or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Westworld
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Westworld - Page 2

post #31 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

Then from which generation print would the DVD master have been struck from for it retain the highlights whereas the new Warner one now does not?
Probably an IP, which is also a low-contrast element. Home video transfers of older films often have detail in the extremes of exposure that is rolled off theatrically, since the video technicians have more to work with. Personally I don't feel that's a good thing, as it often makes movies look very flat vs. their theatrical look. How much detail should or shouldn't be there in this case is not for me to speculate. Ultimately, "digital tweaks" of a certain sort are kind of a necessity to replicate the theatrical appearance of a film from a negative or IP, since how the look of neg/ip maps to the look of the print is a complex, non-linear bit of photochemistry. These days I believe it's achieved by actually profiling the characteristics of the print film and creating a filter that emulates that response (a necessity with DIs printed to film) whereas in the DVD days that technology wasn't there.
There are many parts of this transfer that look pretty much spot-on to what the movies from the time tended to look like theatrically. Elsewhere, I'm more suspicious, but I don't think modernization was the intent.
Edited by 42041 - 3/21/13 at 4:09pm
post #32 of 79
Someone who knows and understands what film is, what transfers are, has weighed in on Westworld. I have been defending this transfer since day one against the onslaught of nonsense about screen caps of French and Warners versions - this transfer perfectly replicates what Westworld should look like, given its production year, numerous opticals, and film stock. Now Mr. Harris has had his say - and he agrees. Read. Learn.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/322245-a-few-words-about™-westworld-in-blu-ray/
post #33 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

There are many parts of this transfer that look pretty much spot-on to what the movies from the time tended to look like theatrically. Elsewhere, I'm more suspicious, but I don't think modernization was the intent.

Despite interviews that talk about 'fixinig' old film for 'modern viewers'? Of which Lowry is just one.
post #34 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Despite interviews that talk about 'fixinig' old film for 'modern viewers'? Of which Lowry is just one.
There are "interviews" on this title that state: 'fixinig' old film for 'modern viewers'?
Where can one find comments on the mastering of this release??
post #35 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

There are "interviews" on this title that state: 'fixinig' old film for 'modern viewers'?
Where can one find comments on the mastering of this release??

He's talking generally, not specific to this title.
post #36 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Probably an IP, which is also a low-contrast element. Home video transfers of older films often have detail in the extremes of exposure that is rolled off theatrically, since the video technicians have more to work with. Personally I don't feel that's a good thing, as it often makes movies look very flat vs. their theatrical look. How much detail should or shouldn't be there in this case is not for me to speculate. Ultimately, "digital tweaks" of a certain sort are kind of a necessity to replicate the theatrical appearance of a film from a negative or IP, since how the look of neg/ip maps to the look of the print is a complex, non-linear bit of photochemistry. These days I believe it's achieved by actually profiling the characteristics of the print film and creating a filter that emulates that response (a necessity with DIs printed to film) whereas in the DVD days that technology wasn't there.
There are many parts of this transfer that look pretty much spot-on to what the movies from the time tended to look like theatrically. Elsewhere, I'm more suspicious, but I don't think modernization was the intent.

4204, I appreciate your comments because they are never dogmatic or tritely dismissive with sound information and reasonable explanations.

I think that you might to a degree be overstating how much reduction in dynamic range in contrast may occur with a release print. This is an issue you have brought up before and some cases it may indeed be accurate whereas others it maybe incorrect. With Westworld you may indeed be correct.

Although these shots make me wonder but your explanation seems reasonable to explain the result.
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cap1=20354&cap2=20107&art=full&image=0&cID=1593&action=1&lossless=#vergleich
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cap1=20360&cap2=20113&art=full&image=6&cID=1593&action=1&lossless=#vergleich
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews56/westworld_blu-ray_/large/large_westworld_blu-ray_11.jpg
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film4/blu-ray_reviews_58/westworld_blu-ray_/large/large_westworld_blu-ray_11.jpg

It does raise questions on whether theatrical prints are the most accurate representation of the intended look of a film or simply the concession for release medium of the time.

However there are releases that have been erroneously skewed to more poppy contrast adjustments than was originally intended.

