The Holiday- Sony, what the hell is wrong?

[Brad Ley]

So I gave The Holiday a pretty good once over tonight and, like Talladega Nights, Click, and a few others like it, Sony has completely f#ck'd this release. Contrast is completely crushed. Whites have a grayish/tan look to them, colors are somewhat dulled, and the whole thing just lifelessly hangs there like your display is on its last leg. I've seen people vehemently defend the awful picture quality of Click and Talladega Nights as "how the film was shot," but what could possibly be the explanation for why only Sony films seem to be so poorly shot. And to add to the mystery, go grab the Stranger Than Fiction disc and you see the The Holiday trailer that is included with that disc shows a bright, vibrant picture that is not at all representative of what you ultimately end up with if you buy The Holiday. Same for Click and Talladega Nights. Just take a look at the Click and Talladega trailers (both on TN) to see how each of those film could have (and should have) looked. Honestly, the look of The Holiday is akin to watching it with a projector bulb getting ready to die.

Ultimately, I have to wonder what in Sony's production chain is causing this. But it's not a problem with all their titles. Casino Royale and Rocky Balboa both look splendid without any hint of this overly dark, crushed contrast look. I'd be very curious to know if all these transfers were done at the same post facility by the same techs or if there is a difference to where the work is being done that could be causing this discrepancy.

[WriteSimply]

Have not seen this BD. I saw it theatrically however.

Often trailers are tweaked without any instructions from the director. So it may look better but the final results doesn't look anywhere near what the director "intended".


fuad

[Deciazulado]

Yes there's the case that trailers are often transfered in a way that we would call "flat", w/o artistic color correction, and optimized for that punchy video-look displays can give, after all they're made to grab your attention, while the movie transfer is color corrected to look like the 35mm film version. And the opposite can happen too: Most people prefer John Badham's Dracula in it's theatrical/4:3 video lush technicolory Disco era look, while the widescreen laserdisc and DVDs have a director approved Universal horror black and whitish look. (Which for me, made me view the film in a different light)

So fuad, get cracking and compare your theatrical memory to the BD!

[Chad Varnadore]

The fact that it's not consistent with all Sony titles, I believe is your answer. We've seen the same thing from Fox and others too, all from films that have been manipulated in post production, which such is often done after the trailer has been put together. The Sentinel is another film that has the same flat look. I'm not especially partial to it either. Took me about half the movie to adjust to the look of The Holiday. But, adjust I did and ended up enjoying the show. Everything else about the video was terrific.

[Banjo]

Myself, I think Fox has went a tad too far on the contrast on many of their titles and black levels has been an issue for some time on their titles. I've had to tweak my HDTV several times to get a better black level on some of their movies.

Sony on the other hand, I thought they did a good job with 'The Holiday'. It was never meant to be a great-looking flick, but it was somewhere enjoyable. Very sharp picture quality, I would say, good black level. Though there were a couple scenes where it seemed a little grayish instead of white.

Talladega Nights and Click, yes they were poorly handled. No doubt about that. But overall, Sony has done a good job with a lot of their titles.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

So fuad, get cracking and compare your theatrical memory to the BD!

I still need me some sponsors. *hint*hint*

I think in general BD releases are being transfered very carefully. Unlike DVD which is a cash cow, BD is a star product with loads of potential. As such, there are more critical eyes watching the whole process of making them but the decision that rules above everyone else is the director (provided s/he is not nuts) and how he likes his movies to look.

If you don't like the final product, try catching the theatrical presentation to see if it is comes close to what you like. If not, then it's just a visual style that doesn't fit yours.


fuad

[Brad Ley]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Yes there's the case that trailers are often transfered in a way that we would call "flat", w/o artistic color correction, and optimized for that punchy video-look displays can give, after all they're made to grab your attention, while the movie transfer is color corrected to look like the 35mm film version. And the opposite can happen too: Most people prefer John Badham's Dracula in it's theatrical/4:3 video lush technicolory Disco era look, while the widescreen laserdisc and DVDs have a director approved Universal horror black and whitish look. (Which for me, made me view the film in a different light)

So fuad, get cracking and compare your theatrical memory to the BD!

Well, I saw it theatrically (as well as Talladega Nights- Digitally) and it didn't look like the BD. It looked more like the trailer, as did Talladega Nights.

