or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Best Catalog Film Transfers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best Catalog Film Transfers? - Page 4

post #91 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinemasoul View Post

lol it's funny how you take someone saying a fleck or speck here or there is ok, and completely twist it around and say that is equivelant to dragging the film through the dirt and giving it a grindhouse look just to try to make your point seem like it has merit.

One constant about those apologists is they keep changing their stories, it all boils down to we should happily accept whatever slop is slapped onto a disc except maybe if it's 'too grainy'.
post #92 of 106
What is this drivel?confused.gif
Cleaning up dust is now a bad thing?
post #93 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinemasoul View Post

lol it's funny how you take someone saying a fleck or speck here or there is ok, and completely twist it around and say that is equivelant to dragging the film through the dirt and giving it a grindhouse look just to try to make your point seem like it has merit.
It's called reductio ad absurdum. If dust is okay, why not leave the big scratches? Why not leave in splices and tears in the negative? Why remove whatever stains or fungus is on the film? After all, imperfection is great, apparently...
I don't think a bit of dust is a criminal offense. It happens. But let's not pretend that not removing it is anything other than cutting corners. Don't encourage it.
post #94 of 106
I'd say any unintended film artifacts that can reasonably be expected on a new top print are ok. It's also ok to fix them as long as it does not add new artifacts.
post #95 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

It's called reductio ad absurdum. If dust is okay, why not leave the big scratches? Why not leave in splices and tears in the negative? Why remove whatever stains or fungus is on the film? After all, imperfection is great, apparently...
I don't think a bit of dust is a criminal offense. It happens. But let's not pretend that not removing it is anything other than cutting corners. Don't encourage it.

It depends on how they are 'removing it' If they can remove it physically from the film itself then yes that is good, BUT if they are 'removing it' digitally then they are not really 'removing it' at all but instead are just covering it up or replacing it with something 'digital' in its place. And if we are using your "reductio ad absurdum" theory then if they are going to cover up and replace those things with something 'digital' then why not just recreate the entire movie by covering up and replacing every single pixel with synthetic digital 'best guesses'? LOL Ya know, like they basically did with Predator The Ultimate Barbie Edition.
post #96 of 106
SLEEPER (Woody Allen) one of the best Catalog film transfers ever!!
post #97 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinemasoul View Post

...BUT if they are 'removing it' digitally then they are not really 'removing it' at all but instead are just covering it up or replacing it with something 'digital' in its place.
You would practically never notice dust that's been painted out. With movies you can just take a few pixels from an adjacent frame.
The only real problem occurs when they use an automated algorithm to detect dust. Then it confuses fast-moving objects for crap on the film, and bad things happen like the original Gladiator's missing arrows. But that's amateur hour stuff. Good transfers use infrared detection or manual cleanup.
post #98 of 106
Personally, I think if they can't physically remove a dust particle then they should not 'photoshop' it out. If they want it dust free then they should clean the actual physical film better. Instead of bothering with a really good cleaning of the film, they decide to be cheap about it and just digitally tweek it the way they feel it 'should' look. They should get the best physical film to be as clean as they can get it and then just transfer the movie as it is. Digitally painting over it or cloning pixels is not cleaning it, it's just making a brand new 'best guess' interpretation of it. The piece of dust is actually more authentic to the film than the cloned pixel or digitally painted over pixels because the dust is a natural occurrence (it is just the nature of film) and there is nothing at all natural about the cloned or digitally manipulated pixel replacements. That is my personal opinion on the matter.


I am not saying that I don't enjoy some BDs that may have a bit of the digital dust removal, I may not even notice it much, BUT I would just prefer that they did it the real way instead of the fake unnatural synthetic way. I would rather see a little dust here or there than have them 'digitally best guess' it out. If they can get the physical film clean enough to be dust free then that would be the best way of going about it. Again...this is just my opinion on the matter.
Edited by cinemasoul - 2/2/13 at 9:04pm
post #99 of 106
I would have to choose from the Blu Rays I've seen (my collection) and that's not a whole lot. Maybe 60 or 70 catalog titles.

I've been really impressed with most of the ones I've seen so far. There are a couple that have problems but most look great

Of course it could be that some films could look better simply because of the way they were filmed in the first place.

Don't think I can really pick out any that looked so much better than most of the others.

Glad that Bridge On The River Kwai looks good I just bought that and haven't watched it yet. Shouldn't it be Bridge Over The River Kwai? If it was ON the river wouldn't it just float away?
post #100 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinemasoul View Post

Personally, I think if they can't physically remove a dust particle then they should not 'photoshop' it out. If they want it dust free then they should clean the actual physical film better. Instead of bothering with a really good cleaning of the film, they decide to be cheap about it and just digitally tweek it the way they feel it 'should' look. They should get the best physical film to be as clean as they can get it and then just transfer the movie as it is. Digitally painting over it or cloning pixels is not cleaning it, it's just making a brand new 'best guess' interpretation of it. The piece of dust is actually more authentic to the film than the cloned pixel or digitally painted over pixels because the dust is a natural occurrence (it is just the nature of film) and there is nothing at all natural about the cloned or digitally manipulated pixel replacements. That is my personal opinion on the matter.
Of course one should clean the film first mechanically before scanning. Afer that dust, speckles etc. can be removed digitally in a way that no artifacts whatsoever can be seen in real time. And usually neither when stepping through the film frame by frame. Objecting to this makes little sense. And it's the only way we are seeing most new films anyway since dust busting is part of the DI process.
post #101 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

