or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › "Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX*

post #1 of 930
Thread Starter 

XylonHD, YouTube Channel, @XylonHD

 

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 when it was rumored 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 in 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.

Note: The DVD versions are NOT the benchmark here anymore. Its how the movie is faithfully transferred to the disc.


Edited by Xylon - 9/17/12 at 10:54pm
post #2 of 930
Thread Starter 


Fox War Classics DVD release date: 11-06-2001

Cinema Classics Collection DVD release date: 05-23-2006

Blu-ray

All Photoshopped Blu-ray screenshot to simulate grain removed.


Code:
                                                                                                                Total   Video                                             
Title                                                           Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                           ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- ------- ------------------                        ---------------------
Patton                                                          AVC     2:51:57 38,292,473,856  39,487,428,336  29.69   22.96   DTS-HD Master 5.1 4052Kbps (48kHz/24-bit) DD AC3 5.0 448Kbps


PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name:           00001.mpls
Size:           38,292,473,856 bytes
Length:         2:51:57 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate:  29.69 Mbps
Description:    

FILES:

Name            Size            Length          Time In         Time Out        
----            ----            ------          -------         --------        
00001.M2TS      38,292,473,856  2:51:57         0:00:00         2:51:57         

VIDEO:

Codec               Bitrate         Description     
-----               -------         -----------     
MPEG-4 AVC Video    22958 kbps      1080p / 23.976fps

AUDIO:

Codec                           Language        Bitrate         Description     
-----                           --------        -------         -----------     
DTS-HD Master Audio             English         4052 kbps       5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 1536kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio             English         448 kbps        5.0 / 48kHz     
Dolby Digital Audio             English         224 kbps        2.0 / 48kHz     
Dolby Digital Audio             French          224 kbps        2.0 / 48kHz     
Dolby Digital Audio             Spanish         224 kbps        2.0 / 48kHz
post #3 of 930
Thread Starter 
post #4 of 930
Thread Starter 
post #5 of 930
Thread Starter 
post #6 of 930
Thread Starter 
post #7 of 930
Thread Starter 
Well that's it for now. I'm off to bed
post #8 of 930
As if DNR wasn't bad enough, there's EE on the flag stripes?
post #9 of 930
I was surprised too. I thought it was supposed to look flawless apart from the lack of grain, but that EE is pretty bad.
post #10 of 930
Well, the DVD versions appear to be crawling with MPEG compression artifacts and EE.

The BRD version looks very zombie-like, with the effect of the DNR very obvious in the smearing of individual hairs in the eyebrows. And the curtains don't really look like curtains, do they? They have a cartoonish quality that is hard to describe and not at all pleasing.

Of these two versions, I guess I'd prefer the BRD, but neither one is what I'd call reference.
post #11 of 930
Wow - the Fox War Classics DVD in the second shot due to being more noisy looks more like film than the Blu-Ray !

Here's hoping that the guys at Fox take notice and do better with their next large format titles and classics in general.

A transfer that we would consider very good would please everybody so this is the way to go, why alienate those that drive the adoption of the Blu-Ray format ?
post #12 of 930
Good work, Xylon! Wow. Freaking EE on the BD..?!?!?
Why not? Need to sharpen it up again after the DVNR...
post #13 of 930
Informal (.png ---> .jpg and all), but here's the 2001 576 resampled to 1080 British DVD for the sake of more completion.





post #14 of 930
As soon as I saw the flag I saw the EE along the stripes. I was not struck immediately by the lack or detail but as the film went on I felt cheated.

Art
post #15 of 930
Well I can always pick this up when it goes on sale.
post #16 of 930
Is it just me or does the original dvd release look more detailed than the rest of the samples? I think I'll stick with my laserdisc.
Someone wake me when Fox remasters this film the right way please.
Gary
post #17 of 930
When the movie is playing are things like the stick on eye brows noticeable?
post #18 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvillain View Post

When the movie is playing are things like the stick on eye brows noticeable?

In the opening scene on BD you can make out the fabric mesh in the eyebrows.

Art
post #19 of 930
forgive me for not being as over-zealous as a lot of the people on this forum seem to be about transfers(i'm sorry if that sounds like me insulting people, it's not intended to at all), but why so much hate for people(like me) who think the quality on this looks great?

i know the hatred isn't directed at consumers such as myself, but more at the studios who seem to cater towards my subset of consumers...

maybe i'm just missing the whole grain vs no grain thing....in my mind, when i see a movie, i want to be able to immerse myself in it completely...i don't want to feel like i'm watching a movie, but i want to feel like i'm standing right in the middle of everything, and experiencing it all...in my mind, a clear, crisp picture, without film artifacts or the like, helps produce that effect....

don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to cut on anyone who wants grain, or anything like that, i'm just looking more for an understanding from a different perspective of my own as to why that is so highly sought after

--j
post #20 of 930
shadow46x2, It's simple: we want an accurate reproduction of what the film was supposed to look like in its original context -- in this case, in a movie theater. Why?

