Film Reference and Analysis - Page 4

I lso have a noob question. Since many of you are knowledgeable about film, why is it that on a number of films there is a faint dark line that runs down the screen. It usually lasts only on 1 angle (i.e. switch perspectives and it disappears) but I have noticed it in a fair number of films that I hae watched, is it to do with film stock used or grain related?

@lookilook: here's a guide to understanding and spotting EE:
http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm

EXCALIBUR is framed a little tight compared to the old letterboxed laserdisc transfer. This is mainly an issue on televisions with overscan. On my projector sans overscan, it looks a little tight up top occasionally, but nothing important is cropped off. However, with overscan it could be an issue.

Vincent

No its not EE, and I ve visited that site before, but thanks foxy. Here`s a screen cap from Goodfellas on Blu. The line I m talking about is running down his face.



I ve noticed this phenomena in other movies just in different locations on the screen.

It's an issue in the source material. Fortunately, it's only there for a few seconds. I'm quite happy there was little or no DNR used as Goodfellas is one of my top favorite movies.

Be Kind Rewind has been DNRed. Wax faces galore!

Yeah, this line has been in every version of the film for that brief shot. It's a scratch in the negative.

Vincent

Let me first say that I believe in the spirit of this thread - the way you are considering Blu-ray releases is a lot more sophisticated than the take in the tier thread, and it's clear that the motive behind this thread is true love of cinema.

However, I have to say I don't think this thread really accomplishes anything.

The tier thread, as stupid and mis-guided as it is, at least serves a purpose to those who prescribe to that brand of thinking. If you want a list of HD demo material, that's the thread to go to. This thread, however, has such a lofty goal that I don't think it can really be achieved. Artistic intent, and how close a release achieves the original vision, is such a subjective and inherently detailed area that discussion about a single movie could easily span a whole thread (and often does).

Even if you could easily make these decisions for each and every film, the criteria that each movie is judged on is so completely different that the topic becomes so broad as to be useless. It's like making a list of "good movies." Well, good by what criteria? What genre are we discussing? Are you saying the acting is good, the story is good, the directing is good, what? To show that any item deserves to be in the "good list" requires a full subjective explanation, negating the concept of an easy-to-reference list. I completely agree that the Blu-ray releases of 28 Days Later and Cloverfield are completely faithful to those films' original theatrical presentations - but why would I ever be specifically looking for films with handheld-esque crappy video quality? And even if I was searching for that exact thing, this thread wouldn't tell me that those movies were like that as they'd just be lumped into the "preserves original artistic intent" category. If I was searching out those movies, it'd be on the basis of wanting to watch a good horror movie, or some criteria similar to that.

Again, I don't say this to knock the thread - I feel it is made with the best intentions in mind. And I'm certainly not here to troll or argue. I won't get into a heated debate about it because it's just my opinion, and I respect the opinions of the rest of you here. I'd rather see time wasted in a noble goal than wasted over something stupid. I just thought I'd bring this issue up before too much time goes into the thread.

I ve seen it in at least 10-12 other films, so I had thought perhaps it was a result of a particular film stock, thanks for clearing that up. I always thought a scratch would be smaller, briefer.

Usually they are, but in this case it would be a scratch right down the center of the frame for several feet of the film, probably a result of a negative processing error or possibly even a dirty gate in the camera during filming. Usually scratched shots are flagged by the lab, I'm assuming Scorsese felt DeNiro's performance in that particular scratched take overrode the technical problem so he used it anyway.

Vincent

That is a gate issue with the loading of the film on that particular camera roll. Esentially, a tiny piece of "whatever" is scratching the film as it rolls through the gate as the film was being exposed.

Great guide, Thanx!

This thread is extremely valuable to me. Thanks for everyone's efforts here. I have been holding back on a Blu-ray player purchase until I can make a fairly substantial list of discs that I would like to add to my collection. I did have HD DVD, and Face/Off was horrific. I will not go with Blu-ray until I can be sure there will be enough movies of interest to me that do not have excessive DNR and other problems.

It's of no matter to me that criteria here will vary with source. What I want to know is which movies have not been destroyed by noticeable digital manipulation. For my interests, the intent of this thread makes it the most important in the HD media section of AVS. Please keep up the discussion. Thanks again.

RE: Neo_Reloaded, to me the purpose of this thread would be to check whether specific movies you're considering purchasing are true to the source or not, rather than searching for titles to buy with a specific look as per the Tier thread.

I also agree with whoever said that this should be more about reproduction of the original materials than director's intent. I may love something in a movie that a director would have preferred to do away with given the choice, so I want what was actually put on film/video by the actions of the entire crew and shown to audiences. Much in the same way that the theatrical cut may be preferable to the director's cut (of course having both is the best).

I'll start with a couple of disclaimers: I don't have a projector and I am one of those inclined to be drawn into the story rather than critical analysis of the image as some are, particularly on my first viewing.