Best Regards
KvE
post #37 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

This is an issue you have brought up before and some cases it may indeed be accurate whereas others it maybe incorrect. With Westworld you may indeed be correct.
Unfortunately, it's rarely possible to know with certainty, past whatever intuition I have for how films of a certain time tend to look... but it's something to consider when discussing these things. Analog prints are often quite contrasty. There are certainly transfers with blown out highlights that I know for a fact look nothing like the prints (say, The Professional), but I've seen many, many transfers that have contrast that's way too low in comparison (from my experience this tends to manifest itself more often as overly brightened shadows, but I've certainly seen transfers with more highlight detail than the prints).

If you look at that shot in the garden, it looks like a tricky high-contrast photographic situation with bright mid-day sunlight and strong shadows. It's quite possible that the DP/color timer's intent was to bring up stuff in the shade and let the highlights fall where they may, and the print didn't have the latitude to hold detail there, and the new transfer reflects that. Likewise, it's possible the telecine colorist doing the video transfer still had something to work with there, and decided that preserving the highlights was more important, and made the shot darker. Also possible that neither is correct, of course.
post #38 of 79
The capaholic images confirm what I said earlier. Contrast boosting eliminated detail in all examples . Additionally, one can see that textures, even in the darker scenes like those in the bar, is lost in the US version compared to the French. Look at the detail on clothing or the glass behind the bar, for example, it's no contest. Now as far as the color who is to know what's right but the French looks more natural to me.

Art
post #39 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

The capaholic images confirm what I said earlier. Contrast boosting eliminated detail in all examples . Additionally, one can see that textures, even in the darker scenes like those in the bar, is lost in the US version compared to the French. Look at the detail on clothing or the glass behind the bar, for example, it's no contest. Now as far as the color who is to know what's right but the French looks more natural to me.

Art

+ 1.

I have the French version but it's a bit of a hassle to watch in terms of switching regions on my Blu-Ray player. Plus I seem to have a pretty bad lip-sync issue with the French Blu-Ray in my set up. So I had hopes for the US version. I'm less enthusiastic now.
post #40 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

+ 1.

I have the French version but it's a bit of a hassle to watch in terms of switching regions on my Blu-Ray player. Plus I seem to have a pretty bad lip-sync issue with the French Blu-Ray in my set up. So I had hopes for the US version. I'm less enthusiastic now.

You're less enthusiastic now based on WHAT? Caps? Unbelievable.

I and many others feel the exact opposite of Art, who presents opinions as if they were factual. The Warners Blu of Westworld is great and looks just as it should when you are actually watching the Blu-ray in MOTION, as it is a MOTION picture. The French is stretched up and down (no question about it), faded (no question about it - same old master as the old DVD), and sharpened (no question about it) - if that's what you people really prefer the studios should just give up and release all their old DVD masters on Blu-ray rather than trying to do the right thing. It's truly nauseating reading this stuff sometimes, and it surely must be nauseating for Warners to have done the right thing and then get this kind of reaction for it, based on caps or, even worse, based on watching the Warners and comparing it to the caps of the French - how ridiculous can you get? Or, in your case, watching the French and comparing it to the caps of the Warners - I'll just say it once again: CAPS ARE A FOOL'S GAME. Then End.
post #41 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

You're less enthusiastic now based on WHAT? Caps?

Yes.

IF they represent the general differences between those two Blu-Ray versions of WestWorld. And often even if screen caps aren't strictly accurate per se, you can get the sense of the general DIFFERENCE between two different releases. After all, your description of the French version as stretched, more faded and sharpened seems to be reproduced in the screen caps, no?

Sometimes caps have been pretty good predictors of what I end up seeing at home, sometimes not. I haven't decided only based on the caps - I'll likely pick up the US Blu-Ray to decide myself. I'm only saying my expectations have been lowered by the comparison. I'd be happy if it turns out not to be the case.

And btw you are egregiously misrepresenting Art's comments. He has not presented his opinions as factual. He's seen the US Blu-Ray and reports that the screen caps look like the Blu-Ray he saw. Further, his description of what one sees in the screen caps from each Blu-Ray is bang on (details do go missing on the US version, for instance). And he has simply stated his PREFERENCE for the look of the French version as it appears from the screen caps. He's qualified all his statements.
Edited by R Harkness - 3/26/13 at 3:20pm
post #42 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Yes.

