or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX*
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX* - Page 2

post #31 of 521
The thing is, it doesn't just look soft, it looks smeared/airbrushed. A quality which AFFOD, also filmed in Techniscope and hardly razor-sharp, does not share. While I'm no great expert in the tools of photography, I don't know what optical gadgetry would lend this look to photography outside of domain of digital processing.
post #32 of 521
Anyone who has done any work with film knows that it has a look irrespective of the format or size of the negative.

Art
post #33 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

You're comparing a Techniscope production to another in Panavision, a second shot flat on standard 35mm film, and a third shot in VistaVision.

Actually its not that big difference between 35mm and Techniscope.

It sounds that its a big difference, but you have forgotten to take in aspect ratio in the equation.

Rio Bravo was shoot on 35mm. Thats a 4:3 format. But the movie is cropped to 1.85:1. That is just 262 mm sq. And if we crop it to 2.35:1 we get the same as techniscope.

So it works excellent to compare because on BD they have the same amount of "film per pixel" for both movies.
post #34 of 521
I thought Robert Harris was going to talk to people after the Patton debacle....this is pretty much Patton all over again. When you see smearing effects on people's faces, that's when you know it's not film.
post #35 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakesh.S View Post

I thought Robert Harris was going to talk to people after the Patton debacle....this is pretty much Patton all over again. When you see smearing effects on people's faces, that's when you know it's not film.

We also heard that it was going to take a year for the "old" product to get through the pipeline.

Well, it's been a year and we are still seeing this crap on many recent catalog titles. My guess is they are using older masters with the DNR baked in and they won't spend the money on new ones. The other possibility is the studios are too ****ing arrogant to listen and will continue to do what they please.
post #36 of 521
People who claim this looks like a DVD must have very small or bad displays. It's nowhere near the DVD. The absence of the horrible edge enhancement and MPEG noise that plagues the DVD makes a big difference already, and there is also clearly more detail. Yes, the BD has obviously been degrained, but it also has gorgeous colors and plenty of great shots. I bet none of the armchair experts here has any idea what the source materials that were used to put this version together look like. The picture quality varies quite a bit, reflecting the somewhat problematic state of the materials. It is simply impossible to judge this movie based on two screenshots.
post #37 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon View Post

People who claim this looks like a DVD must have very small or bad displays. It's nowhere near the DVD. The absence of the horrible edge enhancement and MPEG noise that plagues the DVD makes a big difference already, and there is also clearly more detail. Yes, the BD has obviously been degrained, but it also has gorgeous colors and plenty of great shots. I bet none of the armchair experts here has any idea what the source materials that were used to put this version together look like. The picture quality varies quite a bit, reflecting the somewhat problematic state of the materials. It is simply impossible to judge this movie based on two screenshots.

The DVD version here is from the much older transfer. Comparing the 2007 DVD minted from the same master as the Blu-ray will show even less difference. Xylon is showing the extremes, a really old non-anamorphic DVD vs a brand new Blu-ray... and the difference is not that impressive.
post #38 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

The DVD version here is from the much older transfer. Comparing the 2007 DVD minted from the same master as the Blu-ray will show even less difference.

Do you have a source for this? To my knowledge the same transfer (made after the theatrical re-release in 2003) was used for all subsequent DVD releases and the BD.
Quote:


Xylon is showing the extremes, a really old non-anamorphic DVD vs a brand new Blu-ray... and the difference is not that impressive.

I was not referring to Xylon's screenshots. I own both the newer DVD (called "Gold Edition" here in Germany) and the BD.
post #39 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

It is certainly better than the DVD but as can be seen with AFFOD there is a lot of room for improvement

You cannot just assume that the same quality can be achieved for two entirely different movies just because they are from the same era. An original camera negative was available for "Fistful", whereas the version of "Good, Bad, Ugly" on the BD and newer DVDs was cut together using material from several different sources, including a restored version by Cineteca Nazionale (which was done in 1999, to my knowledge) and US theatrical prints. So apparently they did not have a well-preserved camera negative of the entire movie to work with. I don't know what the materials looked like originally, and I suspect neither does anyone else here.

What seems obvious to me is that they didn't just run the entire video file through a degrainer willy-nilly, since there are very obvious variations throughout the movie. Take e.g. this shot, which, I believe, originates from a US theatrical print (it is close to the english "The Good" caption towards the end of the movie):



Plenty of grain left here (but also little detail) ...
post #40 of 521
Despite the fact that we have disagreement, I'd like to thank everyone for their input.

I've posted a short 'first draft' PQ review at the other thread.

Steve W
post #41 of 521
Bickering and off-topic comments removed. Post screen shots or discuss those screen shots. Stay off the tangents, please.
post #42 of 521
Thread Starter 
This is not the place to argue "better than DVD" excuses. You have to do better than that.
post #43 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

This is not the place to argue "better than DVD" excuses. You have to do better than that.

No offense, but that is not your decision to make. It is still an opinion and should be given the same respect as yours, mine, or anyone else's.
post #44 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon View Post


What seems obvious to me is that they didn't just run the entire video file through a degrainer willy-nilly, since there are very obvious variations throughout the movie.

