Most Film-like Transfers? - Page 3

Cinemasoul, just so you don't think everyone is piling on you I'll say I pretty much agree with your philosophy. For me it's not the end of the world if a transfer doesn't come from the original negative or if there are a few specks here and there. I just want BDs to look like a great theatrical print in great projection circumstances on opening day (for film-based productions anyway). That means dupey opticals, grain, etc.

I haven't seen Moonstruck but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one as I'm a big fan of the majority of those MGM discs. Some really suck (City Slickers), lots more are great (Midnight Cowboy, Some Like It Hot, The Horse Soldiers, Vera Cruz, Escape From New York, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, Annie Hall, Manhattan, Big Country, etc etc etc).

Cinemasoul, you don't seem to understand how the film medium works, which makes it frustrating to have a conversation with you on the subject.

When a cameraman loads film into a camera and records an image on it, that produces the Original Camera Negative ("OCN"). This is a pristine source, and the most "film-like" the movie image will ever look. But they don't take that OCN straight out of a camera and project it in a theater. They need to protect and preserve it, so duplicate ("dupe") elements are struck. The first lines of these are the Interpositive and Internegative. From these, further dupe copies are produced. We quickly find ourselves in the position of making copies of copies of copies. In the analog world, every subsuquent dupe generation removes a level of quality. The image gets softer and grainier. Contrast is reduced. Dirt and damaged get introduced and then copied down to later generations. By the time you get to the mass-produced theatrical prints, the image is several generations removed from the original and significantly reduced in quality from the OCN.

For the purposes of home video transfers, you want to make your digital film scan from elements as close to the Original Camera Negative as possible. Ideally, you'd scan the OCN itself. However, because studios are very concerned about putting wear and tear on the OCN, they are more likely to attempt a scan of the Interpositive or Internegative first. Regardless, the absolute last thing you want to do is scan a theatrical print, or produce a video transfer that looks anywhere near as bad as a typical theatrical print.

Yes, technically, a theatrical print is made of film, and thus "film-like." However, there's a difference between good film and bad film. Theatrical prints are bad film. The OCN is good film, and is the standard that we define "film-like" by.

Let's say you have a film-based still camera and you take a picture of something. You take the negative out and have copies printed. If you ever want more copies, you'd bring your negative back to the lab, right? The process of getting to a movie's theatrical print is roughly akin to taking the original photo copy you printed, tacking it to a wall, and taking another picture of that. Then you take that new copy, tack it to a wall, and take another picture. Then repeat the process a few more times. Every new photo you take of a previous photo looks worse than the last. That's how film works.

As far as Moonstruck is concerned, I can't personally comment on whether it's good film-like or bad film-like. Moonstruck is one of my most hated movies, and the only way you'd ever get me to watch it again is at gunpoint. Even then, I'd probably opt to be put out of my misery first. Sorry.

35mm prints can look really good, better than a blu-ray made from a transfer off the negative. Just not the mass produced ones you'd see in wide release. The prints the filmmakers viewed and signed off on, and probably screened at premieres and for critics, were made directly from the negative. Having to make the thousands of mass-produced prints from dupe negatives was an unfortunate necessity, and filmmakers had to make other compromises, such as using cheap print stock, using some sub-optimal high-speed printing process, or foregoing processes like bleach-bypass that were only used on a small handful of prints. It's all the more unfortunate that these prints still tend to be better than the average catalog blu-ray.

Fair enough. But even so, a print like that is still not a suitable source for a Blu-ray transfer.

42041 - Thanks for posting that list... I had no idea about most of those ones being film like on blu ray... can't wait to check them all out.

I see we agree on Taxi Driver and Big Trouble in Little China.

I can't wait to check out The Red Shoes, The Thin Red line, AI, The Evil Dead and Wall Street.

I can't believe that Vigilante is even on blu ray. I rented that on vhs when it first came out lol


btw... I am still open minded about Easy Rider (sony's version) ... I will give that one another fair chance..they have it at the library and I will get and watch it again with more of an open mind. It's not one of my favorite movies, but no matter, I will give it a second viewing.
Edited by cinemasoul - 2/4/13 at 9:14pm

Yes, I have an understanding of that. HOWEVER, this thread is about the most film-like transfers, and the fact still remains that film prints are still FILM. So there is no reason to exclude BDs that look like film prints because that is still film like. This thread isn't about OCN film quality ONLY...a new thread should be started for that specific criteria. This isn't about good or bad looking... its just about most FILM looking.
I agree that it is very frustrating trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't have an understanding of the topic at hand. The topic at hand here is, film looking... not necessarily film negative ONLY looking. I'm not saying that ones that look like OCN, pristine film negatives should be excluded here, but to say that BDs that look like theatrical film prints (which is indeed FILM) should be excluded from being considered film-like in a thread simply named most film-like transfers is beyond unreasonable and without merit. Now if there was a thread with a title like 'Most OCN Film Negative Pristine transfers ONLY' then your comments would have merit.