IF they represent the general differences between those two Blu-Ray versions of WestWorld. And often even if screen caps aren't strictly accurate per se, you can get the sense of the general DIFFERENCE between two different releases. After all, your description of the French version as stretched, more faded and sharpened seems to be reproduced in the screen caps, no?

Sometimes caps have been pretty good predictors of what I end up seeing at home, sometimes not. I haven't decided only based on the caps - I'll likely pick up the US Blu-Ray to decide myself. I'm only saying my expectations have been lowered by the comparison. I'd be happy if it turns out not to be the case.

And btw you are egregiously misrepresenting Art's comments. He has not presented his opinions as factual. He's seen the US Blu-Ray and reports that the screen caps look like the Blu-Ray he saw. Further, his description of what one sees in the screen caps from each Blu-Ray is bang on (details do go missing on the US version, for instance). And he has simply stated his PREFERENCE for the look of the French version as it appears from the screen caps. He's qualified all his statements.

But here's the thing: No detail is missing. That's why this cap crap has to stop. The eye is being fooled - you have an artificially sharpened French disc against a correct US edition, which, BTW, in MOTION has plenty of detail in every shot, save for the many opticals, which never had detail. Most who've seen both discs have come out and said the Warners looks great.
post #43 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeCD View Post

But the disc does spin in pause unlike an LP displaying a single frame over and over.

But that's not how a still image is displayed. What is happening is the last good 'i' frame is in a frame buffer and is just being clocked out over and over. The spinning disk is not even part of the still process once the last 'i' frame is grabbed.
post #44 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

But here's the thing: No detail is missing. That's why this cap crap has to stop. The eye is being fooled - you have an artificially sharpened French disc against a correct US edition, which, BTW, in MOTION has plenty of detail in every shot, save for the many opticals, which never had detail. Most who've seen both discs have come out and said the Warners looks great.

So that is the thing ? So are you saying that the caps on Capsaholics are inaccurate in that they aren't representative of the respective BDs ?

Art
post #45 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steen DK View Post

Incidentally, here's a bit of a lecture for those of you who thinks it is possible to do a screen capture from a blu-ray disc:

The reason it can't be done is much the same that you can't pause an LP record and get a sound. When the record is paused, the pick-up is not moving across the surface and therefore you get nothing but silence. In much the same way, when you pause a BD, there is no image. The image that you DO see on your TV or projector screen is actually a kind of afterglow stored in the TV and has no real resemblance to the moving image that is stored on the disc.

Here ends the lesson. smile.gif
You obviously don't know the diff between a stylus on a phonograph player & a laser on a video disc player [incidentally, here's a bit of a lecture for those of you that don't: "they aren't the same!"].
A laser is still able too read info when paused in the groove [pit] however will turn off after a while & the image will be savED in RAM.
While a stylus detects no info at all when not in motion [forward or backward] in the groove [and maybe I have too state this as well/won't save info on RAM].
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Wow. That's probably the most bizarre, technically uninformed thing I've ever read on this forum.
True that!
post #46 of 79
I think that might be sarcasm...
post #47 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

So that is the thing ? So are you saying that the caps on Capsaholics are inaccurate in that they aren't representative of the respective BDs ?

Art

I'm saying I can grab a still frame from any film in the history of film and put it next to another still frame of the same film but different transfer and your eye will pick out the one that's more pleasing to your eye as a still frame. It will not necessarily pick out the best transfer or the correct color or discern whether the "better" sharpness you're seeing on the French cap is a result of sharpening, which it is. It doesn't matter which color you prefer - that is taste - it only matters which color is correct, and that is the Warners Blu-ray. Remember, many people on many forums made the incorrect assumption that the Warners Blu was stretched based on those two caps - that's what their eye told them, but it was the other way around. Why can no one understand the simplicity that caps do no one any good, no matter how poorly or how well they're done. Get the disc and watch. Were you unhappy with your Warners Blu until you saw the caps? Or had you seen them and so had already made up your mind. There are many cap comparisons on the Beaver where DVDs actually look sharper than Blu-rays. And that's because of the way he does his stuff, and because it's easy to fool the eye in still frames.
post #48 of 79
It the screen caps are accurate (and I have no reason to believe that they aren't) then there really is no better way to accurately evaluate detail differences.One doesn't need mutiple frames in motion for that. Obviously for evaluating temporal artifacting (which there has been no mention of in my posts) this is another topic. The mouse over option is better than anything one could reproduce while watching the title when looking for detail differences.The amount of lost image in the highlights is not even debatable in my mind, with the US version, which appears to be from simple contrast boosting, and textures are superior in the French version even in the midrange and shadows.

