Film Reference and Analysis - Page 62

OK. Would that really be your only criteria though? I've seen xfers that some here would probably consider very film-like which look pretty lousy in many other respects (bad detail, excessive graininess, washed-out color, poor contrast, improper black and white levels, etc.). Surely you don't want all of those on the list as well, so how do they get weeded out if "film-like" is the sole criteria?

"Film like" and as true to the source as possible, or at least as true as we can surmise, was and is good enough for me. I'm not overly concerned after that. If it looks like crap, but it looks that way because it was faithfully transferred, then I'm happy with it.

^ Interesting. I think that would probably cut me out of the discussion then, because I'm more interested in the quality of the xfer overall. If the source material is film, then it follows to me that the xfer should have a "film-like" quality. But I don't think I'd put that criteria on a pedestal above everything else.

Maybe I'm not exactly understanding what folks here mean though by "film-like". Is it just the absence of DNR, EE and digital color filtration that makes something film-like? And if so, then why not simply ask for a list of films which fit that criteria, rather than using terms that are so open to different interpretations?

FYI, film and video are different mediums to me, so I accept the fact that the material will necessarily be altered (perhaps for the better in some cases) in the translation process.

If that's how the film was shot, then that's how the film was shot. There's already an eye candy thread.

Could not have said it better myself

Lordcloud has it right. Repairing physical/photochemical damage is the only acceptable work. Going down the path of "I don't like the look of the original film, I'll 'improve' on it" is the wrong mentality and will surely lead to ruin.

Glad to see activity in my favorite thread!

Is it safe to say that ANY Criterion release would deserve a place on our "fictional" list?

I own a few of their Blu-ray releases and I must say I am more than happy with all of them. I think they show the right approach when it comes to transfer a film on a video format (read respect of the original film and their fans). Too bad they're so expensive, but that's understandable.

I find it shocking when other studios are putting out movies on Blu without even asking for the director/DOP's input. (Alien 4, the Big Lebowski, etc)

There's a handful I would have serious reservations putting on the list. Criterion, as much as I like them, are a bit enamored of sharpening. This should be about the image, not brand loyalty

Dear good no, they are terrible as a whole.
Also Alien 4 is a bad example as Jean Pierre loves DNR, a cinematographer input would be better as Darius made all the choices including the important ENR one.
Input didn't help their universal discs, universal like most studios did their transfer.
Fox did the Thin Red Line transfer for example, the fox release is missing the glitches on the criterion disc also so would be the disc to pick.

It seems like we're really dealing with two separate issues here...

A. What makes a Blu-ray transfer more "film-like"?
B. What makes a good Blu-ray catalog film transfer?

So I started two separate threads to try to address these questions...

Most Film-like Transfers?
Best Catalog Film Transfers?

Given many of the sentiments that have been expressed here (and elsewhere), there's undoubtedly some cross-over between these two categories. What'll probably more interesting to me though are the titles that don't easily cross-over, and the reasons why.

Anyway, I hope some here will give these other threads a look, and maybe add your 2c to these discussions. Hopefully these new threads will elicite some interesting new suggestions, and also feed into one another and back into this master thread, and make for some lively, entertaining and maybe even educational discussions.

Forgot to mention contouring/banding and clipping. IMHO, a good film xfer should have minimal evidence of these things, since they aren't really film-related attributes.

Criterion did the transfer for TTRL and while the Fox disc doesn't have the glitch it's instead slightly softer overall. Agreed though they have a rather large number of mediocre or problematic transfers.

Are you sure?

The booklet says "Telecine supervisors: Terence Malick, John Toll, Lee Kline" and Lee Kline works for Criterion.

Apologies if I'm late to the party on this, but what "glitch" are you guys talking about?

This one: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...6&postcount=82

Ah. Thanks.

Huh, i stand corrected did Fox pay then?

I noticed that Predator is on the 'minor' list.. I nomintate that one to be taken off and put in the the worst of the worse DNR affenders...everyone in that blu-ray transfer looks like wax figures... it's horrible. Predator is one of the worst blu-ray transfers I've seen yet.


Ok, this is a great thread!!

I have a question for you all...
I know this isn't a 'film' but does anyone know how the blu-ray transfers of the show Breaking Bad are? Do they look good and natural on blu-ray? or do they look ultra 'enhanced'?

