The Godfather: Part II comparison *PIX* - Page 3

It's okay to not agree with their opinions. Personally, I didn't like when Zappa had Chad Wackerman playing electronic drums. But, I still loves me some Zappa. I think it's safe to disagree with the color palette that FFC chose, as long as you can acknowledge that it looks looks the way it's supposed to look.

Anyone else getting dejavu from the reaction to Bram Stoker's Dracula?

Don't let yourself be intimidated by some posters here. An informed own opinion is a good thing no matter how much others want to shut you up by citing some authorities or using various strong arm tactics.
The print you saw was derived from the same digital restoration as the Blu Ray? If so, why do you think the print looked one way and the HD another beyond the differences due to HD and film gamut?

I'm going to have to side with History2b. Seems a little overdone.

On the other hand, if this truly is how the film is supposed to look...

No more than someone doesn't like the "look" of a movie like 300, I apparently don't really like the "look" of The Godfather. I very much still like the content though. ^_^

My "opinion" is that the final look is something of an aged photograph from the 70's coincidentally enough. :-)

"which color timing is correct?"

"the dvd looks better in that shot"

The big difference though is that these transfers are actually decent and contain HD detail. BSD is a sad pile of filtered garbage in comparison.

You're missing the point. So are a few other people.

Let's put it this way.

Is 300 "technically flawed" because it has a lot of grain even though the filmmakers have explicitly stated it's supposed be grainy?

You might not like the way Godfather looks, but to say the color is "technically flawed" and screwed up some way despite the filmmakers saying otherwise based on all of the information available is, well...

Doesn't FFC, RAH, Kim Aubrey, etc all say that's the way it was supposed to be? Isn't that what FFC, RAH, Jan Yarbrough are saying about Godfather II?

In each case, the creators and experts are on one side while certain enthusiasts are on another...

I never said it was technically flawed. I said I didn't like the approved result. See the difference?

I never said YOU said it was technically flawed. Someone else did. My 300 grainy example was just to illustrate a point.

Then how exactly was I missing the point? :-/

BTW, I was using 300 to illustrate the point you just made before you made it. (Who's on First? Second!)

Some people giving their opinion on whether or not they like the way Godfather looks is NOT the issue. There's a lot of movies I watch which I don't care for the "look."

The issue is a few self-proclaimed experts coming into this thread claiming to the effect that someone screwed up to some degree on the Blu-ray Godfather release without a shred of evidence.

There are two separate matters. That is what some people are missing.

But you said "I" was missing the point. I called you on it.

QOUTE: You're missing the point. So are a few other people.

Maybe I'll just ask a mod to delete some posts... it seems so dumb now.

Actually he wasn't citing some authorities,. He was citing THE authorities.

Everyone take a breath. The Godfather and Part II "The Coppola restoration" are being shown downtown in manhattan. At the film forum

Film Forum


209 W Houston St
New York, NY 10014

Anyone wishing can go see the restored version in the theater and then compare.

(checks the plane ticket prices... ) Ehhhh... I might have to bow out of this one. ^_^;

But the thing is, the "restored print" came from the same 4K date files as the BD. If the lab processing on the print was done 100% correctly, it should look the same as the BD, which is simply a 1080P High Definition downconversion of the exact same 4K date files that were used to create the restored 35mm prints. Since Robert Harris- who actually did the restoration- has already said that the BDs accurately reflect the 4K restored digital files, then I can only surmise that if the print you saw looked different, it was either an issue with the processing of that print by the lab, or a problem with the projection.

Vincent

I don't know how often they do it, but the real question is, how often does Robert Harris do it? Do you know more about the process of restoring classic films than he does? Because, after all, he was the man who oversaw this entire restoration project.

So, do you know more than him?

Vincent

Because that is a film that does have a very deliberate look.

And 10, 20, 30 years from now when technology "improves" and the look is altered from its original look at the helm of technicians and with the blessing of the director it may not be universally embraced.

DavidHir is having a hissy fit because someone's opinion on the quality of the restoration does not reflect his own because after all he watched the restoration DVD.

Its been changed and I'm not a fan of some of the changes. The majority of the movie looks excellent and true to form. But the added color in some scenes looks is an example of overusing the current technology in my opinion.

My opinion was never based on "knowing more than anyone." I stated my opinion and only volunteered my expertise and experience (for the first time ever on this forum in all my years) based on the allegation of another poster, who does not work in the business by the way, that I did not understand the process.

Color space varies between all formats from HD video, to 4k data files to 35mm prints. There isn't going to be an "exact" match.

Come ON man! I'll buy the popcorn!

So if you admit there isn't going to be an "exact" match, how is it that you proclaim that your viewing of a 35mm print of the restoration which was made from the exact same 4K digital files as the BD is correct while the BD is not? If anything, the BD- which is a direct digital conversion from 4K to 1080P HD without having to worry about any lab variations affecting the results- would seem to be a more accurate barometer to judge by, especially since the man who actually did the restoration and color timed it to match to vintage I.B. Technicolor prints under guidance of the original filmmakers- Robert Harris- has said that the BD versions are correct.

