http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?sec_id=2&&article_ID=11277

There are some good statements by filmmakers, but this made me chuckle.

And then there are films that maybe shouldn’t make it to high-def.

“My first experience was Animal House,” Landis lamented of the HD DVD. “When I saw what the technicians had done, I was horrified; they had made it bright and pretty! Animal House was deliberately dark and funky.

“They did adjust it, writing in their report ‘image degraded at director’s request.’”

I dont call in making the picture darker, degrading it.

I dont call in making the picture darker, degrading it.

Not my words - the technicians'.

And the pretty-vs-funky commentary alludes to a more general uglification than simple darkening.

If my memory is correct I remember reading about this a couple of years ago on HTF when the last DVD version of Animal House was prepared (Double Probation editon). That looked to clean for Landis and they had to degrade that.

Sadly, when the average person thinks HD, they think clear, bright and colorful (colourful for those outside the US). How often have you heard people say there is no need to release B&W films in HD? Double eek! :eek::eek:
Numerous people have asked me why HD football games look better than HD films on HDM. They don't see all the macroblocks and artifacts, they just see bright colors...ooooh...pretty colors....must be HD.

Sadly, when the average person thinks HD, they think clear, bright and colorful (colourful for those outside the US). How often have you heard people say there is no need to release B&W films in HD? Double eek! :eek::eek:
Numerous people have asked me why HD football games look better than HD films on HDM. They don't see all the macroblocks and artifacts, they just see bright colors...ooooh...pretty colors....must be HD.

Dont forget things like sharpening, edgeenhancment and DNR.

In the end everybody has a different view of what a good image is.

And this part irked me a little:

Yet for all the benefits of high-def — better audio, 1080p video, more interactive special features — it all still comes down to the movie itself, according to director Kevin Reynolds.

“I used to be a major audiophile, but to me it’s still about story and character,” Reynolds said. “You can have the worst video and audio quality, but if the story and characters work, you’re on the edge of your seat.”

Well if that were the case, Kevin, you shouldn't have spent $175 million of the studio's money making Waterworld. :p Just shoot it on 8mm on your swimming pool and call it a day.

It is possible to have story and character and the best video and audio quality. It's not either/or.

Does Lawrence of Arabia work on a 27" inch TV? Absolutely. Did I enjoy it more on a 70mm copy projected on a 100'-wide screen? You bet.

Well I think the reason why waterworld needed 175millions was because of the weak story and characters. ;)

But I do agree with him, first story and character. Great PQ and AQ is bonus.

How many of you here watched starwars on VHS tape in a 4:3 tv with monosound and were still amazed over the movie?

The story and characters are obviously more important than just eye candy. But once in a while, eye candy is harmless fun.

What Rob Zombie says though worries me.

We think that absolute detail and clarity should be how HDM should be judged on technical merits, yet Landis and Zombie appear to think otherwise. Zombie didn't like it when things look too "clear" and too "clean" equating it with sh*t.

Directors' intent really give me a headache sometimes, but I suppose they know what effect they are trying to project. I suppose too much detail can reveal more of their mistakes, but even on DVDs, mistakes are often a great talking point for movie-buffs, so HDM just allows more technical mistakes in the movies to be seen. How is that different?

Well I think the reason why waterworld needed 175millions was because of the weak story and characters. ;)

But I do agree with him, first story and character. Great PQ and AQ is bonus.

How many of you here watched starwars on VHS tape in a 4:3 tv with monosound and were still amazed over the movie?

Let's not forget that most films are not large budget action films with lots of CGI. Many of the best films are the character/story driven dramas and comedies. And seriously, would 7.1 lossless surround sound instead of mono make a huge difference when watching Citizen Cane, On the Waterfront or Its a Wonderful Life?

And seriously, would 7.1 lossless surround sound instead of mono make a huge difference when watching Citizen Cane, On the Waterfront or Its a Wonderful Life?

No, because they were original mono.

But does 1080p make a difference when watching Casablanca? In my opinion - hell yes. If I didn't think that I wouldn't have hidef at all - big action/sfx blockbuster don't do much for me.

I am awestruck on how well Casablanca looks in HD DVD and Blu-ray.

That sold me on how good some of the classics , even the B&W ones can look in HD DVD.

I've seen Casablanca now both on 720p and 1080p60 and both ways its so much better than DVD its not funny. Both the HD DVD and IIRC I just saw Joe Kane using it on Blu-ray at 1080p24 at the Samsung theater booth at CEDIA.

Watching the smoke curl, you can almost taste it and watching nuances like the medals and watches make it look like you are in the room.

"Graded , grading" refers to colour correction in film speak.

