The Longest Day comparison *PIX*

[Dave Mack]

It would be a "gorgeous" capture if it were of the animated version as that pic. above looks NOTHING like either a film print or reality to me. I don't even know what it's supposed to look like. Beowulf?

[Robert George]

I'm going to just throw something out there...(like meat to the wolves)

I have seen the mantra of "DNR bad, DNR bad" being tossed around this and other forums for several months now, reaching something of a fever pitch lately. All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film. So, here's my thought.

Blu-ray (and HD DVD for that matter) is unique in the consumer market. No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution? My question is rhetorical of course. I already know the answer. Hopefully some others here will give the concept some thought.

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.

[msgohan]

(...)Fox appears to have gone back to the original camera negative while digitally supering all the subtitles (in an approximation of the original 1962 font), rather than go with lesser elements where the original subtitling has already been optically inserted.

Hey they're right, there! The subtitles are in a different position now, but it doesn't look like any digital subtitling I've ever seen. The font looks exactly the same, and the text has a "glow" to it like opticals. Plus it's every bit as smooth as the rest of the image.

Originally Posted by bferr1

Is it possible that these are the old DVD masters and were already DNR'd with DVD's lower resolution in mind? I get the impression that people here are assuming these were all-new transfers and that the DNR was intended for the BD.

It's obviously not the same master; the framing is different in every shot for one thing.

And as for comments about the BD looking better than the DVD, the DVD is pretty awful res-wise as it isn't even using full 480p resolution.

BD -> 720x480 bicubic -> 1920x1080 bicubic vs DVD
BD -> 720x480 bicubic -> 1920x1080 bicubic + Gaussian blur (radius 2.0) vs DVD

[tbonetommygun]

Originally Posted by msgohan

It's obviously not the same master; the framing is different in every shot for one thing.

And as for comments about the BD looking better than the DVD, the DVD is pretty awful res-wise as it isn't even using full 480p resolution.

??? the DVD looks better then the down res blu-ray and you can stilll see the grain on the old DVD...

[kucharsk]

The problem is, even with the horrid amounts of DNR, we'll still get people complaining that The Longest Day lacks "3D pop"…

[Art Sonneborn]

Originally Posted by Robert George

I'm going to just throw something out there...(like meat to the wolves)

I have seen the mantra of "DNR bad, DNR bad" being tossed around this and other forums for several months now, reaching something of a fever pitch lately. All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film. So, here's my thought.

Blu-ray (and HD DVD for that matter) is unique in the consumer market. No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution? My question is rhetorical of course. I already know the answer. Hopefully some others here will give the concept some thought.

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.

Robert, IMO you are one of the most pragmatic guys on the forum and I man who's opinion I have great respect for. I certainly wouldn't argue with the basic validity of anything you have said in the quote and as I've stated before we aren't insiders all we can do is extrapolate from known precedents. Films like Casablanca or even Jail House Rock are light years more detailed than The Longest Day and have grain (as do old films like Rio Bravo in BD). I've seen hundreds of black and white SD DVDs that exceed the detail of The Longest Day. Film has grain, even the largest formats like IMAX as we all know. Just by that it can be surmised that Patton and The Longest Day have very likely been tampered with much like Citizen Kane was in SD where it was digitally cleansed to such an extent that it had no detail.

Of course ,we could say ,that since we haven't actually seen the original source elements, that that film had no detail or grain structure that was visible but this is surely much less likely than excessive DNR applicatrion at the transfer IMO.

Art

[Hughmc]

Originally Posted by Robert George

I'm going to just throw something out there...(like meat to the wolves)

I have seen the mantra of "DNR bad, DNR bad" being tossed around this and other forums for several months now, reaching something of a fever pitch lately. All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film. So, here's my thought.

Blu-ray (and HD DVD for that matter) is unique in the consumer market. No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution? My question is rhetorical of course. I already know the answer. Hopefully some others here will give the concept some thought.

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.

While grain doesn't bother me at all, I agree with your stance and louigi's, yet I understand and SEE the opposing sides point of view. Like an example before in another thread, I see little things looking remarkably better. Look at the rock or shell to the left rear of the helmut in the first shot. You can see the layers in it in the BD version courtesy of Xylon, where as the DVD it looks like a blob of blur. At the same time, the waxy look on BD's sucks and I have become more aware of it thanks to you #(&@^@o.

This is a tough issue. I agree the wax look needs to go. I think I saw quite a bit of it on the Jumper BD.

[Danny_N]

Originally Posted by Robert George

All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film.

Right. Now tell that to Robert Harris.

[cybersoga]

What are the chances that the original film negative had little grain and looked digitally processed?

[Oliver Klohs]

Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn

Of course ,we could say ,that since we haven't actually seen the original source elements, that that film had no detail or grain structure that was visible but this is surely much less likely than excessive DNR applicatrion at the transfer IMO.
Art

You are being generous here - whether you go back to the original negative or to release prints there always is enough grain structure in 35mm stock of that vintage to show up at the 1920 x 1080 resolution the format permits. IF master and transfer are done properly, there is even grain visible in the significantly larger 65/70mm format. I am not that familiar with low grain stock that apparently is available today, but all modern movies that I watched which are shot on film and have good or great transfers show grain to some degree, too.

[sperron]

Xylon, you should go back and replace all your grain simulated Patton pics with grayscale versions of the Blu-Ray. It removes the marvelous colors from the equation and allows you to see just how little high frequency detail is there. It also makes the EE really stand out since it's no longer camoflauged by the colors. Look at a grayscale of the picture where patton is standing in front of the flag for instance.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Robert George

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

If there is little to no grain in 2K there is nonetheless superior detail from 35mm and 65mm and not a claymation look with no fine detail. The difference between naturally low grain film and radical DNR with loss of fine detail is very obvious and really not difficult to tell apart.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by cybersoga

What are the chances that the original film negative had little grain and looked digitally processed?

Zero (for digitally processed as in Patton or Day).

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by kucharsk

The problem is, even with the horrid amounts of DNR, we'll still get people complaining that The Longest Day lacks "3D pop"…

I agree. As I understand 3D pop Day has lost it due to the silly claymation look.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Robert George

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.

Of course what we purists say is not: Grain is good, no grain is bad.
We say: The authentic original look of the film is good, the radically altered look due to filtering is bad.
The original look may involve a lot of grain, or little or almost none in 1080p. It depends. It never includes a constant claymation look if the film is before the DI age. Even if clay puppets were filmed there would be a fine level of grain over them.

[Vern Dias]

What are the chances that the original film negative had little grain and looked digitally processed?

Absolutely NONE!!!!!

Digital image processing didn't exist back when this film was released. Computers were in their infancy, took huge rooms to install and used vacuum tubes! They were very limited in math, for example ther performed multiplying by using repititive adds.

Vern

[Deviation]

Originally Posted by Xylon

I really can't explain what they did to this movie. I always assume that these people are at least knowledgeable in film restoration.

I tell you they are dumbing this down to the PS3 demographic

As a member of the "PS3 demographic" (no, really, I own 16 PS3 games in addition to my 103 Blu-ray Discs), I find that comment insulting.

Seriously, this is just effing awful. What's funny is that another DNR-laden studio (New Line) put out one of the best arguments for leaving the film grain in... Shoot 'em Up looks phenomenal on Blu-ray, film grain and all. Too bad they didn't show the same respect to Pan's Labyrinth.

[wyliec2]

Originally Posted by Robert George

No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution?

I found the bashing threads just after ordering the TLD BD - I watched the movie (my first end-to-end viewing since it's original release) - there are several scenes which look very 'funky' - I won't presume to know the specific cause - in any case I was able to enjoy the movie and there were many scenes that I thought looked good.

