Patton (Blu-ray) Official AVSForum Blu-ray Disc Review - Page 2

I watched Patton in Blu Ray as soon as it was released (front projection - 120inch screen) and was delighted with the transfer. I admit I will give the engineers a break when dealing with a very old film. Obviously, there is only so much they can do. But, if anyone is interested in this movie, rest assured the Blu Ray version will simply blow your mind. The transfer is truly excellent. Sound quality was a bit less than I had hoped for but nevertheless was excellent,

I did have an issue with the portion of the film between the apology and intermission (picture was garbled) so I am exchanging my disk. I have not read of anyone else having this problem so it is likely my disk. The rest of the film was superb. Also, the menu selection seems to take forever to appear and again it just might be my disk.

Aside from this slight technical glitch...this is an excellent film and the transfer to blu ray lets you enjoy it.

Marcus

Robert Harris chimed in today on HDD forum about this film. I'm a total noob with these older films but if you are interested in reading what he wrote, hop over there to the Patton thread. I don't feel it appropriate to cut and post here.

I think it's fair to say that Harris thinks the PQ is a travesty: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ris062408.html

John K.

The PQ is a travesty. Patton along with Longest Day are the most processed unnatural abominations on a disc yet. Gangs of New York is not far behind. Expect more DNRed transfers as a result of all the positive reviews.

There is also a hint given by Mr Harris that just maybe Fox will redo and re-release this film without the excess DNR.

They will probably wait a year though as they don't want to admit anything is wrong.

I agree completely. On my 100" 1080 screen, it looked fabulous. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

There is NO DNR smearing, no edge enhancement, so posterisation, no banding, no compression artefacting. I rate it as one of the finest presentations I've seen.

On my 118" screen I got swept up into the story, but it was a rental and I forgive PQ a lot more when I haven't bought it, although if they come out with a "fixed" edition I may bite. Great movie.

I so agree. I finally received this title as well as
The Longest Day yesterday and I couldn't be more pleased with both releases. To me it was like these titles had been brought up to date via a time machine and re-shoot on HD digital cameras complete with that "live...you are there" vibrancy look and not that "tired" old grainy film presentation I was expecting.

This is simply incorrect and has been demonstrated.

Art

Perhaps the region B release is different.

I've got the region A release.

Honestly, if there hadn't been this uproar, I wouldn't have been sitting there questioning myself through this movie, trying to "see" the problem. I almost felt guilty at times being thoroughly wowed by many scenes - how can I call myself a videophile and yet enjoy this picture, when all around me people are screaming fowl?

I am a bit perplexed to be honest. I am one of those people who can go to someone's house and just "feel" out problems with peoples setups. I know when DNR is turned on on someone's TV, though they are blissfully unaware. Of course, I turn it off for them, lower the sharpness, turn down the contrast and so on.

All I see in this movie is a transparent encode of an immaculate picture. Should I cower and run away now? Ugh.

No, it's just that some videophiles turned into religious fanatics. Shouting how much of an abomination this transfer is the ticket to gain credibility with the community.

Granted it has dnr and looks soft in places and could have been more detailed.
It's not as bad as some have stated though.

Fox spent a penny to touch this one up, it's a higher profile catalog release with a potential to sell beyond the early adopter market. My guess is that they did not wan't to risk sales by a 'grainy' blu ray presentation.

When I watched this my first instinct was that it wasn't sharp anywhere. It did look incredibly clean, I saw the edge emhancement on the American flag right off.

If you like this film as is therte really is nothing wrong with that ; there are a lot of us, including Robert Harris, who know it could have been much much better.

Art

HA HA! i dont think i would want paul watching tv at my house changing the settings on my tv,but i must admit it bugs the heck out of me wheni go to someones house and there tvs out of whack, and they dont even notice it,I just want grab the remote control and start adjusting the settings on their television. I even want to go behind their t.v. to and see how their tv is hooked up! I actiaully did this at sears one time and noticed they only had the red yellow and white RCA cables hooked up in the back of a brand new hitachi 50'' tv. I did my best to restrain my self as i explained to the sales clerk how in the world did they expect to sell that beautiful new HDTV with a crappy signal, the next time i went to sears they had corrected the problem and had it hooked up to an hdmi cable. I guess i just need help heh! heh!

