Hugo - Page 6

Hello miilleman. Was it Scorceses decision to have the bass lower han usual?

Regards
/Robert

Perhaps indirectly- His tends to think a lot about music, and the music tends to be less 'bass-y'. But I don't think he directly said to lower the boom track. I must say other than the train crash, there wasn't a lot of bass heavy moments. And the focus of this mix and edit is where it should be- the story which means adding to, and not getting in the way of, the story. And speaking from a technical point of view about mixing, dialog intelligibility is where it counts.

I might ask- What would you say is an 'usual' amount of bass?

If I may take the opportunity to rant, I'm really ready for home video enthusiasts to move beyond the association of prominent bass with a "high quality" mix and/or presentation. There are plenty of movies out there with subject matter that just does not involve lots of bass and, for these movies, there's no reason to have it. A movie without an hyperactive LFO channel may feature less prominently on the "go-to demo disc" chart, but that doesn't mean it's mix is inferior or underproduced. To qualitatively evaluate a film's soundtrack on the prominence of low-frequency information is akin to deflating a picture score on the basis that, to your taste, the movie didn't feature enough of the color red. If you're a bass nut and a red nut and dislike a movie for it's relative lack of either, that's fine. However, that's a reflection of personal taste and should not be conflated with a perception that the production is of inferior quality- a perception that, in the case of bass prominence, I see in reviews (both professional and amateur/casual/internet) all the time.

/rant

Cinema Paradiso wears very large shoes. There aren't many films out there that can fill those shoes.

Couldn't agree more...
I just got done watching The Deer Hunter BD and the dialog is often unintelligible.

Have to admit I've never seen The Deer Hunter.

+1

Well done, couldn't have said it better.

This movie was a delight, and the absolute clarity and balance of the soundtrack was no small part of that. Not having to struggle to understand the dialog -- particularly dialog spoken with accents -- was a welcome change in a contemporary film marketed for its special effects. The sound still took advantage of the capabilities of our HT, particularly its use of surround, but the approach was subtle and detailed, rather than heavy-handed and brutal.

Best-sounding movie I've heard recently.

Having read the book, I knew what to expect from the story. Yet I was still enthralled by the vividness and clarity of the storytelling, which I generally felt was superior to the source material. I didn't miss the few things that were left out; I was very entertained by the things that were added, like the expansion of the Station Inspector's role. And the visualizations of the various elements, from the station itself to Melies' studio, were given the perfect artistic tone, a hyper-realism that served the story admirably.

A great movie, the sort of movie that you get when artistic vision isn't compromised by a need to pander to the audience. It's evident that everyone who worked on it believed in what they were doing, and were doing something they loved.

As for 3D -- I'm one of those people who has difficulty watching 3D. I can't keep from trying to look at everything in the frame, not just the part that's in focus. That's where "3D headaches" come from, and I get them in spades. So I was pleased that, while some of the 3D setups were obvious and undoubtedly looked great, I was still treated to something so beautifully realized in 2D. It looked spectacular.

Wife and I watched this over the weekend. Neither of us were drawn into it...not a bad movie by any means but 2 1/2 hours of my life I will never get back.

Your post must certainly be in part directed toward me, so let me say a few things. I certainly DONT want bass where it does not belong in a movie such as Hugo, period. I was not looking for Cloverfield when I watched Hugo from a low end perspective. What I was looking for was a low end that supported the on screen action and Hugo on blu ray failed here IMHO. When a train comes crashing through a train station, I do expect some low end to penetrate the listening position to bring the scene home and really have impact which Hugo failed to do. There were a number of other scenes that the low end simply did not support the on screen action and it took me out of the scene to some degree because of that.

My complaints were not because there was very little LFE in general, but because the .1 channel did not support the scenes where it would have been appropriate which resulted in a track that did not have quite the impact that it could and should have had IMHO. Does this mean the track is a total disaster or anywhere even close, absolutely not. The track overall was excellent and the surround use (during both action and the more ambient/quiet scenes) and dialog intelligibility in particular were both first rate, but the low end flat out did not support the scenes where it was needed to get full impact from an audio perspective. Is that not a fair opinion/critique? Is that not keeping things in perspective?

It's not an unreasonable position, but it's one that substitutes convention and expectation for the filmmakers' expressive prerogative. Unless I have reason to suspect that a fault occurred somewhere in the production of my disc, I am inclined to believe that the "impact" of the train (to continue your example) is exactly what Scorsese and company want it to be. If you aren't "feeling it" as much as you could be, perhaps you aren't meant to be. Some sound design aims to create a "thrill ride" immersion, some tries to maintain the audience's emotional distance from the story and there are myriad shades in between. Not everything is meant to be on "11".