Originally Posted by Banjo

Sony on the other hand, I thought they did a good job with 'The Holiday'. It was never meant to be a great-looking flick, but it was somewhere enjoyable. Very sharp picture quality, I would say, good black level. Though there were a couple scenes where it seemed a little grayish instead of white.

The DP on The Holiday was Dean Cundy, who has previously only worked on mediocre art house movies like Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Jurassic Park, and Apollo 13. So if this man can't make a great looking flick, I don't think anyone can.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

The fact that it's not consistent with all Sony titles, I believe is your answer. We've seen the same thing from Fox and others too, all from films that have been manipulated in post production, which such is often done after the trailer has been put together.

But it's also not consistent with the look Cundy, Semler (dp of Click), and Wood (dp of TN) often have. I understand that films are tweaked in post to give them specific looks (such as Rocky Balboa), but there can't be any way that three different directors, working with three different cinematographers on three different films (all from the same studio) decided that their COMEDIES (which were all coincidentally released within the span of six months) should have the same dreary, shitty look. That goes beyond coincidental. I've also found Gridiron Gang (and a few others) to be a hair on the dark side and similar in look to the aforementioned three. Is it more likely that all of these filmmakers have chosen the exact same post-processed look recently, or that, perhaps, there is a kink in Sony's production chain that is creating similar looking, but unfaithful masters?

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Took me about half the movie to adjust to the look of The Holiday. But, adjust I did and ended up enjoying the show.

And do you think Dean Cundy or Nancy Meyers would intentionally create a look that would take the audience half the film to adjust to? From your own review Chad: "the video's dynamic is awkwardly flat with possibly a little clipping of head and toe." Yet, you immediately go to "filmmaker intent" over "potential studio or post house error." Studios are not infallible and despite these all being Sony titles, that doesn't immediately mean that ALL Sony masters are being created in the exact same facility with the exact same equipment by the exact same telecine techs. I'm only trying to find out if there is a link between some of these titles that could be causing this, because I'm fairly convinced that these titles should and could look better and I want the most from my HD titles. As you mentioned, Fox's Sentinel had a similar look, but aside from that title (which I didn't think was as extreme as Click, TN, or The Holiday), I can't think of a single HD or BD title I've seen from Warner, Disney, Lionsgate, Universal, MGM, or Paramount that has this "popular" but horrible look.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Everything else about the video was terrific.

I agree, but with the contrast completely crushed to where snow looks grey and the image looks "awkwardly flat" it sort of diminishes the positives of the transfer. It's sort of like saying, "Sure, the right surround kept popping and clipping, but that sure is a great 5.1 mix!"

[Videophile]

The black levels seemed to have been screwed up in the transfer, the standard DVD version looks better in my opinion.

I was truly dissapointed but I hope it was just a fluke thing.

Go BD

[Chad Varnadore]

Trends always come in spurts and don't have to be limited to one particular DP. They usually aren't. Look at how SPR changed the way war films look from different directors and different photographers. For SPR, it was flattery to imitate the look. In these cases it may be nothing more than DPs wanting to get experience experimenting with something new or who have been sold on the process.

It's possible it was something done for cinema projection, that just doesn't translate as well to the brighter, more dynamic displays we can have at home. I didn't see any of these films theatrically. But, I feel that when you can't back it up or qualify an argument, you have to give the studio the benefit of the doubt as a reviewer. Believe me, your post isn't the first time it occured to me it could be something unique to Sony's labs, MPEG2, etc. But, after weighing everything, I just don't feel there's probable cause to go that direction yet.

From what I've seen this is less consistent with one studios production processes than films that have been tweaked during post. You could be right. It could be something Sony is doing on their own. After all, their labs could have been responsible for The Sentinel too. Finding Neverland is another that might fit the mold, but nowhere near as severe. But, I just haven't seen probable cause yet to think it's Sony. Every title of theirs that I was familiar with has had the dynamic range I expected. Only a few that I wasn't looked any different. And of those, it wasn't uniform to the special features. Talladega Nights' deleted scenes looked much better than the film. You could tell that they were cut prior to the added manipulation. It's not a given that whatever caused TN to look that way would have also effected the special features. But, it's logical to think that it would have as well.