Because asking the studios to strive for accuracy is the best way to assure that nothing is being lost. The BD is likely to be the definitive collector's version of a given film for some time to come, so for it to have missing picture information is tragic; to have added video artifacts is just dumb.

DNR removes more than grain. It removes detail. Edge enhancement does not add detail. It adds noise.
post #21 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow46x2 View Post

i don't want to feel like i'm watching a movie, but i want to feel like i'm standing right in the middle of everything, and experiencing it all...in my mind, a clear, crisp picture, without film artifacts or the like, helps produce that effect....

Actually I feel the opposite, watching such a heavily DNR'ed transfer just screams "VIDEO" to me. It really pulls me out of the film and constantly reminds me that I'm sitting at home watching. Not in a theater and definitely not giving off the illusion of standing "right there" in the film. Grain is exactly what gives film its realism and depth.

Not to mention the obvious motion smearing and flattening of the image DNR brings.

Content shot in HD should be "clean", but not film.
post #22 of 930
Quote:


in my mind, when i see a movie, i want to be able to immerse myself in it completely...i don't want to feel like i'm watching a movie, but i want to feel like i'm standing right in the middle of everything, and experiencing it all...in my mind, a clear, crisp picture, without film artifacts or the like, helps produce that effect....

For a film element, this can't happen without the film grain......

For those like yourself that don't like grain, it can generally be removed by the sharpness or DNR options on your television. Removing it in the transfer forces everyone watching to view a compromised image. If you don't want to see film grain, simply turn down the sharpness on your set.

Also, people are not complaining about the lack of grain as much as the lack of fine detail. With most DNR software, high frequencies are either rolled off or flat out removed from the video signal.

Since the image is actually created from the film grain, the grain elements of the emulsion are the most detailed part of the film element. Any removal of detail will also remove grain, unless very sophisticated processing algorithms are used. Even then, the image can be compromised with byproducts such as in the infamous rain removal incident with "Citizen Kane".

Film grain also contributes to the perceived detail of the image. Take a close look at the DVD capture above for an example of the effect even pseudo grain has on the image.

Vern
post #23 of 930
shadow, unfortunately you don't just lose grain, you lose detail. people wind up looking like waxy mannequins.
post #24 of 930
Everything shot on 70mm looks better than stuff shot with HDcams when transfered to BD. I can understand them touching other movies - they shouldn't thought. But 70mm?

What's the point of adding grain to something scrubbed? Not being a jerk, I'm curious. Because the detail is already gone.
post #25 of 930
Amazing. DNR and EE. Fox or whoever was in charge of this has to be a ****ing moron.
post #26 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowrage View Post

Everything shot on 70mm looks better than stuff shot with HDcams when transfered to BD. I can understand them touching other movies - they shouldn't thought. But 70mm?

What's the point of adding grain to something scrubbed? Not being a jerk, I'm curious. Because the detail is already gone.

What they did with Patton was subtract grain, which resulted in a smoother, but less detailed picture (not to mention the addition of edge enhancement and other processing artifacts).
post #27 of 930
Wow looks like HD-video. I'll wait for the eventual re-release and hope they do it right.
post #28 of 930


Wow. This just looks really weird and unnatural looking to me.
post #29 of 930
Patton has some model smooth hands there.

I think without the DNR and ringing this woul've been one heck of a transfer. The colors and tones are really nice.
post #30 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow46x2 View Post

i don't want to feel like i'm watching a movie, but i want to feel like i'm standing right in the middle of everything,

You don't want to feel like you're watching a movie? Well, as luck would have it, you ARE watching a movie. What it sounds like you want is virtual reality.

Quote:


and experiencing it all...in my mind, a clear, crisp picture, without film artifacts or the like, helps produce that effect....

don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to cut on anyone who wants grain, or anything like that, i'm just looking more for an understanding from a different perspective of my own as to why that is so highly sought after

--j

The problem is that the removal of grain also removes fine detail. You end up with a picture that's a smooth as a baby's butt (and just about as appealing), which is about the furthest thing from the virtual reality you seek that I can imagine.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › "Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX*