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* - Page 9

post #241 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

I would, Rob because the waxy mannequin look is just really disturbing to me.

Different strokes...

The SD DVD would have WAY more distractions than the Blu-ray version to me.

What size screen are you viewing on?
post #242 of 930
This topic is re-opened. A number of unproductive comments have been deleted.

At this juncture it's important to remember that AVS is a home theater enthusiasts web site. This particular forum is for those interested in the highest level of accuracy in film reproduction possible, within their budget of course. Those who do not share this interest should expect to find disagreement with their opinions, and may want to reconsider their participation here.
post #243 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Different strokes...

The SD DVD would have WAY more distractions than the Blu-ray version to me.

What size screen are you viewing on?

92"

different things distract different people differently.

post #244 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

This topic is re-opened. A number of unproductive comments have been deleted.

At this juncture it's important to remember that AVS is a home theater enthusiasts web site. This particular forum is for those interested in the highest level of accuracy in film reproduction possible, within their budget of course. Those who do not share this interest should expect to find disagreement with their opinions, and may want to reconsider their participation here.

So the minority will be flamed? I want the movie to look good, no matter the intent of the director..If that means adding a bit of DNR I can live with it, I can also live with minor grain.. I saw the Ultraviolent trailer & that has excessive DNR. If people in the majority can't hold a civilized discussion in regards to this heated topic, they shouldn't post.
post #245 of 930
DNR is not needed to make a film look good on BD. A film can look great with grain intact. 300 comes to mind as a film with tons of grain and still looks great on BD. That film's feel and mood would have been ruined if they tried to remove all the grain using DNR.

That being said, I would still prefer the BD of Patton over either of the SD DVDs. I just can't stand watching DVDs anymore and even with the DNR, I think the Patton BD looks better then the DVD.

But, I do not agree with the use of DNR and I hope we can send a message to the studios to get them to stop this stuff.
post #246 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

92"

different things distract different people differently.


Dave, have you seen Patton on your system?

I just have a very hard time believing that someone with a front projector system would prefer the DVD over the Blu-ray.
post #247 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBI View Post

I want the movie to look good, no matter the intent of the director.

Like I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

This particular forum is for those interested in the highest level of accuracy of film reproduction possible, within their budget of course. Those who do not share this interest should expect to find disagreement with their opinions, and may want to reconsider their participation here.
post #248 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

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.

If i was the fox executive in charge I would say you know we catch ton's of grief when we do older films, too much grain, too much dnr we don't make anymore $$$ off them and we have to spend $$$ to restore them we should just stick with new films skip these older films all together. trust me it's how they think $$$ and cents only.
post #249 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

Dave, have you seen Patton on your system?

I just have a very hard time believing that someone with a front projector system would prefer the DVD over the Blu-ray.

not yet. But why do you have such a hard time with what I might prefer? I despise the waxy mannequin look of DVNR'd films is all. From the screenshots I've seen here, it looks like that Twilight Zone episode where the department store mannequins came to life.
I'd rather watch a lower res version, even with technical shortcomings where the actors still look like human beings.

post #250 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

not yet. But why do you have such a hard time with what I might prefer? I despise the waxy mannequin look of DVNR'd films is all. From the screenshots I've seen here, it looks like that Twilight Zone episode where the department store mannequins came to life.
I'd rather watch a lower res version, even with technical shortcomings where the actors still look like human beings.


Of course your free to watch Patton in any way, shape, or form that pleases you. I would just ad a note of caution. I think your short changing yourself by forming a negative opinion of the BD release based on a few screen shots and without having seen the film the way the director intended you to see it...you know, as a motion picture. Just a thought....
post #251 of 930
I did see it in the theater as a motion picture.
post #252 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by dargo View Post

trust me it's how they think $$$ and cents only.

Fox applied too much DNR to this movie but it is not like they did it 5 times before and they are also the only studio that has produced new 70mm prints of almost all their large format movies which will not improve their bottom line either - no other studio did this, not Warner, not Sony, not Universal. For me they have a very good track record with their classic DVD releases, too and I also believe they will do better with their coming classics on BD. But we can't expect a new and improved Patton release next week - things are not that simple.
post #253 of 930
I have not read this whole thread. Picture was great, as in colors (which i value). However I agree with both sides.

I dont like grain really because I find it a distraction to the movie. Sometimes Im noticing grain swirling around and it bothers me. However DNR in patton and oversharpen was done to much.

How is my simple Xa2 reon can reduce noise without reducing details and making people look more waxy, while big studios cant?