With most things, the end result is a compromise between many tradeoffs - do I think this film could have been done better? Yes!

But without knowing the input and variabilities I cannot say that for sure nor can I say that another outcome could be significantly better in one respect without creating issues in another...???

Bottom line, I'm all for raising the questions regarding TLD. But I agree with Robert in suspecting that most posters making categorical statements regarding the production probably don't have the absolute basis for those conclusions...

[Romerojpg]

The John wayne cap is easily one of the worst Noise Reduced images I have ever seen.

But that cap just above is not a fraction as bad to my eyes, the extra detail you see is vast compared to the dvd. It is an improvment hats for sure and looks like the upgrade would be worth it, well if the plastic look was not so evident in that Wayne image.

[FoxyMulder]

Too many people saying "It looks better than the DVD" when these things happen....I mean i know it's going to look better than the DVD as the Blu Ray has six times ( five times UK ) more resolution to it.

It's clear that studio's are making one version for both DVD and Blu Ray and are not taking into account the fact Blu Ray can show fine grain without the problems that a DVD encode with grain has. Thus some longer films get the DNR treatment so it fits better on DVD and that same version is used for Blu Ray.

I remember buying Apocalypse Now on DVD ( PAL UK Version ) - Great image with fine grain throughout...One of the best looking DVD's ever made. That was released by Fox in the UK for the Pathe label.

Fast forward a few weeks and i also picked up Apocalypse Now - Redux edition....This time released by Buena Vista ( Disney ) ....They had added huge amounts of DNR and removed all fine detail and no grain was evident...probably done in order to fit the film onto one disc but it looked absolutely c*** compared to the theatrical version from Fox/Pathe......My point being that longer films are being DNRed for DVD and we seem to get the same DNRed version when it hits Blu Ray....Sometimes the studio doesn't try hard enough or goes all cheap on us.

It would be great if instead of people saying....This looks better than DVD they can look at the bigger picture and ask themselves if it looks as good as it can for the Blu Ray format.

I sure hope Lawrence of Arabia doesn't get this DNR treatment but i suspect it'll be fine and will be split into two discs for DVD and have very little DNR for Blu Ray.

[louigi222]

I've been thinking.
Based on Xylon's screen captures I have decided to purchase both Patton and The Longest Day. Normally I would not make a "purchase" decision based on screen caps alone but those captures SHOUT at me as to how much more detailed the BD version is over the crappy SD DVD title. I know this was not Xylon's intent....but when you post screen shots (remember that saying - a picture is worth a thousand words) Xylon's "intent" got blown away by how good the BD pics looked, in my opinion, and his message got lost in the translation.
I know BD has 6 X's more detail than SD DVD and is supposed to look a lot better, but...THIS MUCH BETTER!!!!! HOLLY MOLEY.
As a comparison, look at Xylons A Passage to India comparison pics. Now this title was not one of my David Lean favorites but I doubt I would replace the SD DVD disc with the BD version as the former holds up very well and yes....this was not Xylon's intent but it's so bloody obvious.
I think one of the most pressing problems we have as movie aficionados is trying to decide if it's worth replacing a semi-favorite SD DVD title with the same just released BD title.....anyway, it is for me as I still have over 400 SD DVD titles.
Xylon, thanks for the GREAT screen pics...but let your pics do your talking for you. Really, they speak volumes. Let US decide if the Patton screen pics are "despicable." It could have been fun if you just posted the comparison and commented, "well...what do you guys think?"

[Romerojpg]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

It would be great if instead of people saying....This looks better than DVD they can look at the bigger picture and ask themselves if it looks as good as it can for the Blu Ray format.

Problem is they will never re-release them and invest more cash into new transfers just becuase people do not like the newly released HD transfers.

It never happened on dvd, and it wont happen on HD.

Well not for a year or two when they milk us all over again


Thing is pretty much most of all the transfers out there could look better with time, cash and the right input. But we still buy them becuase it is as good as it will get for a long time. Sad but true.