See, I am not arguing that what you are saying about OCN film negative quality is a bad thing or not good in any way, or saying that you shouldn't feel a certain way about them. I agree that those types of transfers would be the best looking transfers if done properly. I am just saying that for the purpose of this particular thread 'most film-like transfers' that if it looks like film, good bad or otherwise, then it deserves a mention in here.


As far as Moonstruck as a movie itself... I agree with you, its not a very good movie at all...but it DOES look like film on BD with the exception of a few quick moments that have a little bit of digital weirdness going on.


When it comes to being film-like...again...film is film, and film like is film like and that does not exclude theatrical film prints, dupes or even really bad or lousy looking film..... Film is film. Film prints are film too, so when a movie that was shot on film makes its way to BD and it looks and feels like it did in the theaters that projected it on film, then it is very much indeed FILM-LIKE.

What it seems that you are trying to do is exclude BDs that are indeed film-like but not pristine film-like.... Again, this thread is not 'The most PRISTINE film-like transfers' it is SIMPLY 'most film-like transfers'

This is not an 'eye candy ONLY' thread.


It's tough to argue with a fact isn't it?
Edited by cinemasoul - 2/4/13 at 9:08pm

"Last of the Mohicans" (like film sometimes shot in some very dimly lit sets) [as it was originally intentionally photographed].
Not posting it as a "film-like" transfer; just posting how its presented on BD.

=============================

"Film" and/or "film-like" doesn't necessarily mean: "theatrical print".
Nowhere in the OP does the OP say/post "theatrical print".
Nowhere in the OP does the OP say or ask for "dupe-like" transfers.
Get off your high horses & read the OP.

The "film" out of the camera is rarely seen as is.
Processing of the camera negative is nearly as old as film itself.
Shoot, some early films were actually hand painted before projection.
Pretty far from the "original negative", yet still accurate too the director's intended lOOk.

=============================

Thread title again for those keep wanting too give a "film" dissertation as opposed too a BD suggestion:
"Most Film-like Transfers?"

I think it's safe to say that you're the only person in this forum (if not on Earth) who would draw this distinction. The rest of us expect a quality film transfer, not just any crappy film transfer. You say that this isn't the "Most OCN Film Negative Pristine transfers ONLY" thread. I would counter that by saying that it's also not the "Ratty Old Abused Film Print Transfers" thread.

Do you care more about the movie, or about the celluloid it's recorded on? It would seem the latter.

I NEVER said that it should be exclusively dupe theatrical prints like... I NEVER said that the ones that look like OCN film negatives should be excluded... I simply am saying that just because they don't look like pristine OCN film negative eye candy doesn't mean that they should excluded from being considered film like. If it is film like it is film like... whether that be OCN film negative like or theatrical print film like or what have you film like. I NEVER said that your idea of film like doesn't count as film like. The only reason I'm going on about this is because it keeps being said that theatrical film print film like shouldn't be counted as film like as well. ...which is ridiculous because that is film too.

I am not saying that what you are saying about OCN like should be excluded or doesn't fit the topic... but seems like people here are trying to say that film like exclusively means OCN film negative ONLY like...which actually goes against the fact that theatrical film prints are film too.


Don't get it twisted.

Again.. this is not an eye candy ONLY thread.
Edited by cinemasoul - 2/5/13 at 12:57pm

I would say that if you leave out the "Abused," then those are my favorite looking for the average BD. Like every other field, "average" is the largest category, so instead of going on about the best of the best, and holding everything else to that standard, I'd like to see basically what OP wants (although he doesn't seem to know it) - less digital playfulness in the encode.

A ways back I saw a thread on a guilty pleasure of mine. Seems there were two versions available, and the new one seemed to be the favorite. Had to get the new one, not because I thought it would be better, but to see first hand what people here like to go on about. Well, the old one (that I had) looked like your ratty description. The new one had boosted contrast and saturation and looked stupid to me.