Thats where I stand. I dont like grain, but I also dont know how these studios cannot do it proper. Being a fan of video processors and HTPC, and stand alone processors for some time, better DNR can be done with those machines then high quality studios seem to be able to do. I dont get it.
post #254 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

But we can't expect a new and improved Patton release next week - things are not that simple.

And in fact this is the most discouraging thing. If the release transfer is substandard this may be the only version we see for many years.

Art
post #255 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

I did see it in the theater as a motion picture.

And herein lies my biggest issue with all of this: How the heck do you or can you guys remember what a film released in 1970 looked like at the theater? I mean... the technology was not even that great then so I highly doubt it was THAT good in the first place. And, lets be realistic.... 30 plus years is a LONG time. Do you really recall what it looked like at the theater? I saw Star Wars about 50 times at the theater and I cant even remotely remember how much grain there was. I DO remember that Han Solo shot first...but thats a different issue.

So, whats the deal here? Are you just trying to rekindle or justify your OWN personal movie experiences or are you basing this stuff on tangible facts that us newbies just dont get?

While we are at it.... where is there data to backup many peoples assessments that directors "wanted their movies to look a certain way"? Where can I find this information? Is it listed on the back of the DVD case? Does IMDB store it somewhere? I have a funny feeling that directors want their movies to look as good as possible. I mean... isnt that just common sense? Did Kubrick or whomever come out and say "Nah, lets make it dull, lifeless, grainy, and flat."

Please edumacate me.
post #256 of 930
S2mikey,

Did you ever watch the DVD? Do you really think this BD transfer is representative of this movie?

Are you planning to watch "The Professionals", "Sand Pebbles", or "Broken Trail"???

Please let us know what you think after watching one of those. Other than that.....
post #257 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

And herein lies my biggest issue with all of this: How the heck do you or can you guys remember what a film released in 1970 looked like at the theater? I mean... the technology was not even that great then so I highly doubt it was THAT good in the first place. And, lets be realistic.... 30 plus years is a LONG time. Do you really recall what it looked like at the theater? I saw Star Wars about 50 times at the theater and I cant even remotely remember how much grain there was. I DO remember that Han Solo shot first...but thats a different issue.

So, whats the deal here? Are you just trying to rekindle or justify your OWN personal movie experiences or are you basing this stuff on tangible facts that us newbies just dont get?

While we are at it.... where is there data to backup many peoples assessments that directors "wanted their movies to look a certain way"? Where can I find this information? Is it listed on the back of the DVD case? Does IMDB store it somewhere? I have a funny feeling that directors want their movies to look as good as possible. I mean... isnt that just common sense? Did Kubrick or whomever come out and say "Nah, lets make it dull, lifeless, grainy, and flat."

Please edumacate me.

I really believe that you know better than most of what you posted. I love your loaded and leading questions.

When one sees digital artifacting it is something that isn't expected when one expects a film look. I don't have to specifically remember what the film looked like any more than I'd have to say if the actresses all had breast implants that it wasn't a fifties movie.
Art
post #258 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

And herein lies my biggest issue with all of this: How the heck do you or can you guys remember what a film released in 1970 looked like at the theater?

http://www.americancinematheque.com/.../70mm_2008.htm

Quote:


Friday, May 30 – 7:30 PM

70mm Print!

PATTON, 1970, 20th Century Fox, 169 min. Dir. Franklin J. Schaffner. "No dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country," growls George C. Scott in the jawdropping opening monologue to PATTON, a war epic that manages to capture the tragic human sacrifice, the bullying megalomania and the patriotic glory of battle, all encapsulated in the incredibly complex and contradictory character of General George S. Patton. Winner of seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Actor, Director and Screenplay (by Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North). More on this film.

It was shown as recently as May 30th in 70mm. If you read the original post, Xylon said he had attended a showing of Patton in 70mm, so he's definitely qualified to speak about this transfer and how it relates to what it looked like at the theater.
post #259 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I really believe that you know better than most of what you posted. I love your loaded and leading questions.

When one sees digital artifacting it is something that isn't expected when one expects a film look. I don't have to specifically remember what the film looked like any more than I'd have to say if the actresses all had breast implants that it wasn't a fifties movie.
Art

No, Art, I dont. I wasnt even born in 1970(1971 ) and I dont get to theaters much anymore, especially for screenings of older movies which rarely is an opportunity anyways in my local theaters. I dont mean for the questions to be "loaded" but Im sure other people also wish to get the lowdown on all of this stuff. Its a touchy topic, as per evidence by the heated replies/responses.