"degraded" although not exactly good terminology probably just means they backed off on the overall colour correction rather than physically degrading the image quality.

imo, unless the director asks, leave processing alone and just do a true complete transfer of the film. some directors wanted their films to look clear but due to technical limitations they could not. some directors intended for their films to have a degraded look, and when transferring such films the look should be intact.

imo, unless the director asks, leave processing alone and just do a true complete transfer of the film. some directors wanted their films to look clear but due to technical limitations they could not. some directors intended for their films to have a degraded look, and when transferring such films the look should be intact.

Like I said I doubt its referring to processing : just colour correction "grading".

You have to "grade" ( colour correct) films for consistency between shots as well as creative reasons.

They essentially have to do the a grade at the telecine to colur correct the film into a comparatively limited video colourspace ( as well as reflecting the directors intent with look of the original theatrical release).

It doesn't necessarily mean they deliberately processed the video to look worse.

"Graded , grading" refers to colour correction in film speak.

"degraded" although not exactly good terminology probably just means they backed off on the overall colour correction rather than physically degrading the image quality.I agree with this - I think it's more likely they reduced the contrast and color range, rather than the resolution. Made it less "perky", but keeping it HD would have met the director's demand.

I think what is significant in this story is here:

Same with Oliver Stone.

“I’m going to, I’m going to,” Stone said about getting high-def players at home. “I have a nice plasma screen.” ...

Stone noted that a feature-length documentary about his Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut, made by his son Sean, “is only on the [HD DVD and Blu-ray] because it doesn’t fit into the two-disc [DVD].” It would seem that studios are not having space problems on HD DVD. They are able to fit more on HD DVD than on 2 disc DVD sets already.

I think what is significant in this story is here:

It would seem that studios are not having space problems on HD DVD. They are able to fit more on HD DVD than on 2 disc DVD sets already.

Good heavens, can't you set aside the spin doctor hat for a bloody minute? For you, absolutely everything is a hook to boost your preferred format.

It would seem that studios are not having space problems on HD DVD. They are able to fit more on HD DVD than on 2 disc DVD sets already.

:D you are really grasping here.

It all depends on if its a style, language, manner, plot or characterdriven story(or a mixture)

If style is an important part the movie(wich it is in most hollywoodfilms), PQ and AQ is very important. And style movies are the thing that sells best for us in the highdef crowd.

Regardless, if the director's final print on film is what he was satisfied with, the rule should be to have HDM be as close a match to the final print as possible, if there are deleted scenes restored, the overall look of deleted scenes should match the final print on film.

These days though, some cinemas have movies shown using DI-4K or other digital means, so that complicates things, but in principle, whatever the Director wanted to show in the theater should be the preferred look.

If years later, the Director changes his mind and wants to redo the color, that's up to him, if he suddenly wants all faces to look like neon orange or sepia brown dirt, that's ok too, but at least explain his reasoning for the new look and have 5 minute verbal artistic walkthrough why this is the correct look for the movie. We're here to enjoy the work of the Directors, so we're not going to lynch-mob someone just because he chose certain hue and saturation options with his work. (Ok, maybe we will if he added fake grain for no reason).

These days though, some cinemas have movies shown using DI-4K or other digital means, so that complicates things, but in principle, whatever the Director wanted to show in the theater should be the preferred look.
.

A DI actually simplifies things. You don't watch a DI in a digital cinema. You watch a digital cinema release format that's closer to a print dynamic. The DI is negative.

They can change and colorcorrect, as long as they stay true to the orginal feel.

The Matrix and Se7en is movies were the latest master is changed but they have still keept the feel of the movie.

Wow that article captures in a nutshell the whole issue with HD anything at this point. No place to put extra equipment, the format war, looked at being something for elite users only, etc.. Very interesting.

Laters,
Jeff

They can change and colorcorrect, as long as they stay true to the orginal feel.

The Matrix and Se7en is movies were the latest master is changed but they have still keept the feel of the movie.


No two masters done independantly by two different colorists at two different mastering houses will be exactly the same , just as two audio mixers would never replicate exactly the same mix if left to their own devices. Its a subjective process involving active creative decision making.

Isn't "degrading" Animal House, an exercise in redundancy? :confused:

We think that absolute detail and clarity should be how HDM should be judged on technical merits, yet Landis and Zombie appear to think otherwise. Zombie didn't like it when things look too "clear" and too "clean" equating it with sh*t.

Directors' intent really give me a headache sometimes, but I suppose they know what effect they are trying to project. I suppose too much detail can reveal more of their mistakes, but even on DVDs, mistakes are often a great talking point for movie-buffs, so HDM just allows more technical mistakes in the movies to be seen. How is that different?

The purpose of HDM is not to serve us as the viewers, but rather to serve the film that is recorded on it! HDM is nothing more than the plate upon which the meal is delivered, it does not define the meal and should not in any fashion modify the meal delivered on it.

However, many on these boards completely ignore the needs of the film and replace them with their perception of their personal needs as projected on the film -- whatever results from that is is quite simply NOT the same film, it's some individualized permutation of the film! This is not something the genuine film fan wants to see, and it's not what the director wanted to see -- it's more closely akin to taking great music and turning it into elevator muzak for unobtrusive living! This distorted viewpoint is the primary driving force behind the Tier threads for both formats and results in a major disservice to both the films themselves and the formats presenting them.

Film is art, not documentary -- the artist is the director, not the viewer. If what the viewer is looking for is something that looks like what they see out the window, they should be watching documentary, not film!

I can't tell you how many of my budding AV expert friends read about black crush, play the move "300" then tell me their TV or player has black crush. They also go on to say the movie has lots of dots/grain and why are they paying more for HD-DVD, it doesn't look sharp like NFL.

I have to tell them that crush was purposed introduced by the director to match the style of the graphic novel. In the case of 300, the director was actually quite proud of it. You can really see the difference between the post production crush/grain and the filmed version by looking at the PIP director's comments on the HD-DVD version. The PIP looks totally clean. The movie has crush and grain. You see them side-by-side.

I can't tell you how many of my budding AV expert friends read about black crush, play the move "300" then tell me their TV or player has black crush. They also go on to say the movie has lots of dots/grain and why are they paying more for HD-DVD, it doesn't look sharp like NFL.

I have to tell them that crush was purposed introduced by the director to match the style of the graphic novel. In the case of 300, the director was actually quite proud of it. You can really see the difference between the post production crush/grain and the filmed version by looking at the PIP director's comments on the HD-DVD version. The PIP looks totally clean. The movie has crush and grain. You see them side-by-side.

And Transformers is likely to disappoint as well because Speilberg (The king of grain) gives his movies this feel as well. I can't wait till everyone starts shouting about this in the thread. Point is Movie often is not supposed to look like HD shot video. It also further proves that the director has a huge say in how the movie is released on video in regards to a lot of things people complain about around here.

Regardless, if the director's final print on film is what he was satisfied with, the rule should be to have HDM be as close a match to the final print as possible, if there are deleted scenes restored, the overall look of deleted scenes should match the final print on film.

These days though, some cinemas have movies shown using DI-4K or other digital means, so that complicates things, but in principle, whatever the Director wanted to show in the theater should be the preferred look.

If years later, the Director changes his mind and wants to redo the color, that's up to him, if he suddenly wants all faces to look like neon orange or sepia brown dirt, that's ok too, but at least explain his reasoning for the new look and have 5 minute verbal artistic walkthrough why this is the correct look for the movie. We're here to enjoy the work of the Directors, so we're not going to lynch-mob someone just because he chose certain hue and saturation options with his work. (Ok, maybe we will if he added fake grain for no reason).

If years later the director decides to redesign the film (be it appearance or content) then you have a problematic situation. Lucas did that muliple times with his initial Star Wars Trilogy and Spielberg did that with Close Encounters, but there is no way fans of earlier versions should have to adopt re-imaginings -- it's simply no longer within the domain of the director, the cat is out of the bag! Anybody can engage in revisionism, and everyone has the right to either adopt or reject a revision!

And Transformers is likely to disappoint as well because Speilberg (The king of grain) gives his movies this feel as well.

Spielberg only acted as Executive Producer on Transformers. Michael Bay directed it.

They can change and colorcorrect, as long as they stay true to the orginal feel.

The Matrix and Se7en is movies were the latest master is changed but they have still keept the feel of the movie.

Both of those films are green to excess relative to their theatrical releases (Aliens as well judging by the DVD release). This is something that I consider unnecessary and undesirable revisionism, and I personally feel it hurts the presentations, not helps them. That's the problem with film revisionism -- it can be rejected, and quite reasonably!

After a film has been shown theatrically, it ceases to be the director's personal property, it belongs to the film enthusiast community as well.

I am awestruck on how well Casablanca looks in HD DVD and Blu-ray.

That sold me on how good some of the classics , even the B&W ones can look in HD DVD.

I've seen Casablanca now both on 720p and 1080p60 and both ways its so much better than DVD its not funny. Both the HD DVD and IIRC I just saw Joe Kane using it on Blu-ray at 1080p24 at the Samsung theater booth at CEDIA.

Watching the smoke curl, you can almost taste it and watching nuances like the medals and watches make it look like you are in the room.

I've seen this over 30 times with my students and seeing it in HD DVD was a revelation! It is stunning!:D

Does this mean that these directors think original film/movie theaters have less resolution and clarity compared to these HDM/Home theaters? I thought that most 35mm film have many times the resolution and contrast of any current home digital media.