I imagine these new uglyfied Noise reduced War film transfers will still sell loads, transfer niggles or not as frankly the "Joe Public" do not care it seems

[sperron]

Originally Posted by louigi222

Xylon, thanks for the GREAT screen pics...but let your pics do your talking for you. Really, they speak volumes. Let US decide if the Patton screen pics are "despicable." It could have been fun if you just posted the comparison and commented, "well...what do you guys think?"

He posts the screen caps because he chooses to. He is not, nor does he claim to be any form of impartial journalist. He invests a large amount of time, effort and money to do this and you thank him by asking him not to comment on what he works so hard to do? That certainly takes some gall...

[Matt_Stevens]

As bad as PATTON is, this is far worse. So F'n terrible that it's infuriating. It's a crime.

[Art Sonneborn]

Originally Posted by wyliec2

But I agree with Robert in suspecting that most posters making categorical statements regarding the production probably don't have the absolute basis for those conclusions...

Who needs it we have all seen film many times we do not have to have seen TLD specifically. As I said I could put up many DVDs that have more detaiol but of course have retained the grain and don't even put Casablanca up next to TLD !

Art

[husker1974]

Besides all this talk about "DNR bad," the thing that bugs me most is the lumping of people who own PS3s into the animation/HD video crowd. Some of us can recognize the loss of detail with excessive use of filtering AND own a PS3. If you're going to complain about excessive DNR blame it on the studios trying to get everything to look like a demo loop in a B&M store, not that fact that we own a PS3.

I enjoy movies looking as close to film as possible on my tiny ass 50" plasma with a PS3, but please refrain from making offhand remarks about a demographic that allowed one HD format to win and provided incentives for the studios to give us HD material to watch. It makes it difficult for those of us just getting into HD to "fight for unprocessed films" when we're tossed into the "no taste" crowd.

[Hughmc]

Originally Posted by husker1974

Besides all this talk about "DNR bad," the thing that bugs me most is the lumping of people who own PS3s into the animation/HD video crowd. Some of us can recognize the loss of detail with excessive use of filtering AND own a PS3. If you're going to complain about excessive DNR blame it on the studios trying to get everything to look like a demo loop in a B&M store, not that fact that we own a PS3.

I enjoy movies looking as close to film as possible on my tiny ass 50" plasma with a PS3, but please refrain from making offhand remarks about a demographic that allowed one HD format to win and provided incentives for the studios to give us HD material to watch. It makes it difficult for those of us just getting into HD to "fight for unprocessed films" when we're tossed into the "no taste" crowd.

I keep reitterating the same mantra over and over. Ths PS3 PQ for BD's is as good as ANY player, yes any and we have had confirmation of such from members who have high end equipment. The PS3 is no crappy PS2 DVD player or device. It is a different world these days. Many of us who have PS3's happen to have equipment that makes the PS3 look cheap in terms of dollar amount. There are many PS3 owners who have tens of thousands invested in their setups. The bottom line is today there is no PS3 demographic that can be said to be typical. Stating PS3 owners are part of said demographic is insulting and elitist.

[DavidHir]

Originally Posted by Hughmc

I keep reitterating the same mantra over and over. Ths PS3 PQ for BD's is as good as ANY player, yes any and we have had confirmation of such from members who have high end equipment.

We've also had people with high end equipment state some of the newer standalone players are at least slightly better than the PS3 and this has been my experience too. However, I do agree the PS3 is a very good unit.

[Desert Pilot]

I wish we could get the transfer engineers to speak up in this forums so we can get what they were thinking. I still maintain that we must put on the video box the name of the transfer engineering studio and the specific engineer so we can decide who needs to find another line of work.

Marcus

[Art Sonneborn]

As far as the PS3 thing all stereotypes have some basis in fact. Way too many threads on these forums bear this out. It really is no excuse to lump everyone but still not unfounded either.

Art