"Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX* - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 12:54 AM
Member
 
mbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 161
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is disappointing. The film may have looked reference-quality if not for the DNR - and the edge enhancement in the shot with the flag is inexcusable.
mbird is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 02:32 AM
Member
 
jaffa69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I watched THE UNTOUCHABLES last night on my new 50'' PANNY PLASMA in 1080p for the first time and it looked incredible.Just being able to see all the fine detail in the sets and the clothing and all the wrinkles and creases in CONNERYS face ect was amazing.This is the reason why i watch BLU-RAY so that i can see every detail in the movie production.I DONT want it smoothed out i want it left in
jaffa69 is offline  
post #93 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 02:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDarrylR View Post

So you guys would rather watch the low-res DVD?

No. Neither DVD nor BR. A good print or some other film. Patton is not available in acceptable (to me) HD form, for the time being.
mhafner is offline  
post #94 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 02:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexx View Post

Have you seen the Blu-ray? I understand your principle, but on a large screen, the 2001 DVD does *not* look like film.

No DVDs look like film on large screens. They all lack resolution compared to film and almost all have obvious digital artifacts.
mhafner is offline  
post #95 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 03:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
kdssrugby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 680
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
@Amishfury: I almost forgot about enemy at the gates. An entertaining movie but as you said entirely fictitious. I have the Pathe HD DVD of it and it has awesome 7.1 DTS HD sound. Oh, and don t get me started on the Elizabeth films, I can only imagine the frustrated history teachers trying to set kids straight after watching those.
kdssrugby is offline  
post #96 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 04:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulidan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,003
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

No DVDs look like film on large screens. They all lack resolution compared to film and almost all have obvious digital artifacts.

I have to disagree with this. While the wider aspect films usually have issues with resolved detail and EE, I've watched plenty of 1.77-1.85:1 titles lately I would classify as outstanding reproductions of film. The Night They Raided Minskys, From Beyond, Witchfinder General, Julia, The Hand and many others.
Granted these aren't titles many people here are likely to rush out to get, but it's clear to me that there is still a lot of potential left in standard def. Hell, I just watched a few chapters from the last editions of Alien and Jaws and both looked excellant. Not perfect (Alien had some minor ringing that prevented it from truly looking like film) but the fact is, for non-critical entertainment purposes there is still far more to be positive than negative about with the sd presentations here.
The Criterion edition of Two-Lane Blacktop OTOH is pretty hard on the eyes. Ringing is everywhere and I wouldn't be suprised to find out it was strenuously DNR'd first with the EE applied to compensate.
As with Patton, if that stuff is hardwired into the master, 1080p isn't going to yield that much of an improvment compared to what is possible with a proper, unmolested master.
this was on a Pearl at about 100" wide.
Paulidan is offline  
post #97 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 05:24 AM
Advanced Member
 
Flexx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South Florida
Posts: 857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

No DVDs look like film on large screens. They all lack resolution compared to film and almost all have obvious digital artifacts.

Yes, and you can see the copious amounts of compression noise on the DVD in Xylon's screen caps. This may seem like unfiltered detail to some. It's not.

I don't see "massive" amounts of EE on the Patton Blu-ray, at least on my system.

I think adding simulated grain to a screen cap is kind of a moot point. I mean, you're not getting resolution back - you're just adding noise to an already filtered image. And we criticize the studios for filtering and then adding EE If seeing grain makes you feel warm and fuzzy, then, ok, I get it, but it's not replenishing the filtered detail.

I'd rather have the unfiltered image, whether or not there is heavy grain.

I can understand why some may boycott this release on principle, but I highly recommend folks at least rent this one before writing it off.
Flexx is offline  
post #98 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 06:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I got Patton and Longest Day as a birthday gift. I don't want to be an ******* but I really wouldn't mind returning them consider how badly they butchered their release!
Ruined is offline  
post #99 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 06:21 AM
Senior Member
 
natrone06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For the last week I have been following foxys thread about 3d pop. The problem was I really didn't know what everyone was talking about. The only blu-ray I had seen which was mentioned to have dnr was Pans and I thought it looked fantastic.

Now that I've seen the pics I have to admit if this is what all the fuss is about I truly dont get it. I think the the Bluray of Patton looks great.

I also find it interesting how the terms "true film fan" and "lover of film" are being thrown around in this thread. As I said before I dont mind the dnr(maybe even like it) and would dare anyone to say Im not a true fan of film. We can then compare movies we've watched in the past week let alone past year.

Maybe we need to move the questioning of "joe six packs" love of film to the people that let such minute things distract from great films and actually prevent them from owning and watching the film.
natrone06 is offline  
post #100 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 06:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
facesnorth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Pocono Mountains
Posts: 1,880
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Some of you are really missing the issue here.

Is the concept of wanting an accurate rendition of the film too difficult to understand?

Speaking up to the studios to let them know that we don't want this type of alteration?

In many other countries, it's more popular to release titles without any detail-losing scrub "enhancements". Why can't we let them know that we want the same here?
facesnorth is offline  
post #101 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 06:37 AM
Senior Member
 
natrone06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by facesnorth View Post

Some of you are really missing the issue here.

Is the concept of wanting an accurate rendition of the film too difficult to understand?

Speaking up to the studios to let them know that we don't want this type of alteration?

In many other countries, it's more popular to release titles without any detail-losing scrub "enhancements". Why can't we let them know that we want the same here?

I get wanting an accurate rendition. I dont get the "despicable" part for being slightly less accurate.
natrone06 is offline  
post #102 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 06:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Vern Dias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Allen TX USA
Posts: 4,978
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:


I get wanting an accurate rendition. I dont get the "despicable" part for being slightly less accurate.

Well, you certainly didn't get it in "Patton". If you never saw the original in 70mm (or 35mm, for that matter) you have absolutely no way of knowing what is or is not an accurate rendition. I have seen the 70mm version in D-150 in NYC, and have projected the 35mm version. It's not slightly less accurate, it's grossly inaccurate and extremely unfaithful to the look of the original.

Vern
Vern Dias is offline  
post #103 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 06:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by natrone06 View Post

I get wanting an accurate rendition. I dont get the "despicable" part for being slightly less accurate.

Its a whole lot more than "slightly" if the Blu-ray version of the film looks like a Direct-Digital Dreamworks Animation release instead of film!
Ruined is offline  
post #104 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 07:21 AM
 
FoxyMulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5,860
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My own point of view is that if you tell someone the problem exists and explain at great length the problem and give detailed information that the grain is actually part of the film and explain that by using DNR to remove the grain actually means you are removing the finer detail present in the image and then you show screenshots which clearly show a smooth non detailed waxy look and people still come onto these boards and say hey that looks good then sometimes the natural human reaction is to think "what idiots".....That doesn't make it right or win you any arguments but it's borne from human frustration and not from wanting people to accept only your view and perhaps a deep breath is needed before you reply to such people....It's like morals really...There is a wrong and a right....Stealing is wrong.....DNR is wrong.....So when people say hey that looks good to me or looks great then yes if you know about film and it's look you have to say that's wrong and they are wrong.....There is no argument really.....excessive DNR is wrong.

There is no need to have seen this film in a theater to know how film should look so once again that argument is just plain silly and evasive and comes from those trying to justify this terrible DNRed mess that is Patton.

I'm starting to question the whole point of AVS because it seems to me that the site is being taken over by people willing to accept any old rubbish as long as it has the eye candy factor ( for eye candy read smooth undetailed image or CGI borefest )

Maybe some people aren't true film fans but i am and i really don't want to accept any transfer on Blu Ray.....Mild DNR when applied correctly retains all the detail ( and i would say all films get some form of mild DNR treatment ) It's when they go overboard with it i object.
FoxyMulder is offline  
post #105 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 07:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gremmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxyMulder View Post

It's like morals really...There is a wrong and a right....Stealing is wrong.....DNR is wrong.....So when people say hey that looks good to me or looks great then yes if you know about film and it's look you have to say that's wrong and they are wrong.....There is no argument really.....excessive DNR is wrong.

I agree. For many of us, our love of movies as ART and our desire to preserve the integrity of such art has moved from the realm of interest into the realm of morality. That's why the responses tend to be so severe.
gremmy is offline  
post #106 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 08:06 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
If all that is going on between these two is simulated grain... ? It looks like it increased the MTF rather dramatically. Of course ones eyes are pulled to edges and for whatever reason Xylon's manipulation increases the appearance of those edges. In particular , look at the eyes and eyebrows between the two.





Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #107 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The simulated pics also have EE appied(look at the big line around the black bars). I would suggest to discontinue adding EE because all it's doing is boosting contrast. The high frequency detail is just not there to pull out.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #108 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 08:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
union1411's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Big Apple
Posts: 774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
look at the eyes and eyebrows between the two.

while you might be just using that as an example, the chance of me noticing the detail in someone's eyebrows while watching a film is probably .0000001%

the waxiness of the skin though is a bit annoying. i first noticed DNR when i watched Pan. i didn't know what DNR was but the opening scene i just kept thinking, "why does she look like a wax doll?"
union1411 is offline  
post #109 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 08:37 AM
Member
 
jbecvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 95
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here's my two cents:

I had never seen Patton at all before getting the blu ray version, so I can't comment on how it's supposed to look. But watching the blu ray, you cannot see any fine details, such as facial pores. In other movies that I've watched, I've been wowed by the fact that there's enough detail in the picture to be able to see that kind of stuff.

Did I think Patton looked good? Yes, it looks good for an almost 40 yr. old movie, but it doesn't look as good as some of the older movies that have been released.

I am all for keeping the director's intent. The director is the one who decides what a film is supposed to look like through the use of different lighting, lenses, film stocks, etc., and to change it is to severely alter what the director wanted. It'd be like painting a bigger smile on the Mona Lisa just because more people would go to see it.

Because people around here are more "picky", they notice things that are wrong that should be corrected or at least accounted for. If no one around here spoke up, would we have gotten a new version of The Fifth Element or the corrected Pirates Of The Carribean? Probably not.

And whereas some people may say that they're elitist and snobby, at worst I'd say they're overzealous, only because they want the most accurate depiction of what the film really is, not because they like to put people down or seem smarter, but because they care so deeply for films and their proper preservations.
jbecvar is offline  
post #110 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 08:42 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,307
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by union1411 View Post

while you might be just using that as an example, the chance of me noticing the detail in someone's eyebrows while watching a film is probably .0000001%


Ah yea. The eyes appear dramatically more detailed between these two and in fact is one of the places where differences between those two images can be demonstrated. I could have pointed out his mole.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #111 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 09:07 AM
 
louigi222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sperron View Post

Well I can understand the frustration by many here. Here we have definitive screenshots that prove exactly how badly FOX screwed this up. We see the massive amounts of DNR and EE, meanwhile there are a group coming into this thread saying "It looks great!". To add to that furstration there is the fact that we are stuck with this transfer for what will probably be years before Fox finally does this film justice on BD. That last is more frustrating then the people saying it looks great truthfully.

Screen shots prove nothing!!! To evaluate a film on ALL levels, it should be VIEWED!!! That's not asking too much is it? Some people, and many reviewers, that have screened the title liked it and are certainly entitled to their opinion. Actually, I value their opinion a lot more than posters that haven't seen the title.
louigi222 is offline  
post #112 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 09:08 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alan Gouger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

This BD release is where we separate men from the boys. Film lovers who remembers movies like this in all of its grain and highly detailed glory against everyone who prefers everything with a very clean look and Zero grain.

I have both seen Lawrence of Arabia and Patton in theaters using the 70mm prints. Its one of those rare instances where I get goosebumps when I watch my favorite scenes in front of me. The picture quality grain and all is very much a part of it. I have imagined what it would look like in my humble HT room now that a high definition disc may soon be available.

I got concerned and alarmed that it was rumored that the Lawrence Of Arabia broadcast from HDNET months ago is the same one that is going to be used for the Blu-ray release. DNR and EE was used on this transfer. Not the same movie I watched. I have faith at Sony that they will not frak this up.

So why am I talking about Lawrence? Because the Blu-ray release of Patton may give us a glimpse of what could/has happen when studios cater to the masses. A revisionist piece of cow dung (!) that only they could like. This is not cinema. This transfer is not Patton. This is not the same movie I watched.

The Blu-ray format with all of its 50GB disc space and bandwidth is useless if the movies put in it is not representative of what was shown at the theaters. If you really have to use DNR and EE to cater to the lowest common denominators (you know who they are) put them on the players. Let them switch it on. As for film lovers, that means us, you know the early adopters? the ones that spends thousand of dollars on your hardware and software. Take care of us. Restore the movie according to the film makers intent.

To those people who has been asking me in recent days if its worth the purchase, I will say no. Don't reward the studios with this release. Renting it is the best I can recommend.

Amen brother. Could not have said it better. Sadly there seams no QC standard as Sony lets each studio perform its own authoring without any follow up. Its a shame a good portion of titles are best viewed on a 42" display or smaller.
I just read the review over on High-Def Digest and as usual no mention of EE or NR. Probably have no idea what it is or this reviewer is using a laptop for his screening. Joke.
Alan Gouger is online now  
post #113 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 09:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Aristo7905's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by louigi222 View Post

Screen shots prove nothing!!! To evaluate a film on ALL levels, it should be VIEWED!!! That's not asking too much is it? Some people, and many reviewers, that have screened the title liked it and are certainly entitled to their opinion. Actually, I value their opinion a lot more than posters that haven't seen the title.

agreed. if you stop and stare at a screenshot, you will noticed faults.

-J
Aristo7905 is offline  
post #114 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 09:12 AM
 
louigi222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdssrugby View Post

Anyways, what I find more despicable than the DNR is the Patton tanks that pretend to be Shermans in the movie. they did the same thing in Battle of the Bulge. Kind of Ironic that Patton the movie was filmed with tanks with the same name, though the historian in me screams whenever they appear on screen. Its like having Battle of Britain being filmed with Sabres (same time period as the tanks)

LOL...this kinda bothered me too and was a distraction. I haven't screened this title in a while but wasn't it the Pattons pretending to be German tanks?
louigi222 is offline  
post #115 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 09:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
There are two levels here. The first, viewing after the years of low resolution desaturated dvds/tv. On that level Patton on Blu Ray was/is great. A definite improvement and one the average consumer of hi-def would appreciate.

The second level is what Xylon indicates. This in my mind is what should be striven for. Nevertheless, to not recommend the title, given the average hi-def consumer, is in my mind unecessary and overkill. I'd highly recommend it.
HPforMe is offline  
post #116 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 09:47 AM
 
louigi222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

..... If you prefer the completely unfilmlike appearance of Patton to the correct version you don't enjoy the film look of Patton. That's quite obvious, no? And if you think like that about all films that don't look like cartoons or HD CAM material then it's not far fetched to conclude that you don't really enjoy watching films (as far as their look is concerned).

Talk about some twisted logic. It's scary how some of you can separate a film's presentation from the over all enjoyment of the film itself. Classic films can be immersive and throughly enjoyed even if watched on 13" TV sets where "film-like" and/or grain, EE or what-have-you are not even noticable.
louigi222 is offline  
post #117 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 09:52 AM
 
louigi222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

No DVDs look like film on large screens. They all lack resolution compared to film and almost all have obvious digital artifacts.

Hmmmmmmmm....never thought about this one before..i.e if the DVD movie I'm watching on my big screen looks like film?
louigi222 is offline  
post #118 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 10:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexx View Post

Yes, and you can see the copious amounts of compression noise on the DVD in Xylon's screen caps. This may seem like unfiltered detail to some. It's not.

I don't see "massive" amounts of EE on the Patton Blu-ray, at least on my system.

I think adding simulated grain to a screen cap is kind of a moot point. I mean, you're not getting resolution back - you're just adding noise to an already filtered image. And we criticize the studios for filtering and then adding EE If seeing grain makes you feel warm and fuzzy, then, ok, I get it, but it's not replenishing the filtered detail.

I'd rather have the unfiltered image, whether or not there is heavy grain.

I can understand why some may boycott this release on principle, but I highly recommend folks at least rent this one before writing it off.

Good post, I agree with all the points that you make here.
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #119 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 10:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rob Tomlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,752
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

The simulated pics also have EE appied(look at the big line around the black bars). I would suggest to discontinue adding EE because all it's doing is boosting contrast. The high frequency detail is just not there to pull out.

Exactly what I was seeing, and this is why I was asking Xylon to confirm whether or not he was sharpening those shots in Photoshop (it seems pretty obvious that he is).
Rob Tomlin is offline  
post #120 of 930 Old 06-15-2008, 10:08 AM
 
louigi222's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albuquerque NM
Posts: 437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Dias View Post

Well, you certainly didn't get it in "Patton". If you never saw the original in 70mm (or 35mm, for that matter) you have absolutely no way of knowing what is or is not an accurate rendition. I have seen the 70mm version in D-150 in NYC, and have projected the 35mm version. It's not slightly less accurate, it's grossly inaccurate and extremely unfaithful to the look of the original.
Vern

What do you mean "grossly inaccurate and extremely unfaithful to the look of the original?"
Are you talking about lack of high frequency detail (can't see skin pores or nose hair) kind of unfaithfulness. How exactly is the BD Patton so grossly disappointing?
louigi222 is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off