I don't have Patton on Blu-Ray yet, nor do I have a film projector and a Patton film reel, so I can't comment on the integrity of the Blu-Ray transfer, but I'll say this...

The argument that Blu-Ray is supposed to "reproduce the look of cinema in home theater" is an unfair way of looking at it. If that was the case, should Blu-Ray movies simulate dust specks on the film and that big black dot that tells the projectionist to switch reels? Obviously not. Maybe that's a bit of an extreme analogy but it illustrates my point: as much as home entertainment technology is supposed to bring the splendors of cinema to your living room, "more like cinema" does not necessarily mean "better".

Most of the time, film grain is a product of technological limitation of film. There are some exceptions, but other than that, to say that Blu-Ray should stay faithful to cinema by limiting DNR would contradict the sole purpose of Blu-Ray, which is to overcome previous technological limitations.

I think Blu-Ray movies should find an equilibrium between "reproducing the look of cinema" and "overcoming the limitations of cinema". The extreme of the former would be to simulate dust specs and "cigarette burns" that you would see in a cinema, and the extreme of the latter would be adding color and sound to Charlie Chaplin. Eliminating film grain, however, is completely reasonable and these videoholic elitists need to lighten the **** up.

I don't know enough to judge whether Patton strays too far from this equilibrium, but I just think it's ridiculous to say that every Blu-Ray should adhere to that "The film has already been made. The job is to reproduce it." Posting a pic of the Mona Lisa with DNR is complete ********.

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think the purpose of BD is to present the films closer to how they really are, not to achieve some "HD look."

So, if "reproducing the look of cinema" is the absolute top priority, then would you prefer Blu-Ray movies to simulate dust specs and cigarette burns? After all, that would definitely be closer to having a film projector in your own home, would it not?

Cigarette burns are added to some release prints, but they are not part of the finished film. Many theaters don't use them nowadays anyway.

The idea is to get as close as possible to seeing the film in a top quality cinema, not the typical one. Dust specks are not a problem in a good theater.

When Patton was released in theatres in 1970, did theatres use cigarette burns to tell the projectionist to ready the other projector? Were dust specks any more or less visible back then? I wasn't born yet in 1970 so I wouldn't know.

Dust specks may not be a problem in a good theatre, unless the projection room is sealed in an airtight vacuum, dust specks will always be present.

I would disagree with Mr. Harris. Then again I have a 32" LCD and I hear that this "processed look" is more apparent in larger sizes. It looks fine to me. I'm happy to see I am not alone.

I think that in a way we're talking about the reality of two different mediums. If this were projected film then the issue of grain and accompanying visual components would make sense but in reality this is film converted into a video borne signal. It is not projected film but a video signal transmitted and displayed on a Television Monitor - two totally different things. I personally feel this is a missed point.

This slavish desire for maintaining "film grain" (a necessary result of film emulsion/development I suppose and something of a concomitant negative in my view) is wrong headed. I guess I am just not that much of a purist in this regard ( I DO draw the line at "colorization" ). Here come the invectives I'm sure!

A loss of detail in this digital "scrubbing"? Perhaps. Here I will concede this one point but with real attention to process and a good eye this should not be a problem as is the case here I feel.

I for one will keep this transfer. I thought the Std DVD edition of this release (Cinema Classics Collection) TOO soft. I of course heard no real complaints in this area on that release, particularly when an older prior release was much sharper.

Why can't these studios get some consistency in certain areas I wonder? Artistic decisions with each iteration make it a real crap shoot! Either the color is too drained or saturated. The focus too soft or maybe over done (edge enhanced) and on and on. Seesh!

Not perhaps. But a definite yes. To get rid of grain is to get rid of detail.

As youself why people always say that the transfer is very film like. And it's said in a positive way. What is your definition of film like?

And I don't buy your explanation of "two different mediums". A film is a film. And an HD video source is just that. And when each is transfered to BD, each should look as it was originally created. A video based football game should look just like it originally did if transferred to BD. Or do you want your football game to have grain and look like a film? I don't. And I don't want a film to look like a football game.