Also, has anyone seen Planes, Trains, and Automobiles on blu-ray? what's the score on that one?

Are most or all of the blu-rays issued by Criterion the best transfers as far as leaving in the film grain and film look and not EE or DNRing a movie they put on blu-ray?

Is Criterion always top notch for blu-rays?

I LOVE THIS!!!! I LOVE IT SO MUCH that now I know there are other people out there who CARE about the original art of the original films... I Have been searching and searching to see if it was just me who thought this way, and everyone out there seems not to care and all's they want is sharper that sharp plastic looking fake eye candy.

I can't stand how they are trying to destroy all of these old films by digitally recreating them and turning them into these 'butchered horrors' which most people seem to just not care, or even prefer, which drives me absolutely crazy.

I'm glad that I am not completely alone in how I feel so strongly about wanting to save all of these films in their original state.
Blu-ray could be such a great format because it allows for 24fps presentation... now if they would just transfer the films properly and leave them the way they were originally seen when they came out.

I can not stand when I watch an old movie that was shot on film and it looks like it was shot on a video camera, and the whole look and feel of the film is lost. To me, that is destruction of art, and it angers me to no end, and the fact that most people either 'don't notice' or just plain don't care... or even worse, some are even cheer leading for it. It's beyond disturbing to me. To me, it's like taking The Mona Lisa and taking a digital pic of it and then altering it to the way they think it should look (artificially flawless) and then kicking the original one to the curb with no respect for it. Or going in with lasers and digitally redoing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel until is is artificially and synthetically flawless and completely sterile.


What they are doing to all of these films is a crime to humanity. I say this, because if these films, the way they were originally meant to be seen, are disrespected like this now, then the originals will be slowly forgotten and eventually lost forever and we will end up only having these artificial fake synthetic creepy clones that are nothing but butchered horrors. Future generations forever more will never be able to see an entire century of incredible film art... they will judge them only on what is available to them... which will be these and maybe even worse and worse as time goes one 'butchered horrors', these fake and extremely false representations.

If they are going to move on from film, then so be it... let them do whatever they want with new movies from here out, but by gosh dammit, leave the films of the past be represented the way they were meant to be represented, and stop trying to destroy all evidence that the art form of actual FILM making ever existed the way it did. So much beautiful art, so much history, just being kicked around with no regard, just to please some people's desire to have everything fit into what the new technology is pushing for. I'm all for moving forward and all of that, but don't try destroying all evidence of what once was.
We need to move forward with respect, but we as a society are not doing that, we are moving forward with utter disrespect and complete disregard.


If we don't fight hard for this, we may find that one day, the technology will no longer allow for any of us to view any old film the way it was meant to be seen... one day we may never be able to allow ourselves to escape into a film... it will just become a faded memory, never to be able to be enjoyed again, by you, me or anyone else forevermore. People of future generations will never know what these films really were, and will never have the luxury of being able to witness even a close representation of them. They will have no idea. This is a sad thought, and it angers me.

The people who yell and scream about wanting nothing but eye candy at any cost, even if it is artificial, I say whatever... let them have it... with the NEW stuff, but leave the old stuff out of it. For those people who are 'grain haters' and hate the whole idea of film and only want images so sharp that they are blurry because the human eye can only see so sharp (like in an eye exam, when you go past the point where it is sharp to where it is blurry again because it is beyond focused) I say to those people have at it with all the new stuff that is shot on digital video, BUT they want it all. they are greedy and selfish and want it all, they want to destroy any evidence that film ever even existed. They have no right to lay claim to films. If they hate films so much, then don't watch things that were shot on film, only watch things that were shot on anything but film.

They are out there working hard with cleaners and sterilizers trying to scrub away any evidence that film ever existed. They are cheer leading the scrubbing away of all the paint out of all the paintings.

Often Criterion transfers range from good to excellent. It depends on the title and the conditions of the existing original elements; unfortunately some films will never look any better even with some serious restoration work,

There are several titles that are glaring exceptions that at least I would argue are botched, one that comes to mind is The Last Emperor.
Also sometimes they tweak to 'improve' contrast and colors which look too punchy to be accurate to my eyes.
As well Criterion does sharpen their transfers, usually it is subtle and I am sure many will disagree but it is one of their dirty little secrets. -To be fair many big studios do the same which go unnoticed because it does not exhibit strong EE but it a subtle amount has been applied.