Whats wrong with asking for some proof for all the claims of "Directors intent"? I mean, unless you were there when the movie was made or have an incredibly vivid memory.... I would say its tough to remember a theater presentation from 30 years ago. Forget "recent theater viewings", that only applies to a very small number of people and even then, how do you know the theater didnt mess with the image or whatever?

Im serious when I ask about information about theatrical releases from a while back. If the data is there, please enlighten me!

I had never seen Patton up until last night on any format. I thought it looked and sounded good. More importantly...its a GREAT flick.
post #260 of 930
Quote:

Cool link and information. Too bad this doesnt happen more across the country. I would LOVE to see 2001 on the big screen!

That being said, there isnt much for image quality information, only that its 70mm.

Thanks for the info anyways.
post #261 of 930
It's a shame they went DNR crazy on this title as I really wanted to pick it up but there is no way I will with it looking like that. I saw face/off hd-dvd a few months ago and the DNR in it was a huge distraction and made the movie look super funky. Patton will IMO just be worse in this regard.

I really do not get why people have issues with grain. It is tiny on my 106" screen so if you're watching on something smaller then how can it possibly bother you if it isn't an issue at that size? Do people sit 4 feet form their TVs?

All I know is it is pretty silly to apply this type of dnr to high def titles since it kills the fine detail and that is the whole point of HD...IMO

As others have stated, Patton may look "the best it has in home" but that is beside the point. It could have looked much better with the detail still being there and it should look as close as possible to the original film. This clearly isn't and I don't need to see this movie in a theatre to conclude that.
post #262 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

No, Art, I dont. I wasnt even born in 1970(1971 ) and I dont get to theaters much anymore, especially for screenings of older movies which rarely is an opportunity anyways in my local theaters. I dont mean for the questions to be "loaded" but Im sure other people also wish to get the lowdown on all of this stuff. Its a touchy topic, as per evidence by the heated replies/responses.

Whats wrong with asking for some proof for all the claims of "Directors intent"? I mean, unless you were there when the movie was made or have an incredibly vivid memory.... I would say its tough to remember a theater presentation from 30 years ago. Forget "recent theater viewings", that only applies to a very small number of people and even then, how do you know the theater didnt mess with the image or whatever?

Im serious when I ask about information about theatrical releases from a while back. If the data is there, please enlighten me!

I had never seen Patton up until last night on any format. I thought it looked and sounded good. More importantly...its a GREAT flick.

I'm not referring to directors intent except that the transfer isn't transparent ,regardless ,if it has had EE, DNR etc applied. I don't need any other information about the film, directors intent, film age or even if I'd seen it or not (I did see Patton).

Art
post #263 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

I'm not referring to directors intent except that the transfer isn't transparent ,regardless ,if it has had EE, DNR etc applied. I don't need any other information about the film, directors intent, film age or even if I'd seen it or not (I did see Patton).

Art

Agreed. What surprises me is how some people cannot tell the difference between video and film on their home theater set-ups. Film should look like film. Period.
post #264 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

And herein lies my biggest issue with all of this: How the heck do you or can you guys remember what a film released in 1970 looked like at the theater? I mean... the technology was not even that great then so I highly doubt it was THAT good in the first place. And, lets be realistic.... 30 plus years is a LONG time. Do you really recall what it looked like at the theater?

Yes, and if the screen shots are accurate, which based on Xylon's previous work in this area would be the case, then the Patton Blu-ray transfer is a disservice to the original film.

Quote:


So, whats the deal here? Are you just trying to rekindle or justify your OWN personal movie experiences or are you basing this stuff on tangible facts that us newbies just dont get?

As has already been explained, we simply want the most accurate reproduction of the original film presentation as possible.

Quote:


I have a funny feeling that directors want their movies to look as good as possible. I mean... isnt that just common sense? Did Kubrick or whomever come out and say "Nah, lets make it dull, lifeless, grainy, and flat."

Please edumacate me.

Who decides what 'as good as possible' is? You? No, the director has already made the decision what he/she wants the film to look like.

Your funny feeling is completely off base. Directors don't want their work 'to look as good as possible'. They want it to look like what it looked like when they created it.