It is true that I was pleased with the US version until I saw the examples of the superiority of the French version , nothing strange or unusual about that. It is true that I can't know what colors should have looked like; I'd have to defer to someone who has the film to compare but, as I said, when one compares the caps it is just more pleasing less forced looking in the French version IMO.

Art
post #49 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

It the screen caps are accurate (and I have no reason to believe that they aren't) then there really is no better way to accurately evaluate detail differences.One doesn't need mutiple frames in motion for that.

Not that I really want to jump into this fray, but screenshot lovers always seem to forget that the grain pattern in a shot changes with every single frame. From one frame to the next, detail is revealed where there was grain previously, and other detail is obscured. Watched in motion, we see all of the detail through persistence of vision. A screen cap, however, is just one frame from one moment in time. The image will look more detailed in motion, because there's more detail to be seen in the shot than is contained in just one frame.
post #50 of 79
The French, with it's EE and PAL speed-up, can sod off.
post #51 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Not that I really want to jump into this fray, but screenshot lovers always seem to forget that the grain pattern in a shot changes with every single frame. From one frame to the next, detail is revealed where there was grain previously, and other detail is obscured. Watched in motion, we see all of the detail through persistence of vision. A screen cap, however, is just one frame from one moment in time. The image will look more detailed in motion, because there's more detail to be seen in the shot than is contained in just one frame.

Grain doesn't obscure detail. Grain is detail. But yes, when viewing at 24fps there is more apparent detail due to the rapidly changing grain patterns.

But, that has nothing to do with comparing screenshots from two different transfers.


At any rate, I'm not sure I really care which one is "better" as the WB version looks like what I think it should look like. A great 35mm print of an anamorphic 70's film.
post #52 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Sonneborn View Post

It the screen caps are accurate (and I have no reason to believe that they aren't) then there really is no better way to accurately evaluate detail differences.One doesn't need mutiple frames in motion for that. Obviously for evaluating temporal artifacting (which there has been no mention of in my posts) this is another topic. The mouse over option is better than anything one could reproduce while watching the title when looking for detail differences.The amount of lost image in the highlights is not even debatable in my mind, with the US version, which appears to be from simple contrast boosting, and textures are superior in the French version even in the midrange and shadows.

It is true that I was pleased with the US version until I saw the examples of the superiority of the French version , nothing strange or unusual about that. It is true that I can't know what colors should have looked like; I'd have to defer to someone who has the film to compare but, as I said, when one compares the caps it is just more pleasing less forced looking in the French version IMO.

Art

The "detail" is deceptive and I now believe you are rather willfully not understanding that the French disc is SHARPENED and therefore gives the appearance of detail that is not real. No one's going to change what you think, however, because you want to believe what you want to believe. You enjoyed the Warners Blu-ray until you saw some screen caps of a faded, sharpened French disc - I think we've all said what we have to say and anyone who knows and loves Westworld would not even look at the French disc because it is wrong.
post #53 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by haineshisway View Post

The "detail" is deceptive and I now believe you are rather willfully not understanding that the French disc is SHARPENED and therefore gives the appearance of detail that is not real. No one's going to change what you think, however, because you want to believe what you want to believe. You enjoyed the Warners Blu-ray until you saw some screen caps of a faded, sharpened French disc - I think we've all said what we have to say and anyone who knows and loves Westworld would not even look at the French disc because it is wrong.

First answer my question: Do you believe that the caps are not true to the respective BDs ? If they are accurate, I'm really flabbergasted that you feel that the lost highlights is just OK or better than having them. The daylight caps in the US just look like crap in comparison.Of course, as I've now said several times, if the caps are accurate I can't help but see the differences.