It might now come down to what "Type" of detail we talking about, the uninteresting pattern in a wall in the background? What are we desperately trying to save here? Whatever...

I don't wish to discuss my definition of film. It would probably take more time than I'd like to invest now. I've always felt but don't often see that when talking about matters visual the only true way to debate is to set up carefully chosen examples of the film(s) at issue -stills, comparisons, what have you. We have to SEE what it is we're discussing. Words really don't accomplish much here unfortunately. If you've got concrete examples illustrating your point that would be super, otherwise I would set that to rest for now.

Though the original source is film it is now in a new medium and you won't convince me otherwise. I think it best to move on and except the new tools and processes out there and with an educated mind and eye use them.

What the hell does Football have to do with this? No, it doesn't look anything like a game shot on video. Obviously, we are going to really disagree here.

Unfortunately neither of those titles where shot with digital cameras.
They were shot on film.
So hopefully you can appreciate/understand, even tho you liked the look (enjoy!), people that wanted those releases on HD to look like the original source are disappointed/upset.

Art,

You hit the problem with digital overprocessing on the head.

Digitally cleaning up a film to remove the grain and textures that the cinematography and director had in mind (remember they chose the format with that look in mind) is like appling No Noise to a recording to remove tape hiss and make it sound more modern--it cleans up the original at the expensive of damaging the look of the film itself. "Patton" isn't a current film shot on HD video nor is it meant to have that look. The film looks over processed ruining much of the quality of the visual presentation.

It also defeats the entire purpose of a restoration which is to preserve the qualities that made the original project so unique in the first place.

Doesn't matter what medium a film is presented in but it should stay true to what the SOURCE looked like without altering it for that new medium. Grain adds texture, can create an additional sense of depth and, strangely enough, reality to films. The director (Franklin Schaffner) was quite deliberate in choosing the film stock he did for "Patton" knowing what the end result would look like, carefully considering how the film was developed by the lab and, ultimately, wanting it presented a certain way.

It's not a slavish desire to maintain film grain but to maintain the desired look of the film. It's really no different than colorizing a film--the look of the film has been altered its just not as readily apparent. Yes, it was also noticable on the DVD re-release but not as apparent--Blu-ray is so unforgiving that it makes it more transparent on BR

I'm watching this on a 65 inch system and it is readily apparent that DNR was used, the image was thrown slightly out of focus and pulled back in via edge enhancement to eliminate the grain.

Regardless of the format, the way the artist who made the film wanted the film presented in terms of its look is the least we owe to them. It was their vision after all. If it was acceptable to eliminate all the film grain than perhaps we can erase part of the background and replace it with something else.

Context and intent are everything when it comes to an accurate presentation of a film. If you heard an orchestra playing a brilliant piece of music would you want the key changed just because someone thought it wasn't in the best possible key?

"Grain ADDS texture." Now, you would have me appreciate something being added to the image if only perceptively. Again, I disagree. Maybe, on a large monitor what you say is noticable, but not on a small one. Until, I see palpable examples I consider the opposing view picky and over-reactive. Let's leave it at that please.

Pls help me...
I understand this movie has a Spanish audio track, but what about Spanish subtitles??
I found some reviews were this is listed, and in others it is not.
A picture from the back case (dvdempire.com) says it does not have spanish subtitles.
This is the UPC Code: 024543519782.

Can someone please surf the disc and let me know ASAP?

Thanks so much!

Relly enjoyed it.
Color detail was awesome, especially on the various uniforms.
My disc did a strange thing at the end of the movie, just kind of froze.
I had to turn off the player, which also took a while.
Anyone else have this problem?

Absolutely loved this movie. I hadn't seen it before, and was shocked at the quality of the film transfer. Wow, excellent contrast, detail, and well saturated colors are what I noticed the most. The story was also excellent, and it's nice to remember when Americans weren't always politically correct and just did the right thing.

4.5 out of 5 stars for story, and same for PQ. Sound was maybe 3.5 stars, but its an older film.

Dan

Watched Patton last night in Blu-Ray on my Runco 3 chip system.
All I can say is "Wow!"

This is one of the clearest DVD's I have viewed since receiving my new projectors.

Al B