King Kong (1933) comparison *PIX* - Page 2

I knew DNR was invented for a reason. This is that reason.

Totally disagree. To me, this is the perfect argument AGAINST digital noise reduction. Love the grain; it's like watching a beautiful film print. This goes on my own personal list (probably very different from the various "eye candy" lists on this forum) of the best film experiences available on blu-ray... right up there with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND and Criterion's release of THE THIRD MAN. Love it!

Go ahead and use your display's built-in noise reduction capabilities if you don't like the grain... but please, studios, keep giving me catalog titles like this!

I think his point is like with Lowry studios is there any reason to preserve film grain two generations away from the OCN. This is mainly a British dup negative that beyond the shadow of a doubt would have had more film grain than the OCN. The resolution is so poor in these shots anway being the 1st 25 minutes that the difference between the dvd and bluray is almost imperceptable. Filtering some of this out to keep a consistent grain level would IMO have been a good idea. For the oddest reason when the opticals start the grain disappears and the picture gets sharper LOL! I am still trying to figure that out. In reality the first 25 minutes should easily be the cleanest and shoe the highest detail as no opticals were involved.

Can anyone comment on how the grain on the BD looks while viewing in motion?

Scott

It is pretty extreme for the first 25 minutes until they reach Kong Island then to me it is fine.

What's missing from Xylon's captures is all the print damage the SD DVD shows (in motion).

BIG thanks!
(as always, Xylon)
My fave film of all time.
Waiting for comments from the man himself...

Close-up of Fay Wray:
What a F@CKING beautiful face!!!
(hope that's not too disrespectful of an actor who's passed on)

Holy pea soup, Batman!

This appears to rival Clash of the Titans (1981) at times.

Well, since you asked, IMO such vulgar language is disrespectful regarding any living or dead person.

Edit: except, perhaps, for monsters such as Hitler, Mussolini, etc.

Doug

That actually is a good point. Alot of the print damage has been removed. I rented the dvd to compare after I purchased the bluray synched the audio and switched back and forth. Minor improvement in PQ and alot of the print damage is gone. This along with Clash of the Titans would be great films for Lowry. There is a real art to keeping grain levels consistent throughout the film. The Bond title sequences are great examples as they are noticably softer and grainier on the OCN. Lowry degrained them to match the rest of the film and resharpened them. I know DNR and EE are dangerous terms, but in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing the results can be stunning.

I would have been open to Lowry giving this a shot as well.

Lowry's method depends on having quality elements in the first place and it's not clear those exist for Kong. According to Robert Harris the current version comes from fourth- to sixth-generation sources, although he believes the negative may still be around somewhere.

My understanding is most of the film came from the dup negative, 3rd gen source. OCN to IP to IN to theatrical print.

The BD is clearly better than the DVD.

... still waiting...
for "the man himself"!

It's been over five wks!

RAH's responses to Jeffrey Wells are right on point as always.

FWIW I have a 92in FP setup and the Blu-ray is a clear upgrade to the DVD, which was quite good for the format.

I like transparency in audio and home video. If the recording/film has tape hiss/film grain, I'd rather hear/see that with all the accompanying high freq info that would normally get knocked back by No-Noising/degraining.

I am so loving the Blu-ray of King Kong (1933). The modest but visible PQ improvements and image clean-up are worth it! See my comments in the Blu-ray bargains forum on where to get it cheap!