I did enjoy the US BD but I see what has been expunged by excessive contrast by comparison not to mention by what appears to be filtering as well. To say though that still images can't be used or " this caps thing has to go" is absurd (unless of course you can show that the caps are not accurate).

I believe it is you who just can't accept a difference in opinion and are projecting .

Art
Edited by Art Sonneborn - 3/28/13 at 8:56am
post #54 of 79
The point is you have been attacking Art for stating his preference for one set of screen caps over another. You say it's ridiculous to infer image quality differences based on screen caps. And yet at the same time you seem to acknowledge that the screen caps DO represent the differences between the two transfers. Do the screen caps not show there is a significant difference in color, contrast, "sharpening" etc in the French vs US transfers? If so, the screen caps certainly are useful for understanding the types of differences one will find between the two transfers. Which is pretty much what Art is saying.
post #55 of 79
Say what you will about the colors, but there is no "filtering" on the WB disc. It is not a "dated master" as other people have suggested. There is a liberal amount of opticals and dupes, but it is a quality scan and an unmolested rendition of the look of 70s anamorphic Panavision.
post #56 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

Say what you will about the colors, but there is no "filtering" on the WB disc. It is not a "dated master" as other people have suggested. There is a liberal amount of opticals and dupes, but it is a quality scan and an unmolested rendition of the look of 70s anamorphic Panavision.

What about the highlite detail visible in the daylight street scenes in the French version but obliterated in the US version ?

Marc
post #57 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarqueeMarc View Post

What about the highlite detail visible in the daylight street scenes in the French version but obliterated in the US version ?

Marc
That would fall under "say what you will about the colors".
Unless you can somehow demonstrate to me that that French disc is closer to the correct look of the film than the US transfer, that's a discussion I'm tired of having. I don't care about what has more detail in the highlights. I care about which transfer is correct. In the absence of that knowledge, I'll go with what looks more like films of a certain era tend to look, which in this case is the US disc. The only real problem I have with it is that the skin tones sometimes have an overly orange hue that looks off to me, but there's nothing wrong with the detail or texture on this disc.
Edited by 42041 - 3/28/13 at 10:30am
post #58 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42041 View Post

That would fall under "say what you will about the colors".
Unless you can somehow demonstrate to me that that French disc is closer to the correct look of the film than the US transfer, that's a discussion I'm tired of having. I don't care about what has more detail in the highlights. I care about which transfer is correct. In the absence of that knowledge, I'll go with what looks more like films of a certain era tend to look, which in this case is the US disc. The only real problem I have with it is that the skin tones sometimes have an overly orange hue that looks off to me, but there's nothing wrong with the detail or texture on this disc.

Not talking about color,as Art said, who knows what's right unless you actually have access to the film. I'm speaking of the lost detail at both ends of the scale from several steps on gray scale being simply missing from the daylight scenes. Just look at the clapboards on the buildings .

Marc
post #59 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarqueeMarc View Post

Not talking about color,as Art said, who knows what's right unless you actually have access to the film. I'm speaking of the lost detail at both ends of the scale from several steps on gray scale being simply missing from the daylight scenes. Just look at the clapboards on the buildings .

Just because that information exists on the camera negative doesn't necessarily mean that it was intended to be seen. The OCN will have significantly lower contrast than properly timed release prints. It's always better to record excess information during capture that you can choose to discard later, than to need information later that you didn't record at the time.
post #60 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarqueeMarc View Post

Not talking about color,as Art said, who knows what's right unless you actually have access to the film. I'm speaking of the lost detail at both ends of the scale from several steps on gray scale being simply missing from the daylight scenes. Just look at the clapboards on the buildings .

Marc
I meant "color" inclusive of the contrast/tonality. Like I said before, just because something was captured on film doesn't mean it made it to the theater screen, and I have no real way of knowing what did and what didn't, since what I'm seeing is not very far removed from what you might see on an analog print. I've seen plenty of movies from the 60s and early 70s that look like that, with hot highlights and deep shadows. The only screencap comparison where anything is really missing is the one in the Roman garden, but for some reason no one seems to take issue with how dark that scene is on the French disc.
Edited by 42041 - 3/28/13 at 11:51am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Westworld