Film is a very flexible media, with which the film industry has extensive long term experience. It can be technically manipulated using a wide variety of techniques, which result in a wide variety of visual results. When you are viewing the film theatrically (short of a technical issue at that specific theater), you can be 100% sure if it looks 'dull, lifeless, grainy, and flat' to you, that's the way it's intended to look. The same film on Blu-ray should be an accurate reproduction, nothing more, nothing less. It's that simple.
post #265 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Mack View Post

not yet. But why do you have such a hard time with what I might prefer? I despise the waxy mannequin look of DVNR'd films is all. From the screenshots I've seen here, it looks like that Twilight Zone episode where the department store mannequins came to life.
I'd rather watch a lower res version, even with technical shortcomings where the actors still look like human beings.


It just doesn't make any sense to me. The BD looks WAY better than the SD DVD. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. In fact, I'm not even sure it's the same sport!

The SD DVD lacks resolution in a big way, still has all kinds of artifacts, the colors are not as good, and the contrast is lacking compared to the Blu-ray version.

The scale seems to be heavily tilted in favor of the Blu-ray, even with the DNR and EE. Could it have been better? Little question about that.
post #266 of 930
No problem, keep it if you like it and sell it if you don't. Not sure what else can be said. Even the dead horse is complaining at this point!
post #267 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by s2mikey View Post

No, Art, I dont. I wasnt even born in 1970(1971 ) and I dont get to theaters much anymore, especially for screenings of older movies which rarely is an opportunity anyways in my local theaters. I dont mean for the questions to be "loaded" but Im sure other people also wish to get the lowdown on all of this stuff. Its a touchy topic, as per evidence by the heated replies/responses.

Whats wrong with asking for some proof for all the claims of "Directors intent"? I mean, unless you were there when the movie was made or have an incredibly vivid memory.... I would say its tough to remember a theater presentation from 30 years ago. Forget "recent theater viewings", that only applies to a very small number of people and even then, how do you know the theater didn't mess with the image or whatever?

Im serious when I ask about information about theatrical releases from a while back. If the data is there, please enlighten me!

I had never seen Patton up until last night on any format. I thought it looked and sounded good. More importantly...its a GREAT flick.

In all reality, we who wish to preserve the original look of the film do not need any "proof" of director intent. The director's "intent" is seen on the screen. It is what it is. Given this, I would suggest those who wish to manipulate the picture in order to satisfy some personal opinion of what constitutes a "superior" picture provide "proof" that the director actually intended this new look when his work is transfered to a different media. Indeed, it is you and your compatriots who should provide evidence that a director desires his work be optimized to some new criteria chosen not by film experts and enthusiasts who have actually seen the film on screen, but by self-described "newbies" who admittedly have no knowledge or reverence of the original film.
post #268 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post

It just doesn't make any sense to me. The BD looks WAY better than the SD DVD. Not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. In fact, I'm not even sure it's the same sport!

The SD DVD lacks resolution in a big way, still has all kinds of artifacts, the colors are not as good, and the contrast is lacking compared to the Blu-ray version.

The scale seems to be heavily tilted in favor of the Blu-ray, even with the DNR and EE. Could it have been better? Little question about that.

It's ok, Rob. We don't have to agree.



I'd also rather listen to an old album on vinyl with pops and hiss with the correct volume levels of instruments in relation to one another than many of these new "digitally remastered!!!" CDs where they brickwall compress everything and all the instruments are now at the same level.
post #269 of 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jgatie View Post

In all reality, we who wish to preserve the original look of the film do not need any "proof" of director intent. The director's "intent" is seen on the screen. It is what it is. Given this, I would suggest those who wish to manipulate the picture in order to satisfy some personal opinion of what constitutes a "superior" picture provide "proof" that the director actually intended this new look when his work is transfered to a different media. Indeed, it is you and your compatriots who should provide evidence that a director desires his work be optimized to some new criteria chosen not by film experts and enthusiasts who have actually seen the film on screen, but by self-described "newbies" who admittedly have no knowledge or reverence of the original film.

They have seen it on the big screen...but most of them saw it a loooong time ago. Memory only works so well. It was just a point that I felt was worth mentioning. The more recent you saw a movie at the theater, the more vivid the images are presentation would be. Hence, like I said, I dont remember Star Wars in the theater other than the actual movie itself. I dont remember the color pallette or how much stylized grain there was.

Nope, I had never seen the film before and I thought it looked pretty darnmed good. Of course I cant say whether or not it matched the original release....I would have no way of doing that.

Ah well, the horse is beaten and staying in this argument just means me taking more of a beating. I will say that I HOPE Blu-ray continues to clean up old films to make them enjoyable for newer generations that prefer cleaner images and more vibrant colors.
post #270 of 930
Maybe a thread about what expectation one has from Blu Ray may really show where folks are coming from and when they do indeed decide to pull the trigger on a title.
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*