frame of a movie they have seen in theater 20 years ago!

A reasonable definition of image quality in the context of HD transfers must be built on the concept of faithfulness to the original and approved (film) masters the transfer comes from.

Yes and no.

Yes: That's part of what makes the image on a BD better or worse.

No: Just because BD introduces some different aspects of image quality than we're used to (introducing new issues like DNR and EE) doesn't mean they can't be taken into the concept of PQ as a whole.

Picture quality on a Blu-ray Disc will depend on a number of factors - some of them depend on how the original film looked, other factors will depend on criterea completely independent of film.

The big problem with back catalogue titles is deterioration in the original film. You may be able to remove some of the problems of an old print in the digital domain, whilst introducing new artefacts into the image.

When a film has become excessively grainy with age it will no longer look as the director intended. If you remove that excessive grain with DNR you can remove detail, and end up with a non-film like image - again, not what the director intended. Unless and until technology advances we'll never see what the director intended. Live with it.

What you then require is balance. And that's the very thing I feel is often missing from these discussions.

For some, any DNR is wrong, as it results in an image more akin to HDTV than film. But this leaves us with excessive grain, which the director never intended. People in some quarters will be happy to completely ignore this, and infer that any argument against it is an assault on directorial intention - this is clearly false.

Others will want all grain stripping, insisting a director never intends it. This is equally false.

I'm just saying let's have a little balance.

Ultimately we'll all have different tastes which inform exactly where on that balance we'd prefer each transfer to sit. Our tastes will differ. The balance on each transfer will differ.

Let's not become excessively insistent on each transfer agreeing with our own particular preferred balance, and let's stop screaming that the film has been 'raped' when the look doesn't exactly conform to our own tastes.

Steve W

The big problem with back catalogue titles is deterioration in the original film. You may be able to remove some of the problems of an old print in the digital domain, whilst introducing new artefacts into the image.

When a film has become excessively grainy with age it will no longer look as the director intended. If you remove that excessive grain with DNR you can remove detail, and end up with a non-film like image.



Steve W

This film had a complete restoration and thus was never too grainy with regards to the print they had to use for this release.

The whole point of restoration is to restore the film as close as possible to how it once looked. The argument that this film was too grainy is frankly wrong and the DNR on the German edition is wrong.

They had a great print to work with but chose to ruin it with added DNR for the Blu release. It's really that simple.

I've been scrolling past most of the debate in this thread on image quality - what about the sound?

This film features one of the greatest musical scores of all time. Does the Blu-Ray version contain a lossless soundtrack, and if so, does it do the genius of Ennio Morricone justice?

I've always been pretty happy with the image quality of most DVD's, it was always the lossy, compressed soundtracks on DVD format that disappointed. One of the most exciting things about the potential of Blu-Ray, IMO, is the opportunity for uncompressed soundtracks in their full glory.

I've been scrolling past most of the debate in this thread on image quality - what about the sound?

This film features one of the greatest musical scores of all time. Does the Blu-Ray version contain a lossless soundtrack, and if so, does it do the genius of Ennio Morricone justice?

I've always been pretty happy with the image quality of most DVD's, it was always the lossy, compressed soundtracks on DVD format that disappointed. One of the most exciting things about the potential of Blu-Ray, IMO, is the opportunity for uncompressed soundtracks in their full glory.

As an MGM/Fox release, yes, it has a DTS-HD Master Audio track.

If some people here are to be believed they’ll only ever see this film again on SD DVD, despite the Blu-ray Disc clearly being better. That’s got to be a disproportionate response, hasn’t it?

Steve W

I think the thing you have to realize is that being better than SD-DVD isn't, by itself, a reason to purchase the BD. Its better than SD-DVD. That's great. But that's also not really shooting for the stars now is it? I wanted an accurate representation of what was shown in the theater when this movie was run. The BD is NOT that. Therefore, no purchase. I could care less what its like in relation to the DVD. Last I checked, this was the Blu-ray forum on AVS.

I want every BD I buy to look like it once did in theater (or better). If a release fails with that, I would have to have pretty strong reason why I buy it.

That shouldn't be too hard with my local theater. I saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine on opening weekend. My seat was about the same as in my HT, ~ 1.5x screen width, so apparent picture size was about the same. The theater was loud, and the film was out of focus resulting in DVD resolution at best. Furthermore, I was shocked at how dirty the print was for a brand new movie. It was full of scratches and dust. My son wanted to see X-Men 1 in Blu-ray after the movie at home. That was like 10x better (PQ and AQ wise) than the movie theater.

I think the thing you have to realize is that being better than SD-DVD isn't, by itself, a reason to purchase the BD.

It's reason enough for me!

Like most of here I've spent many thousands of pounds on my home cinema. This is one of my favourite films. Spending £12.99 on a better version of this than my SD DVD is a drop in the ocean, and what you might call a 'no-brainer'. Even if you think the BD is second rate, how does sticking with a 3rd rate version (SD DVD) make any sense?

Its better than SD-DVD. That's great. But that's also not really shooting for the stars now is it?

No it isn't, I don't think anyone ever said it was. I just want the best version I can get my hands on. If this BD could theoretically be better, that doesn't stop this being one of my favourite films, one of the reasons I have a home cinema, and this is the best way to view it on that home cinema.

I wanted an accurate representation of what was shown in the theater when this movie was run. The BD is NOT that. Therefore, no purchase. I could care less what its like in relation to the DVD. Last I checked, this was the Blu-ray forum on AVS.

You may well never get that accurate representation. The other BDs mentioned here (A Fistful of Dollars, for example) are not completely accurate representations.

I could care less what its like in relation to the DVD. Last I checked, this was the Blu-ray forum on AVS.

This is indeed the BD forum. When someone says they won't buy the BD and they'll stick with the DVD, then I think discussing the relative merits of the two releases is more than legitimate.

These forums are chock full of comparison screen caps of DVD vs BD

Steve W

ps. "I could care less"? You mean "I couldn't care less", surely? I could care less doesn’t make any sense. :confused:

SW

Edit: Don't take this personnaly, I'm using your comment for a general response.
I personally think you are asking a bit much of a medium that has 1/4 to 1/2 the definition of film if not less... Were you asking the same thing of DVD in 2000? Present day HD is limited to 1080p which is quite a bit less than film information wise.

That is not the issue as there is usually still more spatial resolution in a 1080p master than the prints almost all of us could watch before the arrival of HD.
I'm NOT asking for an accurate version of the film master that exceeds the capabilities of the format itself. I'm asking for an accurate version within that format that does not dumb down the film more than the format itself brings about. Consumer HD has built in color and shading limitations compared to film but that is not the problem, The problem is unnecessary bad quality digital processing in the name of pseudo image enhancement, cost saving or satisfying real or imagined consumer preferences (I hate grain, I hate black bars, I want out of the window look, I want pop, I hate black and white etc.). We have enough formats with dumbed down versions of films if all you want is see the film and get the plot. Blu Ray is a high end format and should not just be another dumbed down option with some more resolution. That's like putting only music cassettes optimised for ghetto blasters on CDs instead of studio master tapes carefully converted to 16 bit 44.1 Khz.

Yes and no.
Yes: That's part of what makes the image on a BD better or worse.
No: Just because BD introduces some different aspects of image quality than we're used to (introducing new issues like DNR and EE) doesn't mean they can't be taken into the concept of PQ as a whole.

Huh?
DNR and EE can surley be taken into the concept of image quality, but in the proper way. Are they helping to reach the original quality measure (accuracy) or not?

The big problem with back catalogue titles is deterioration in the original film. You may be able to remove some of the problems of an old print in the digital domain, whilst introducing new artefacts into the image.

EE and DNR in general if used as restoration tools are desirable if they actually deliver what they promis, getting back to how it was before or was originally intended. Then and only then they are useful for restoration. They are also useful as general tools to create intended looks by the film makers. Since they usually have more or less side effects and can add heavy artifacting to the pictures it's especially important that they are not used unless the film makers explicitly want that look including all the artifacts (for whatever reasons).

When a film has become excessively grainy with age it will no longer look as the director intended.

How do films become excessively grainy with age? That's not a usual problem. Color fading, mechanical damage, scratches etc. are the usual issues. Grain is a problem if only copies of copies of copies have survived. Not the case with most (Hollwood) back catalog titles where usually interpositives and separation masters exist, if not the camera negative.

If you remove that excessive grain with DNR you can remove detail, and end up with a non-film like image - again, not what the director intended. Unless and until technology advances we'll never see what the director intended. Live with it.

The technology has advanced years ago to reduce grain without adding (severe) artifacts. Transfers released today that are degrained and full of filtering artifacts are simply no longer state of the art. They are old and outdated or new and made with outdated equipment and methods or improper use of the tools. Neither is supported by me with a purchase. They have to show more effort to get my money.
Also, excessive grain is rare when the best film elements are used. Where it's unavoidable and indeed unwanted by the film makers (not a given at all as grain = texture and an important esthetic device in film making) there are methods to reduce it that keep a film like image and don't create and ugly artifacty video-film-bastard.
I'm not commenting on the film of this thread. I have not seen the disc.

Like most of here I've spent many thousands of pounds on my home cinema. This is one of my favourite films. Spending £12.99 on a better version of this than my SD DVD is a drop in the ocean, and what you might call a 'no-brainer'. Even if you think the BD is second rate, how does sticking with a 3rd rate version (SD DVD) make any sense?

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.

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.

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. With DVD a marginally better one was worth it since it was low resolution/low bitrate and high compression to begin with. ( compared to Blu )

They have shown us how good Blu can be though so when they don't make a decent effort to give us quality then rightly we complain and kick up a fuss and whether the industry views AVS as having a lot of mad extremists or not does not concern me. I know i am a reasonable person and i expect them to give us better than they sometimes do. Why should we be quiet about that ? Shouldn't reviewers be saying more as well.

Thats why they need to really sell a Blu Ray movie to me these days and being better than DVD is no longer good enough. Josh you can be highly critical of AVS and people around here and i know you dislike screenshots as evidence of poor Blu Ray's but give us some credit for wanting more than we are sometimes getting with these releases.

It's not like i'm saying to you or anyone else that you shouldn't buy something because it's better than the DVD but i myself really want the theatrical experience and i don't mean the cheap cinema with the poor projection and screaming kids and rustling packets i mean the top of the range cinema with all the trimmings.

They are in it for the money, not for the enthousiast or purist. The masses wan't something better than DVD to use with their HDTV. We may argue that this shouldn't be, but frankly they don't care as long as the money is flowing in.

Some company takes better care of their encodes on BR like they did on DVD. We couldn't change their mind then I don't believe we can change it now. You can always wait for the reedition that is sure to come in a few years since they like to milk the same cows often (think army of darkness on dvd).

There is nothing wrong by discussing the merit of an encode or its lack of quality. It's another thing to go up to the barricades and call for blood. While I appreciate the first, I find the second to be a tad condescending and elitist.

So it's up to you. You can keep your stress level on the rise or you can watch movies to relax.

They are in it for the money, not for the enthousiast or purist. The masses wan't something better than DVD to use with their HDTV. We may argue that this shouldn't be, but frankly they don't care as long as the money is flowing in.

Some company takes better care of their encodes on BR like they did on DVD. We couldn't change their mind then I don't believe we can change it now. You can always wait for the reedition that is sure to come in a few years since they like to milk the same cows often (think army of darkness on dvd).

There is nothing wrong by discussing the merit of an encode or its lack of quality. It's another thing to go up to the barricades and call for blood. While I appreciate the first, I find the second to be a tad condescending and elitist.

So it's up to you. You can keep your stress level on the rise or you can watch movies to relax.

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.

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.


While I agree, some have certainly dug their heels in and right or wrong they have drawn the battle lines, but those lines don't have to be all or nothing as some might suggest.

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.

Because DVD was the pinnacle of home video. We do the same thing for a superior BD version now. ;)

You are comparing apples to oranges.

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.

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

Well its was easy to upgrade every VHS to DVD, because it was nice to get rid of all those tapes.

And even when using the same master as the VHS provided huge advantages for the DVD release. Because the digital format was better then the analog format on alot of things (Like not being degraded every time you watch it).

But for BD the standard has been raised. Since its basicly just a PQ upgrade format. And when I pay for a PQ upgrade, I dont want just it a little better. I want it to be excellent. If its not. I have better things to spend my money on.

There is nothing wrong by discussing the merit of an encode or its lack of quality. It's another thing to go up to the barricades and call for blood. While I appreciate the first, I find the second to be a tad condescending and elitist.

And the most condescending thing is that some of the language used is often covertly abusive of anyone who is more pragmatic.

If I called someone here an idiot I'd expect a reprimand from the mods. Many of the comments here pretty much say that ‘only an idiot would put up with this crap’, which is surely just as bad.

And the thing is it's not elitist. The real elitist position would be to say:

A - I want what the director intended, but.

B - If that's not possible I know I'll have to accept a compromise.

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.

Now that's a compromise in itself, and it's a move away from what the director intended, too. Trying to pass that position off as being the only true film-lover's option is simply incorrect.

And we've already had one person at this thread admit they didn't realise that grain increases over time on badly stored film :eek: , and we've already had people trying to compare the level of detail on this Techniscope production with other 35mm and even 65mm presentations :eek::eek:.

I don't there's anything elitist about that position at all!

Steve W