That's my thoughts as well. Having viewed it, I saw numerous closeups that looked gorgeous and well detailed. There was the odd wax face, granted, but not the whole film. I can't possibly speculate on whether or not this was an attempt to have the various sources for this longer version match.
post #45 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

This is not the place to argue "better than DVD" excuses.

Point taken. FWIW, I think this release could have been better (at least technically, I cannot speculate about economic considerations that might play a role). However, I submit that falling into the other extreme (hyperbole, conspiracy theories about mass infiltration by "studio plants" etc. ) won't help the cause. Everybody should be allowed to make up their own mind. While screen captures may not always tell the whole story, your threads are very helpful for that indeed.

If it's any consolation, your captures over in the other thread enticed me to order the Italian "Fistful of Dollars" release right away.
post #46 of 521
Holy mother of *$%(#! I had not seen those caps of The Cowboys before. Wow, what an abomination!

The grabs of TGTBATU almost look good by comparison.
post #47 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by raoul_duke View Post

I saw numerous closeups that looked gorgeous and well detailed.

Thats not so strange, it has been common knowledge for years that when you do a filmout of a digital shoot movie, closeup looks alot more acceptable despite the movie was shoot with a SD cam.

The biggest weakness of lower resolution has always been on landscape shoots then it has been on closeups.
post #48 of 521
Yummmm.....waxy.....!

What's crazy is how good this COULD have been. Look at the shot of Eastwood's face right after he talks to Bill Carson. In the Blu-ray, you can tell the scars are just makeup and plastered on his face. Imagine if they left the detail in, how amazingly georgous this film would actually be??

Makes me sad at the possibilities lost...
post #49 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xylon View Post

This is not the place to argue "better than DVD" excuses. You have to do better than that.

This is not the place to discount improvements over the DVD and pretend they don't exist. You have to do better than that.

Actually, forget that.

I think what I mean is, each person should look at the disc or screencaps , and check out their bank balance, and decide for themselves if the improvement is worth it or not.

Steve W
post #50 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

I think what I mean is, each person should look at the disc or screencaps , and check out their bank balance, and decide for themselves if the improvement is worth it or not.

Steve W

True.

Art
post #51 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

I think what I mean is, each person should look at the disc or screencaps , and check out their bank balance, and decide for themselves if the improvement is worth it or not.

Steve W

Except for me, it has nothing to do with how much I have in the bank. My Blu-ray purchases are not related to my savings account. Not that it'll ever happn, but I'd go into debt for a title I really wanted.
post #52 of 521
Well, I like Bill Hunt and the Bits, but boy oh boy he bent over backwards so far in his review for these today I think he may have irreparably damaged something!
post #53 of 521
His opinion is mostly along with mine. I think II is decent. Color timing is strange. The others suck and he pretty much says that, but it a PC way, as one would expect. At least one of the top websites out there has addressed this issue and brought it to the public.

Sales will barely be affected since most pre-ordered, but at least Paramount has some bad PR on their hands.
post #54 of 521
Think you meant to put that in the Star Trek thread.
post #55 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon View Post

You cannot just assume that the same quality can be achieved for two entirely different movies just because they are from the same era. An original camera negative was available for "Fistful", whereas the version of "Good, Bad, Ugly" on the BD and newer DVDs was cut together using material from several different sources, including a restored version by Cineteca Nazionale (which was done in 1999, to my knowledge) and US theatrical prints. So apparently they did not have a well-preserved camera negative of the entire movie to work with. I don't know what the materials looked like originally, and I suspect neither does anyone else here.

What seems obvious to me is that they didn't just run the entire video file through a degrainer willy-nilly, since there are very obvious variations throughout the movie. Take e.g. this shot, which, I believe, originates from a US theatrical print (it is close to the english "The Good" caption towards the end of the movie):



Plenty of grain left here (but also little detail) ...

No two movies can look exactly the same but each of the dollar movies has been shot in Techniscope on film and whatever generation material this is derived from it would also have to be film. Therefore when a lot of scenes do not look like film at all (see post number 2 of this thread for an extreme example) it is reasonable to say that MGM did something wrong on this one.

You get no argument from me on your cap - this disc is indeed very uneven. It is the absence of grain structure that originally was part of the picture and the side effects that come with its absence that I object to.

And I am glad you also bought AFFOD - quality like that should be rewarded with a purchase
post #56 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Klohs View Post

No two movies can look exactly the same but each of the dollar movies has been shot in Techniscope on film and whatever generation material this is derived from it would also have to be film. Therefore when a lot of scenes do not look like film at all (see post number 2 of this thread for an extreme example) it is reasonable to say that MGM did something wrong on this one.

Not knowing the source material, I think none of us is in a position to judge this. Perhaps they had good reason for filtering the image. Multiple generations of printing and aging can easily render the fine, natural grain present on the negative into excessive and ugly noise that has nothing to do with the original grain structure.
Quote:


You get no argument from me on your cap - this disc is indeed very uneven. It is the absence of grain structure that originally was part of the picture and the side effects that come with its absence that I object to.