That said, I'll nominate The Other Boleyn Girl for consideration, if only to call it to the attention of those who might be deemed qualified to pass judgement. It not a high profile release, so it may easily be ignored here. It's not for everyone, and has drawn little attention so far in the tier list.

It is a beautifully shot film, not with tier list heightened sharpness and contrast, but with plenty of detail, even in the shadowy corners of a 16th century castle, albeit stopping short of highlighting every pore on an actor's face.

Although I didn't see the theatrical release, I feel reasonably confident that this transfer matches it well, as it was shot in HD to begin with, so it's likely less manipulation was necessary to bring it to BD. At least it looked very "cinematic" on my screen.

I can see this thread becoming a valuable list, but I don't think the focus should necessarily be Artistic Intent. An example I can give is Predator on Blu-ray. I think Fox did a great job bringing us the film as it is, with no EE or DNR, giving us both the good and the bad of this film in terms of picture quality. However, was it intended for Predator to be a mixed bag of good and bad shots, or was McTiernan filming under challenging on-location conditions with poor film stock? And with that said, how many film makers are 100% satisfied with their finished product?

I've watched titles in the Tier thread start where I think they should have been placed, and then drop down the list because the film doesn't look like Ratatouille or Cars. Are we rating the films or the BD release? It has become confusing, and that is the biggest flaw of the Tier thread.

Where we actually know that a film looks a certain way because of Artistic Intent, I think then that this quality of the film should be a point of consideration. But to diversify from the Tier thread, I think this list should focus more on how well the BD release replicates what was presented in the theater.

Are tier 3 movies still considered good with just some minor DNR or is that a list of movies to stay away from?

I watched 30 Days of Night and this is a nice filmlike presentation. Film grain structure is clearly visible throughout the movie and heavier at times in some scenes. High frequency detail is also visible. There is some edge enhancement in this movie, but fairly minor. All in all, this BD has a natural look.

I agree with 30 Days of Night. I saw it in the theater and loved the presentation and was not dissapointed in the slightest when I watched it on my set. I haven't watched it with a super critical eye, but it still looks great, very film like.

I also have to say, I have a 50" set, a late model(the last Hitachi made to be exact) CRT set that I have painstakingly calibrated to within an inch of it's life. It is as sharp, detailed, and accurate as any other set I've seen and I've seen almost all of them, from Runco to Vidiron, to Madrigal to Loewe, to Sony to Kuro. I definitely don't agree with anyone who discounts us 50 inchers as not being qualified to pass judgement. Pure poppycock. My set can piss with the big boys and will embarass many. So please make no blanket statements such as those.

What do you guys think about these titles for the list?

Wall Street
Rocky (1977)- contains some EE, but generally filmlike
Total Recall
Terminator
Harry Potter films
Underworld
Hellboy
The Patriot
Spider-man films (some very slight EE in a few scenes of S1)
X-Men 3
Donnie Brasco
Black Hawk Down
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (great presentation here)
Unforgiven

From what I remember of the CRT HDTV days, it wasn't the screen size but the gun size that determined whether a TV could fully resolve 1080i. From what I remember, your CRT had to have 9" guns (not common) to fully resolve 1080i (1920 lines of horrizontal resolution). A CRT HDTV with 7" had significantly less resolution (approximately 1200-1300 horrizontal lines of resolution at best).

Correct. Only a 9" CRT with extremely high quality lenses (the set of lenses alone would cost as much as the typical RP set) is capable of fully resolving 1080.

Calibration is one thing, but putting up a full resolution pattern of alternating black and white single pixel wide lines would quickly show the owner that the set isn't getting anywhere near resolving a 1920 x 1080 image.

Vern

Agreed. I use a 50" at about 7 feet and notice all the flaws mentioned as well as others which others don't seem to notice or barely notice.

I think Total Recall is really blurry looking - unlike the crisp and sharp and grainy looking footage shown on the D-Theater Demonstration Tape. Comparing the two, I know it can look much better.

Haven't seen Total Recall, Wall Street, and Donnie Brasco. I'd agree adding all the others to the list.

ROCKY and WALL STREET are hands down two of the worst HD discs out there, barely more detailed than upconverted DVD.

The Patriot looks pretty damn good. There are a few deleted scenes at the beginning of the movie that have totally overblown contrast, but overall I thought the disc was very film-like. Check out the scene where Gibson and Ledger are watching the battle from a farmhouse window.

They are still noticably better, but agreed slight. However, they are filmlike and don't appear digitally manipulated although Rocky does have some EE. Wall Street impressed me more than Rocky.

This may not be possible, but I would like to see if the people contributing here comply with at least the SMPTE, but preferably the THX max viewing distance guidelines. Check out this diagram http://hd1080i.com/chart.gif . And here is the entire article: http://hd1080i.blogspot.com/2007/01/...0-to-eyes.html

Vern