It's a curious prospect though. And one worth pursuing, just in case. Which is one reason I point it out in the reviews, so there is something wrong, the studios and authoring houses will get wind of it. Maybe paidgeek can shed some light. But, until more evidence is in, I think the more obvious culprit is something they are doing in post, making it deliberate or at least an innate side effect. It makes sense. Just as color filters have always cut into dynamics, even resolution, digital correction could be eating into dynamic range as well if the manipulation is being painted to the entire frame and not just isolated spots, which seems more likely.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this isn't DVD. The same rules don't apply. This isn't a compromised format that has to go thru filtering etc. to meet the limitations of the media. Maybe if they were trying to cram in a bunch of extras in too tight a space. But, being a BD50, I'm sure the disc could handle it, leaving Sony no reason to alter the intended look.

[Brad Ley]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

I didn't see any of these films theatrically. But, I feel that when you can't back it up or qualify an argument, you have to give the studio the benefit of the doubt as a reviewer. Believe me, your post isn't the first time it occured to me it could be something unique to Sony's labs, MPEG2, etc. But, after weighing everything, I just don't feel there's probable cause to go that direction yet.

And I'm pointing out that I did see these films theatrically and the resultant Blu-rays don't match the look of what was seen theatrically. To me, that's proof positive number 1. Secondly, there's visible evidence (via the various trailers and the Talladega Nights deleted scenes you reference) that the images look better elsewhere. Whether this is due to intentional post processing to give the films a crushed, lights are off appearance is open to debate, but it should at least be the launch point of a few hard questions being asked, rather than a blanket, "That's how it's supposed to look. Trailers are made to look better than the film." The Blu-ray reviewer for Home Theater Forum actually says, "I'm pretty sure it's just a very poorly shot film." The Holiday is shot by one of the premiere cinematographers in the industry and Ben Williams is "pretty sure it's just a very poorly shot film."

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

From what I've seen this is less consistent with one studios production processes than films that have been tweaked during post. You could be right. It could be something Sony is doing on their own. After all, their labs could have been responsible for The Sentinel too. Finding Neverland is another that might fit the mold, but nowhere near as severe. But, I just haven't seen probable cause yet to think it's Sony. Every title of theirs that I was familiar with has had the dynamic range I expected. Only a few that I wasn't looked any different. And of those, it wasn't uniform to the special features. Talladega Nights' deleted scenes looked much better than the film. You could tell that they were cut prior to the added manipulation. It's not a given that whatever caused TN to look that way would have also effected the special features. But, it's logical to think that it would have as well.

But we're not necessarily talking about the same thing here. I don't think this problem is as connected to Blu-ray as much as it is the HD transfer process. These trailers and deleted scenes wouldn't necessarily be done at the same location as the feature. If you look at the behind the scenes features on Click, the interview stuff looks fine while the intercut film clips look as off as the feature. So logic creates a scenario where the feature transfer is messed up right at the outset. And it is this faulty master that is used all the way down the chain for Special Features as well as the feature encode. Deleted Scenes are often delivered by a completely separate facility.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

It's a curious prospect though. And one worth pursuing, just in case. Which is one reason I point it out in the reviews, so there is something wrong, the studios and authoring houses will get wind of it. Maybe paidgeek can shed some light. But, until more evidence is in, I think the more obvious culprit is something they are doing in post, making it deliberate or at least an innate side effect. It makes sense. Just as color filters have always cut into dynamics, even resolution, digital correction could be eating into dynamic range as well if the manipulation is being painted to the entire frame and not just isolated spots, which seems more likely.

Fine, agree. But then that is therefore a kink in the mastering process, which is what I've been saying. These masters should look as close to the intended theatrical look as is possible. As I said before, the trailer for The Holiday looks just like the film did when I saw it theatrically (as does TN). So if there is something being done in post giving it "deliberate or at least an innate side effect," than Sony should be utilizing the same facility and methodology that they did for the trailer, because the trailer telecine was able to eliminate or counteract this side effect. I, however, subscribe to the simplest explanation being the correct one... somebody is messing up these transfers and it's not getting flagged because QC personnel are taught not to QC "creative elements." And besides, intentional, stylized looks usually are connected to a mood or theme the filmmakers are trying to convey. The Matrix has a green tint to reflect the world of the computer. Saving Private Ryan has a very gritty, rough, realistic look to convey the reality and brutality of war. Rocky Balboa has a colder, blue tint to give it a slightly melancholy, moody personality. But the look of The Holiday is simply that of a projector whose bulb is about to blow like you're seeing it in a third run theater. Even you, in your review, admit to fidgeting with your settings because you couldn't tell if what was wrong was the disc or the display. That's a huge red flag and I'm surprised people are easily willing to dismiss it as filmmaker intent rather than seriously questioning if something is wrong or not.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Another thing to keep in mind is that this isn't DVD. The same rules don't apply. This isn't a compromised format that has to go thru filtering etc. to meet the limitations of the media. Maybe if they were trying to cram in a bunch of extras in too tight a space. But, being a BD50, I'm sure the disc could handle it, leaving Sony no reason to alter the intended look.