Well, the grain is clearly not absent in that shot. That tells me they didn't use the degrainer indiscriminately for the entire movie ...
Quote:


And I am glad you also bought AFFOD - quality like that should be rewarded with a purchase

I'm excited like a little boy on Christmas day about that one. All the Leone films are masterpieces. I hope we get good HD releases of the other ones too. The recent restoration of "Once Upon a Time in the West" (from original negatives) should look great in HD. Do you hear me, Paramount?
post #57 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Think you meant to put that in the Star Trek thread.

Um, I think you're right! The woes of having 36windows/tabs open in your browser and posting way into an allnighter! Sorry!
post #58 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon View Post

Perhaps they had good reason for filtering the image.

I hope you are aware that with this attitude you can also justify Patton and The Longest Day ? I am of the opinion that it is almost always better to wait and do things right instead of releasing something that is just better than the DVD, it certainly is for an important movie like TGTBTU.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon View Post

Well, the grain is clearly not absent in that shot. That tells me they didn't use the degrainer indiscriminately for the entire movie ...

I was not referring to that particular scene and I would also like to point out that I am not the one who claims that the whole movie was treated the same. I would rather not want to guess why the material has been treated so differently as frankly there is enough speculation in this thread as it is



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigby Reardon View Post

I'm excited like a little boy on Christmas day about that one. All the Leone films are masterpieces. I hope we get good HD releases of the other ones too. The recent restoration of "Once Upon a Time in the West" (from original negatives) should look great in HD. Do you hear me, Paramount?

If they can get hold of the Italian versions of the first two dollar movies and if Once Upon A Time in the West also looks great MGM would only need to revisit this one and Duck you Sucker/A Fistful of Dynamite
post #59 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pecker View Post

This is not the place to discount improvements over the DVD and pretend they don't exist. You have to do better than that.

Actually, forget that.

I think what I mean is, each person should look at the disc or screencaps , and check out their bank balance, and decide for themselves if the improvement is worth it or not.

Of all the people on this forum, you have made Fist Pumping for the studios a full time job. You are here all day, every day, never stopping and one wonders why. In fact, you are now powting more than any other member, by far.

Most of us here do not want to bury ourselves in the sands of a pretend reality where massive amounts of DVNR are needed, but we also do not want to argue with people who refuse to see reality, who continue to say that noise reducing grain until it is gone is perfectly OK because the director is dead and cannot be here and because "it's better than the DVD."

In fact, many have left this forum in frustration because they simply cannot take it anymore. I am close to that because AVS, once THE place to be for truth, is turning into a Joe Six Pack land of studio apologists who strive for the lowest possible quality. Privately, numerous members here are at the end of their rope and are perfectly justified in that.

This film, along with the TREK films, has been given the shaft and looks nothing like the original film elements. It no longer looks like any film would look because it has been so massively scrubbed of grain and more importantly, detail.

There is nothing you can say or do to change that. These Xylon screen captures only add in your face proof to what I and others have seen with our own eyes. We saw the film in a theater and now we are NOT seeing that film on BD. Instead, we have a pale pretendor that looks like a low resolution video game.

It's criminal. The evidence is overwheleming, but in an era where someone clearly saying or doing something on video is explained or "spun" away by partison cheerleaders, what else can one expect...?

The moon is made of cheese.
post #60 of 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

Of all the people on this forum, you have made Fist Pumping for the studios a full time job. You are here all day, every day, never stopping and one wonders why. In fact, you are now powting more than any other member, by far.

Most of us here do not want to bury ourselves in the sands of a pretend reality where massive amounts of DVNR are needed, but we also do not want to argue with people who refuse to see reality, who continue to say that noise reducing grain until it is gone is perfectly OK because the director is dead and cannot be here and because "it's better than the DVD."

In fact, many have left this forum in frustration because they simply cannot take it anymore. I am close to that because AVS, once THE place to be for truth, is turning into a Joe Six Pack land of studio apologists who strive for the lowest possible quality. Privately, numerous members here are at the end of their rope and are perfectly justified in that.

This film, along with the TREK films, has been given the shaft and looks nothing like the original film elements. It no longer looks like any film would look because it has been so massively scrubbed of grain and more importantly, detail.

There is nothing you can say or do to change that. These Xylon screen captures only add in your face proof to what I and others have seen with our own eyes. We saw the film in a theater and now we are NOT seeing that film on BD. Instead, we have a pale pretendor that looks like a low resolution video game.

It's criminal. The evidence is overwheleming, but in an era where someone clearly saying or doing something on video is explained or "spun" away by partison cheerleaders, what else can one expect...?

The moon is made of cheese.

Wow. And this is the response to someone saying 'look at the discs and decide for yourself'. I'd hate to see your reaction to someone actually recommending the release!

If "others have left" because they "cannot take" someone suggesting that they make their own decisions about what to buy... perhaps it's for the best.

Yes, there's some DNR on this set. Yes, it probably could've been made to look somewhat better by your personal standards. We got it. Dial it back a bit, please.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Good, The Bad and the Ugly comparison *PIX*