You would practically never notice dust that's been painted out. With movies you can just take a few pixels from an adjacent frame.
The only real problem occurs when they use an automated algorithm to detect dust. Then it confuses fast-moving objects for crap on the film, and bad things happen like the original Gladiator's missing arrows. But that's amateur hour stuff. Good transfers use infrared detection or manual cleanup.
Realistically speaking, I think it depends on the state of the source material and money. If the scans aren't of the original negative then IR isn't going to help you much, and manual cleanup is extremely time-consuming. If you have 100+ specks of dirt on each frame it may well be a more reasonable approach to use a more aggressive automated pass and paint back the odd artifact instead. Of course there's always the risk of missing something like on Gladiator.
post #102 of 106
Thread Starter 

How the West Was Won

("Flat" "Super Scope" 2.89 AR Cinerama Restoration)

 

I picked this up recently in a combo pack of westerns from WB (with The Searchers and Wild Bunch), which included only the "flat" widescreen restoration of this film, as opposed to the "SmileBox" edition.

 

The transfer is astonishingly good, both in terms of picture and sound quality. Color and contrast are both excellent and very natural in apppearance. And the 2.89 ratio image is so finely detailed that it may be hard to fully appreciate on some smaller HD screens (esp. 720p TVs). It should look glorious though on larger and 2.35 CIH screens. The detail is so fine in some scenes that the compressed 2k video encode can't completely render it all without some artifacting. (IOW, this might be a good candidate for a 4k release.)

 

The film is also beautifully scored (and faithfully reproduced in this release) by Alfred Newman.

 

The perspective is pretty extreme in most scenes in this film. As a consequence, conventional closeups are virtually non-existent (because the faces would appear too distorted). Some of the action sequences and opticals were photographed with only one camera though, which is why the picture quality and level of detail drops somewhat in those scenes, and the perspective looks less exaggerated.

 

Cinerama was a 3-camera widescreen high resolution film process. Each camera recorded 1/3 of the scene on 35mm film, and they were arrayed in an arc to capture a wider field of view (up to 146 degres). To reconstruct the scene, the three images were projected side-by-side on one large immersive wrap-around screen.

 

 

To create the single 2.89 ratio widescreen image for this release, the three views were digitally "knitted" together using advanced computer graphics. The seams are pretty hard to see in most scenes. They become a little more noticeable during some dissolves though when the seams "morph" into a new shape (which is sort of fascinating to watch in itself).

 

Another interesting side-effect of the flattening process is that people on different sides of the screen sometimes appear to be looking in front of, rather than at each other, or facing in different directions when looking at the same POV.

 

For average viewers, this film may seem like just an interesting novelty. But for fans of cinema history and esp. high-resolution film formats, I suspect this will be a must-own for their collections. Ardent Cinerama fans will undoubtedly prefer the 2-disc standalone version though, with the add'l extras and SmileBox version. However, the single-disc version of HTWWW in the western combo pack does include commentary by the filmmakers and a documentary on Cinerama. And you can get a feel for how the SmileBox process looks from some excerpts in the latter.


Edited by ADU - 4/30/13 at 5:16pm
post #103 of 106
Picked up How Green was My Valley. To my untrained eye it was stunning.... but then my eyes were pretty teary.
post #104 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpillar View Post

Picked up How Green was My Valley. To my untrained eye it was stunning.... but then my eyes were pretty teary.

 

Hopefully in a good way. smile.gif Screenshots on blu-ray.com look pretty good. Thx for the suggestion, jpillar.

post #105 of 106
Thread Starter 

Breakfast at Tiffany's

(2011 - 50th Anniversary Edition)

 

Very nice HD transfer on this. Holly Golightly (aka Audrey Hepburn) never looked so good.

 

Facial tones sometimes look a bit too orange-hued for my personal taste (which may seem more pronounced on poorly-calibrated displays). And there's a slight impression of horizontal edginess. But aside from those minor issues, the color, contrast and detail are generally all "dialed-in" quite well on this transfer.

 

Overall, the color has a rather nice vintage feel to it. But there's some great "pop" to it in several scenes as well. The color in Patricia Neal's attire is often quite striking, for example. Many scenes in this were also intentionally shot with a "soft focus", which deliberately gives the picture a more diffused look.

 

I don't know how this transfer was done, but it looks like it probably came from a well-timed positive print, as opposed to negatives (where the fidelity of colors often seem to get lost in translation). Sound quality is also excellent on this.

 

Highly recommended (especially for the Audrey fans).

post #106 of 106
In going thru this thread looking for nuggets I've noticed many of these movies looked great on DVD too, no surprise I suppose, garbage in garbage out but, there were a couple I was surprised at, such as The Guns Of Navarone, I had the LD, the picture quality was awful but the movie (story, performances etc) was not that that great either, so no real loss. I will check out Hustle & Flow!!!
FWIW, Trevor.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Best Catalog Film Transfers?