That has nothing to do with it because the standard DVD (no offense Videophile) is just as bad and has the exact same issues as the BD. The master, the starting off point for everything after, is bad. Again, look at the making of on The Holiday. Interview clips and b-roll look just fine. But as soon as a film clip appears, it's like somebody notched the brightness way down.

But I realized about an hour after I posted last that I actually know someone who is very close to Dean Cundy. So I guess I'll just pose the question to him if I can. It could get interesting.

[Deciazulado]

mmm you might have something there. Some DVDs tell who the digital transfer/authoring house was for the disc at the end. Maybe these titles are being done in the same trasfer house?

I have too many BDs, so havent gotten to watch these, but if you say the look is drastically different from the theater (for the worse) that shouldn't be happening. (If they were different for the bettter, that would be normal because first generation digitally scanned negatives > fourth generation prints mechanically projected)

Anyway you mention the whites being dim. Can anyone digitally measure the levels of the whites? (digital screen capture). Clean white diffuse objects (not specular highlights) should hover at around (8 bit digital 16-235 video) near level 204 (or "87 IRE" in NTSC analog video with set up).

[Chad Varnadore]

Everytime a film is mastered both the DP and director are asked to supervise. I don't know the percentage of one's that do, but I've been led to believe it's pretty high. So, if the masters were approved by the DP or director, it would indicate the masters match what they intended.

The fact that you saw something different theatrically does raise a red flag indeed. But, I'm not sure that is conclusive either. Differences between film and digital projection not withstanding, the larger sized venue of cinema and the limited dynamic range that such large projection is usually limited to as compared to smaller consumer displays can complicate a comparison, particularly one based on memory. This is what I meant by the alteration being something that could have been designed to enhance the cinema experience due to limitations therein, that just doesn't translate as well to a smaller screen that doesn't have the same limitations. Even low CR pjs at 2k:1 have a broader dynamic than most theaters. Some CRTs have been calibrated to achieve as much as 50k:1 on/off CR. The home cinema is a very different beast. Comparison's between the two are always interesting and can be used to qualify a point. But, it's still not a guarantee of anything.

The fact that it's inconsistent with trailers and deleted scenes or other features on a disc, just indicates that those pieces weren't adjusted in the same way, ie. scenes cut prior to post correction. It could mean that the film is being altered during telecine. Or it could mean it was altered during production.

Hope your friend can shed some light. I'm very interested in hearing your findings. I still think it's worth posing to paidgeek in the insiders thread too. Surely he can elaborate on one of the films in question.

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Everytime a film is mastered both the DP and director are asked to supervise. I don't know the percentage of one's that do, but I've been led to believe it's pretty high. So, if the masters were approved by the DP or director, it would indicate the masters match what they intended.

The fact that you saw something different theatrically does raise a red flag indeed. But, I'm not sure that is conclusive either. Differences between film and digital projection not withstanding, the larger sized venue of cinema and the limited dynamic range that such large projection is usually limited to as compared to smaller consumer displays can complicate a comparison, particularly one based on memory. This is what I meant by the alteration being something that could have been designed to enhance the cinema experience due to limitations therein, that just doesn't translate as well to a smaller screen that doesn't have the same limitations. Even low CR pjs at 2k:1 have a broader dynamic than most theaters. Some CRTs have been calibrated to achieve as much as 50k:1 on/off CR. The home cinema is a very different beast. Comparison's between the two are always interesting and can be used to qualify a point. But, it's still not a guarantee of anything.