If you assume that the new one above took more time and money to produce, then you're left with the question of where that time and money is best spent.

I took a look at Moorstruck last night and while there's consistent but mild EE, which puts it in that odd category of EE but no heavy DNR, I can see why he likes it.

The way I think of your 'ratty" ones is "An old one they didn't care enough about to screw up."

For reference, my favorite BD for PQ is White Christmas.

AMEN!

AMEN!

At the risk of mining a near-pedantic vein, I must register my dissent on this point if you're claiming to speak for all of us. Very few people, even in a forum like this, have ever even seen an OCN of any movie projected. If this is our frame-of-reference, it's one that the audience at large is ignorant of. I agree that it would be silly to pursue lesser-film-like transfers (a la theatrical prints) rather than greater-film-like transfers (a la OCNs), but to fix the target of our gaze in a place we don't (and can't) look would also be silly.

On the plus side, I'd call this point near-moot as the qualities which distinguish an OCN from a theatrical print, for our purposes, are essentially linear qualitative ones and not stylistic or subjective ones. In other words, when we describe a transfer as "film-like", we're talking about qualities which don't typically vary between different generations of film. "Film-like" typically describes things like gamma curves and raster alignment- qualities of a video presentation which would simulate the appearance of any kind of film source.

Watching a projected camera negative would be a remarkably unpleasant experience

Ironically, Blu-ray transfers sourced from the OCN will often produce much lower levels of "film-like" grain than some second or third-generation film element. A transfer sourced from an inferior IP can make 35mm film practically resemble 16mm film.

Does most film-like transfer mean the least likely to look like its been through a digital intermediate scrum down?

Digital intermediates are the best thing to happen to home video since lasers.

Brother, you're talking to someone who isn't up in arms over evolutionary refinement tools that a digital intermediate provides a filmmaker.

Unless I am mistaken, what Josh is saying is the OCN should be the REFERENCE for those charged with cutting new prints and, ultimately, what comes to comes to theaters and home video.

This should definitely be one criteria it should have to meet for sure in order to qualify IMO.
Edited by cinemasoul - 2/7/13 at 12:04am

How come through all of this thread bickering, not many people are giving too many examples of BDs that they think are film like? People seem to have their own specific criteria of what the consider film-like but not too many of them are listing titles they think fit the bill.

Great post!!

It certainly can (and perhaps should) be a production reference, but it can't really be an end-user reference.

True.
In an ideal world, yes, but the process, as it exists today, won't allow it.

How is that ironic?

It's ironic because many assume the simple equation that more visible grain on the Blu-ray's transfer necessarily equals a more film-like transfer. The closer one gets to the OCN, there should be less visible grain from most film stock. Too many reviewers have given passes to a lot of the inferior MGM transfers, simply because they were sourced from secondary film elements and were unprocessed, producing heavy grain on the Blu-rays.

I think heavy grain on IP-sourced scans tends to be due to poor transfer quality. The actual intermediate film stock has extremely fine grain, so it contributes very little to the overall granularity while making the grain on the OCN softer and more diffuse. But then you get some crummy old scan that aliases it and sharpens it into this clumpy mess, and then the video compression makes it even worse.

I never had a problem with the way a film print looked in theaters all my life seeing them projected that way. I like it... if a picture is too clean, and I mean overly clean and too pristine and too sharp, the movie tends to loose most of the texture. I actually like the way they used to use diffusion filters to soften the look of movies some times to give it a different texture or atmosphere or overall look and feel. My worst pet peeve about some BD transfers is when they try to cancel out' and over ride those diffusion filters that were purposely used for creative and artistic reasons in certain films and try and make them overly sharp and the only thing they end up doing is ruining the whole original artistic vision of the movie. It is also a pet peeve of mine when BD review sites complain about such films that actually leave the creatively intentional diffused look of some of those films alone, not being sharp enough or having a soft look. Duh, that was the artistic vision of the director and cinematographer of the film... those 'complaints' should be praises of a proper BD transfer and not complaints that the BD techs didn't 'correct' and reverse the director and cinematographer's artistic vision of the film. They should NEVER take it upon themselves to 'correct' or reverse the director and cinematographer's vision and intentions when transferring a film to BD. This is my opinion.

^
You're going to love Cabaret

I much prefer the MGM 'look' compared to what Universal and Paramount has done to "correct" that.