Vincent

What's your stance on this issue? That it should all just be an exact match as you previously said or that it will all be slightly different as I "admitted?" Clarification on your part would be a nice start since you want to play police detective.

I'm not even going to bother asking if you know the color space differences of blu-ray discs and 4k files. 10 bit log 4:4:4 video versus 4:2:0, etc. Blu Ray color space is HD video space, aka, Rec.709. DCI-P3 space for film outs will not necessarily match Rec.709.

This was never about doubting the credentials of anybody who oversaw anything nor is it a judgement of their ability. Its a matter of taste and too many techie wannabes (and I emphasize wannabes) object to an individual opinion of taste.

Many many accomplished competent visual effects supervisors and artists worked diligently for years on Lucas' Special Edition Star Wars IV, V and VI. If you did not like some or even all of the changes made from the original are you doubting their ability? Are you saying you know more about visual effects than them? Than Lucas. Its absurb.

I just think some scenes were a little heavy handed with the digital manipulation of color.

No.

Dracula is an awful transfer, period. Harris can defend it all he likes, that doesn't keep the old DVD from having better contrast and more accurate colors compared to EVERY shred of evidence as to what the film was "supposed" to look like (documentaries, on set photos, existing digital transfers of high quality 35mm prints, etc). Anyone defending it is doing it based on the word of the crew behind the work and isn't using the eyes their mothers' gave them.

The Godfather Part II is no such transfer.


So why do you assume that the 35mm print is a more accurate representation of the restored 4k master than the Blu-ray? If anything analog film printing processes have more variables that could change the image, even a simple change in film stock, so what guarantee do you have that one transfer is a more true example of the source?


So clearly the 4k master is up to snuff, if you have no complaints over the 35mm print.


Are you saying that the conversion from 4k 10-bit 4:4:4 to 1080p 8-bit 4:2:0 manipulated them in some way? If you can't handle 4:2:0 video, I'd suggest never watching video at home, and possibly staying out of AVS all together. That's typically all we, as consumers, have access to.


Are you saying the Blu-ray release had its' colors manipulated after the 35mm prints were made from the exact same 4k master? That makes no sense. All the color tweaks were done during the restoration itself. Whatever digital changes were made on the 4k master would be present on the Blu-ray AND the 35mm print, period.

You're a professional, so tell me, how often does a director approved 4k master get tweaked last second before being fed into a Blu-ray/DVD encoder? I'm willing to bet "practically never", and that The Godfather Trilogy wasn't an exception.

Harris also had nothing to do with that transfer (and it was also a film he said that he didn't know well at all) neither did Coppola who was off shooting his most recent film. Some Zoetrope rep reportedly passed along his wishes to the guys doing the transfer. Look who we have doing transfers nowadays. The guy who worked on the Patton BD who PUBLICLY stated how much he hated film grain and couldn't wait until it was a thing of the past! Whomever worked on Dracula probably really dug the work of Tim Burton on films like Sleepy Hollow and Sweeney Todd and steered BSD thataway.

thanks a lot for this information, i wish there was some place like this in philly. i think i might make have trip up to ny to see these

LOL Making a statement like you have that the BD product is technically flawed or incorrect because you don't like the color is asinine. I challenged you to simply prove are you completely full of it. Instead all you do is boast of being a self-proclaimed film color expert. Yeah, sure. Robert Harris who oversaw this restoration has written a lot on the subject - I suggest you actually read it because you sorely lack the knowledge of what the real experts have written on the subject of Godfather. Better yet, I suggest you personally contact Robert Harris who is accessible on some of the forums. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to respond to Penton-man's questions.

I've just read every thread I could find here regarding this release because dare I say it, I have NEVER seen any of these flicks, not in any way shape or form (yet I LOVE Goodfellas, Casino, Carlitos Way, etc), dunno why, just never caught them - from theather to home versions to cheesy edited for tv, etc. I was not going to buy this set either as I've read enough reviews (of the film content) from places I trust, as well as asking friends that are fans 'em, etc, was going to hold off for the eventual individual releases and nab only I & II. Newayz, seems like the majority of people are very pleased with the BR versions, far more than unhappy anyway. So in light of the flicks I was about to buy tues getting pretty 'heh' reviews now (Dawn of the Dead, Sarah Marshal, 40 Yr Old), I think I will spend the money on The Godfather set instead and treat myself to what everyone has always said is nothing short of masterpiece filmaking...maybe I'll still get Forgetting Sarah Marshall tues along with Iron Man, but heck with those others, The Godfather prolly has more replay value anyway!

Your first time seeing the films and you get to see them like this? Lucky you. I don't think you'll be disappointed. The first two films are two of the best films ever made, imo. The bonus disc has a wealth of information, including interviews with a bunch of celebrities who share our love of the films. If you can still find it for around $60, it's a steal.