When all said and done Criterion will typically be producing the best versions of the respective titles they release.

Best Regards
KvE
Edited by KMFDMvsEnya - 1/11/13 at 5:42am

No, they have plenty of mediocre and even bad transfers. But they're often pretty good.

I've only watched the first 2 seasons, but either whatever telecine facility they're using has a busted scanner, or they are intentionally adding noise to the image for some sort of aesthetic effect, though my money's on the busted scanner. It looks WAY too noisy for the film stocks they're using.
Add in occasionally overcooked contrast and color, and it doesn't look much like a film print, but then again, it never was. Not that this should dissuade you from watching the show.

You can get grain from any film stock if you want it. Just underexpose and push-process. Some people are doing that because they feel Kodak's Vision2 and Vision3 stocks are too fine-grained.

It tends to look more like noise than grain to my eye.
There's an interview with the show's DP on the net, and he doesn't make any mention of intentionally dirtying up or underexposing the image. In fact he praises the fine grain of the ASA 50 film they use for day exteriors, but those scenes tend to be as noisy as the low-light interiors, and that looks very screwy to me.

Film grain tends to look more like noise in HDTV resolution, especially with slow film.

Because he's underexposing and pushing in post. Studios don't generally have enough light for ISO 50 film any more. It's strange and usually pointless to use slow film on interiors but Vince Gilligan's hero Quentin Tarantino used it for Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs so that's the look he's going for I guess.

I would like to suggest that the list be more specific in the exact version of the blu-ray instead of just simply naming the title of each movie.

There are more than one version of some of these movies on blu-ray for example:
There is a blu-ray titled Mad Mad 2: The Road Warrior as well as a blu-ray titled The Road Warrior.
Now I see that the list says" Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior but it should also state in there somewhere that there is another blu-ray called The Road Warrior and if this
other version qualifies for the list or not... or if it is unknown, then it should say that the other version is "unknown at this time" or something to that effect.

It is the same movie, but does they could be totally different transfers... the list should be really specific about this kind of stuff...
It should state that there are 2 versions and or 2 separate ones with slightly different titles and whether or not there is a difference between the 2 versions.
I think the list requirements for nominating a movie on blu-ray should have to be very version specific. It would clear up the whole guessing game when we
go looking to track down and buy titles from the list...and would be a more peace of mind feeling that we are picking the right version when we buy them.


Also, a movie like The French Connection for example... I see it on the heavily altered list but it doesn't mention the exact version that is being called out.
There are 2 completely different transfers of The French Connection on blu-ray... One that the director drastically altered the coloring and another one where the
cinematographer fixed this to what he saw as a proper transfer.

Also, I notice that in the list it has "Crash".. but since there are more than 1 movie called Crash and also a tv seriers, it ends up leaving me wondering if this is the
2004 Crash that won best picture or the David Cronenberg Crash...

Another example where I am scratching my head trying to figure out what version of the blu-ray is on the list because it leaves us guessing is Poltergeist.
There are 2 different versions of that movie on blu-ray when I go looking to buy it.. there is the "book packaging" version that came out in 2008 and there is the
other version that came out in 2010... so which one is the one on the list referring to???? Just listing "Poltergeist" is not letting anyone know which version fits the list or if
both versions do or whatnot.

I just gave a few examples to where the list is lacking because it is not being specific about which blu-ray version of the movies that are on the list, thus making the list
very frustrating when trying to guess which version to buy.


Just some food for thought.

OK, so we all know by now that Predator: The Ultimate hunter Edition is one of the worst, most disrespectful to film blu-ray transfers ever... but what about the original blu-ray version of Predator? How is that one? I know it doesn't have a lot of features or whatever but I don't care about that... I care about the criteria of the list... does it fail miserably? I am curious about it and want to know if anyone has seen the original blu-ray version of Predator. What is the consensus on that one as far as the criteria of the list is concerned?

So are the blu-rays of Breaking Bad worth getting to watch on a 50" plasma? The dvds to me look good on a computer screen but on my plasma it is absolutely atrocious and pretty much unwatchable because it just looks that bad on my 50" plasma on dvd.

Do the blu-rays do the show justice for a 50" plasma?
Are the blu-rays done well?

I hope so, because I love that show.