The fact that it's inconsistent with trailers and deleted scenes or other features on a disc, just indicates that those pieces weren't adjusted in the same way, ie. scenes cut prior to post correction. It could mean that the film is being altered during telecine. Or it could mean it was altered during production.

Hope your friend can shed some light. I'm very interested in hearing your findings. I still think it's worth posing to paidgeek in the insiders thread too. Surely he can elaborate on one of the films in question.

I am checking to confirm that the color corrected master was approved by one of the films responsible persons. If it was (and it almost always is), then you just have to accept that they were going after a certain 'look'.

[dearjim]

It was silly of me trying to fine-tune my TV color using this blue-ray Disc!!! At first I thought it was me !! Now I know!

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Everytime a film is mastered both the DP and director are asked to supervise. I don't know the percentage of one's that do, but I've been led to believe it's pretty high. So, if the masters were approved by the DP or director, it would indicate the masters match what they intended.

The fact that you saw something different theatrically does raise a red flag indeed. But, I'm not sure that is conclusive either. Differences between film and digital projection not withstanding, the larger sized venue of cinema and the limited dynamic range that such large projection is usually limited to as compared to smaller consumer displays can complicate a comparison, particularly one based on memory. This is what I meant by the alteration being something that could have been designed to enhance the cinema experience due to limitations therein, that just doesn't translate as well to a smaller screen that doesn't have the same limitations. Even low CR pjs at 2k:1 have a broader dynamic than most theaters. Some CRTs have been calibrated to achieve as much as 50k:1 on/off CR. The home cinema is a very different beast. Comparison's between the two are always interesting and can be used to qualify a point. But, it's still not a guarantee of anything.

The fact that it's inconsistent with trailers and deleted scenes or other features on a disc, just indicates that those pieces weren't adjusted in the same way, ie. scenes cut prior to post correction. It could mean that the film is being altered during telecine. Or it could mean it was altered during production.

Hope your friend can shed some light. I'm very interested in hearing your findings. I still think it's worth posing to paidgeek in the insiders thread too. Surely he can elaborate on one of the films in question.

I have confirmation that this master was carefully reviewed and approved by the films talent. The color correction choices were made specifically at their request and under their supervision.

[Deciazulado]

Well, that settles it

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

I have confirmation that this master was carefully reviewed and approved by the films talent. The color correction choices were made specifically at their request and under their supervision.

Thanks for looking into it!

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Brad Ley

The Blu-ray reviewer for Home Theater Forum actually says, "I'm pretty sure it's just a very poorly shot film." The Holiday is shot by one of the premiere cinematographers in the industry and Ben Williams is "pretty sure it's just a very poorly shot film."

Hey Brad...

I can certainly understand if you disagree with my opinions about the film. I can assure you that as a trained cinematographer myself, even the greatest cinematographers in film history take the occasional misstep. While I personally don't find Dean Cundey's work to be all that remarkable, I think it is worth pointing out that The Holiday is significantly different from the majority of his work. His work is typically very glossy and polished. Perhaps if you were to take a look at some of Nancy Meyers' previous films you would see that many of her films have the same washed out and crushed look as The Holdiay. Something's Gotta Give leaps to mind. Anyway, the emerging Blu-ray format is finally making video available to the consumer that has the potential to be transparent and accurate to the DP's intent. If it inspires debate, then the home video world is all the better for it.

[GasCat]

Personally I disagree with the OP.

Many of the scenes took place at night and they were obviously after a soft warmer look. This was acheived. You do not need to have cold glaring whites and vibrant colors when the object of the film is to relax in a scene with actors portraying people falling in love. This wasn't an action film. The look of the film was consistent throughout, this shows a care for quality control.

As for the film, I believe it needed several more re-writes. The film shows how bad Cameron Diaz acting could get. She was horrendously unbelievable in her character portrayal.

Eli Wallach gave a standout performance as did Kate Winslet. Half of Jack Black's performance was worthy of high praise but there were times when he should have been directed or the scenes reshot. I blame this on either a faulty script or the lack of proper direction. I compliment Sony for including a "making of the film" extra shot in HD.

I'd give it a 6/10. This could definitely be called a "girl film". If watched with someone special give a temporary four points extra credit should the night turn to pleasure (mission accomplished).

[Merc1785]

Originally Posted by Brad Ley

Honestly, the look of The Holiday is akin to watching it with a projector bulb getting ready to die.

I couldn't agree more!