Spielberg only acted as Executive Producer on Transformers. Michael Bay directed it.

Thanks for the correction. Spielberg does put his stamp on this to some degree at least the original film. In the theaters the movie had that Spielberg feel that I have seen with many of his releases in recent years (WoW being the most recent). I have a feeling this release will be grainy. Not that there is anything wrong with this but some will be disappointed.

Does this mean that these directors think original film/movie theaters have less resolution and clarity compared to these HDM/Home theaters? I thought that most 35mm film have many times the resolution and contrast of any current home digital media.

Yeah but try and take your projector and blow it up to a 30+ foot screen and see what happens. Film I think runs at about 4K in resolution but the big difference between film and home is the surface area of the screen.

Yeah but try and take your projector and blow it up to a 30+ foot screen and see what happens. Film I think runs at about 4K in resolution but the big difference between film and home is the surface area of the screen.

No, I think this is a mistaken premise. The resolution depends not only on the size of the screen, but also on how far you sit from the screen. I have a 12 feet wide screen that I sit ~15feet away from. From my point of view, that's about the same screen size as I like to sit in any theater regardless of screen size (30 foot screen, sit ~40feet from the screen). That's why I think it's completely bogus when directors say this was intentionally shot soft and that's why it has no better than 480P resolution. Theaters would go out of business if any theatrical film looked no better than DVD blown up to 30+ foot screen.

I am probably in the minority but recently I watched "Were Are Marshall" with one of those combo discs from BB. I watched it with the HD-A2 on a 42" Philips LCD (720p) and naturally went for the HD option. Nearly half-way through the disc froze. Under pressure from wife and kids, I turned to the DVD side. Near the end, it froze again so I flipped it back to finish the movie. What I found was while HD provides a crisper picture the softer DVD upconvert seemed more movies like. The color in the HD was too vibrant that it looked game like. The rest of my family was indifferent to which side the disc was played.

I understand that my equipment is far from optimal, but that is probably the norm. if I didn't know any better, I may have liked the DVD side better for this movie and I think this is pretty close to the "degrade" debate here.

A byproduct of the story: buy combo, if it freezes you can always flip!

Thanks for the correction. Spielberg does put his stamp on this to some degree at least the original film. In the theaters the movie had that Spielberg feel that I have seen with many of his releases in recent years (WoW being the most recent). I have a feeling this release will be grainy. Not that there is anything wrong with this but some will be disappointed.

Do you think it's mostly films with lots of visual effects in that they add grain to? If so, do you think there is a reason for it? Maybe they are trying to disguise how unreal the effects would look without it? At least I think there may be a grain of truth in that.

Grain in film used to mean noise/too many generations/using the wrong type of film or other problems in filming. Nowadays I think it's over-used as if it's great. Like other films where they intentionally remove details or soften/blur the whole image - and then release it on high definition media :rolleyes:

Do you think it's mostly films with lots of visual effects in that they add grain to? If so, do you think there is a reason for it? Maybe they are trying to disguise how unreal the effects would look without it? At least I think there may be a grain of truth in that.
:

Grain is matched very carefully on VFX shots. CGI and other elements often shot on differing filmstocks have to be grain matched either to the plate they are being comped into or the scene in general. There is no reason why a VFX shot will have visually unusual grain compared to live action footage.

Also grain actually makes images look sharper and is very useful for hiding quantisation artifacts ( in fact to deal with banding you normally blur it a bit and add some noise on top).

Regardless, if the director's final print on film is what he was satisfied with, the rule should be to have HDM be as close a match to the final print as possible, if there are deleted scenes restored, the overall look of deleted scenes should match the final print on film.

These days though, some cinemas have movies shown using DI-4K or other digital means, so that complicates things, but in principle, whatever the Director wanted to show in the theater should be the preferred look.

If years later, the Director changes his mind and wants to redo the color, that's up to him, if he suddenly wants all faces to look like neon orange or sepia brown dirt, that's ok too, but at least explain his reasoning for the new look and have 5 minute verbal artistic walkthrough why this is the correct look for the movie. We're here to enjoy the work of the Directors, so we're not going to lynch-mob someone just because he chose certain hue and saturation options with his work. (Ok, maybe we will if he added fake grain for no reason). I personally like the color changes on the Blu-ray release of Dracula.

I don't remember what it looked like in the theater, but I saw the DVD and Superbit versions a lot.

The new colors, though different, gave the movie a highlighted impact to me.

If the director changed his mind in that way, because of opportunity to revisit a work with the new technology, I'm all for it.

But it needs to be someone originally involved with the film IMHO.

Screwing around with some other other persons work, without permission seems a bit weird to me.