If you feel you should have been made more involved in that moment, you may disagree with the filmmakers' choices. This, however, doesn't mean that those choices are unintentional or that they were made without the knowledge of what you might consider to be "better" methods or the ability to employ those "better" methods. "Maximum impact" isn't always the best or most appropriate choice for every story or every story element.

IF this is how it was meant to be heard, I feel it was too conservative and that is just MY opinion. Again, I am not looking for Cloverfield, but I am looking for the .1 channel to support the scene and I dont feel that happened here. It doesn't need to go to "11" either, 7 or 8 would have worked as well. If this was artistic, I would love to hear the reasoning behind it which might make me appreciate it better, but until then it just feels lacking in this area from my perspective.

Just a point to support the previous post:

It wasn't a train crash. It was a boy's dream of a train crash. And it had less to do with the vividness of his imagination than with his feelings of loss of control, of uncertainty about the future, of his feelings of paralysis.

Had I been Scorsese I might have thought long and hard about taking all the sound out of that scene. Having it be a sound-effects spectacular would have never crossed my mind.

Great point, but why just pull the low end? As you mention, it would have worked better to pull or water down all the Sound. Just pulling the low end while keeping the rest of the audio spectrum as is to me seemed strange and did not work.

:::shrug::: Worked for me, and very well.

When I stop to make sure my subwoofer didn't die out suddenly due to a lack of low-end, it's a problem. The train barreling through the station has plenty of push into the sub, generated from the engines. Why it would suddenly be chosen to eliminate that doesn't make much sense at all.

Same reason the kid just stood there looking at the oncoming train when he was trying to retrieve the key.

Not a train. Not a key. Not real. A dream.

The transer it self is wonderful. A little bit "orange and teal", or what you call it maybe. Todays trend perhaps?

Hugo was shot with pairs of Arri Alexa digital cameras.

While I kinda agree with what you're saying (even though it might fair to call me a bass nut), I'd like to point out that this door should swing both ways. While low-frequency information should be no more important than everything else, it should be no less important either.

Going by your example, if Hugo is any indication, Scorsese appears to prefer his images with all trace of the colour red removed.


Either you have an answer for everything, or I'm gonna have to petition Christopher Nolan to have all the LFE information from Inception removed from this point onwards.

My money's on the former.

Simple explanation: Dreams don't have bass. Dreams within dreams do.

Should every movie begin with a "terms and conditions" statement in which the rules and rationale for the movie's artistic sensibilities are laid out?

"This movie is set in a hyper-reality in which all sensory data is exaggerated."

"This movie has a 'real-world' setting where realism is the audio/visual benchmark."

"This movie is intended to create a state of ambiguity in which the viewer is never sure when characters are dreaming and when they are not."

"This movie includes a dream sequence that includes unrealistic elements."

[ ] Accept. Enjoy the movie. [ ] Do Not Accept. Please leave the theater.

Quite frankly, with all the lawyers out and about in the industry, I'm surprised they don't already do this, along with signing a waiver you won't sue if you crack a tooth on a popcorn kernel...

***Caution: The Space stuff doesn't happen until after about 30 minutes of dialog-free plot surrounding a bunch of cave men and the ships don't make "whooshing" sounds...***

[ ] I accept the risk or boredom in return for a plot surrounding a bad-a** computer. [ ] My brain gets sleepy when the camera doesn't shake or change angles every 2 seconds, so I'm out of here...

Watched Hugo last night. It's a visually stunning film. The surrounds were very active creating a delightful atmosphere. Little light in the LFE department, but I think I can give it a pass. Scorsese did a remarkable job filming this. But it is slow and long. And honestly, for me, I don't see a lot of repeat viewing potential in it.

Actually there is a 2D option on the 3D BD disc for the UK release-but there is still a thin black border all round the picture, of unused pixels. ( I know this is because it is a single eye view field but it still irritates me for 2D viewing)

I am curious to know, if anyone with the 2D only BD can answer this, is there still this thin black border all round the picture of unused pixels on the 2D disc version too ?

^ ^ ^ ^

Hmmm, don't notice any. Full screen picture in 2D.

Hi have you been able to check or is this from memory ? TIA.

Tausifs,

I just checked again and there is a very slight*, clean black border around the picture's top, sides and bottom. So I put in a Blu-ray copy of Beetlejuice where the aspect ratio is listed as 1.85:1 and it, too, has the same border. I hadn't noticed the border before as I sit back some and the TV's bezel is black.

Doesn't seem to be what you described.

*maybe 3-4mm, tops, at its widest.

UK disc review and screenshots:

http://film.thedigitalfix.com/conten...5285/hugo.html