So what is wrong with Universal and why/how they screw up bluray releases of movies

have you not noticed the string of losers slewing forth???

Removing grain where there is no grain to remove and replacing with artifical grain?

overdone enhacments....and so on on and on...

Patton, Elizabeth, Out of Africa, Sparticus, and feel free to add to the list as there are many I have overlooked





http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...cus-in-blu-ray

that should fix

maybe they think the latter are not worth all the intense effort and expense they seem to be putting into all the "special treatments" of the other movies

I have never been a lover of film grain, because it is an artifact of film, and when the film is made and done right, the film grain is usually as Harris puts it "nominal" or unnoticeable...but here there are making a special effort towards over doing it with too much doctor work

if it ain't broke, and Spartacus was clearly NOT, then don't fix it..

Great article/post and everone should read.
Finally someone with whom I agree with ..........100%

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...eth-in-blu-ray

link about elizabeth.....i agree with harris, wasted plastic


spartacus

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...cus-in-blu-ray

so

read the article---harris helped restore the film, and would disagree (as to possibilities but NOT that the BD sucks)--film is there for the use....

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...cus-in-blu-ray


so the real question is why do they continue and exactly what is the process they are using to screw up///

SPR was deliberate because he wanted the very old poor quality of movie film shot on 8 and 16 mm film as used by combat photographers, and that was not realistic in the sense of being there on D-day.

Absolutely nothing realistic about that unless you want to imagine you are watching old home made movies or old film similarly shot...

The first time became aware of the absence of grain was the little speech given beforehand when seeing the restored version of Lawenrence of arabia in its original 70mm glory. She said something about you will notice how clear and detailed the picture will be due to the size of the film stock negatives and the abundance of light when shot, permitted the use of very slow, fine grained film--unlike most modern films. So it will be like someone washed a dirty window compared to what you have been watching before. But you will also notice a grainy appearance with the dark interior shots due to the lighting.

She was right.

If they do an excellent job of transferring the film to BD, you will need stop action and a telescope to see the grain in most scenes except the dark interior shots.

And the same was true of the restored film of Spartacus.

But alas, once they get to doing all the EE, dnr, and color saturation, it will get ruined like all the others-except I think they just used the old HD master, which appearantly when producing the HD DVD, made a better reproduction than the blue ray

Not the restored film, just the old HD master appearently used to make the BD.
read what the man says.

(and the guy who made it for Fox, must have moved over to screw up the Universal films)

it is the size of the negative and the print that reduces the grain to nominal. Large format film has no more or less grain per area than does ISO50 of 35mm film. It is just when blown up, there is less grain per square inch in large format.

Same with the Spartacus and LOA.

problem is people been watching the 35 grainy stuff shot with anamorphic (squeeze) lens that is reproduced on to similar film stock for the theater, and then at the theater, the print is unsqueezed onto the screen. Then grainy look of a dirty window, is very hard to avoid. And then there is film flicker from the bars separating each negative that is not nearly so noticeable with the 70mm--mainly because they are not there.... (yeah I am one of those who sees the flicker and has to try to ignore it at the movie house or at home)
And the effect of the lenses between the two formats is different also.


People been watching grainy dirty movies for so long, they are "ingrained" in the brain to think grain is normal and sign of great art.....

this how many people used to feel about black and white film--movie and still shots....gee the best photos have always been black and white. That is great art as some would say. (and adding grain to a film per Mike bey, well that is an even bigger joke)

Unfortunately given the choice of the grain and some digital noise or the very screwed up methods of removal and EE, DNR, et all, such that the movie looks like plastic wax figurines, better the grain than THAT CRUD

the bars with the 24 fps (which limits the film frame speed and increases the delay between shots) is very noticeable to me. the 48fps is not.

that slow frame speed is also what blurs movement from the camera movement or the subject movement