One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest - another victim of overzealous DNR?

[#Darren]

Video:
Warner Bros. offer the 1.85:1 ratio, Blu-ray picture in a VC-1, 1080p, BD25 transfer taken from a digital master created from restored elements. So you'll find no lines, scratches, or age marks here. Despite this, given that director Foreman filmed entirely on location and went for as realistic a style as he could get, the WB video engineers still probably didn't have the absolute best video with which to work. Warners Bros. already made a good standard-def DVD release a few years back, where the new transfer displayed a sharper image than the studio's earliest SD issue, this time with deeper colors and far less evidence of age deterioration. What I did find in that later SD release, though, was a somewhat granular aspect to many objects on screen. Evidently, for the high-definition BD edition the video engineers tried to mitigate this slightly grainy appearance and in the process seem to have softened the picture too much. In comparing the BD image with an upscaled SD image in scene after scene, I had difficulty telling many of them apart. In medium and long shots, the Blu-ray had a distinct advantage in clarity and object delineation, but in facial close-ups, the grainier standard-def picture appeared to have more detail, the BD being too smoothed over.

What we get on the Blu-ray disc, then, is a picture quality that varies from crystal clear and razor sharp to remarkably soft and blurred, almost from shot to shot. About half the time the BD picture doesn't look any better than the SD release. Fortunately, colors remain as natural as ever, and there is nothing that cries out as desperately bad. Still, the source material may not have always been the best, even cleaned up, and for the BD picture my guess is that WB overcompensated in the filtering department.

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/one-f...os-nest/6077/2

[Robert Harris]

Or might it be possible that what you see is very close to what the film originally looked like?

[sockmodel7]

Looked just fine to me.

[Octavio]

I trust more on this guys:

The Blu-ray however is not perfect. There is some existing noise. I suspect the single-layering - the film actually takes up about 17 Gig - may have created a similarly produced image from being dual-layered. This would be due to the original source elements (the film is 33 years old!). Obviously, in comparison to the original SD it has had some heavy cleaning and colors are brighter, skin-tones more true - detail far in advance of anything we have seen from this film on home video. Contrast is also top notch - whiter whites and pitch black levels. Yes, the image is very clean, and I suspect it looks about as good as it can on this new medium. It comes to life a bit in this new format. Visually, I was very pleased although it is not of modern cinema transfer standard with striking brilliance.

I felt like I was watching a 35 mm print in my basement when I viewed this Blu-ray. Due to the source print the presentation had a real earthy quality that seem totally appropriate for the film. It looked as good as I have ever seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. It is as powerful as ever. I wonder what we'll be saying 10 more years from now?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...st_blu-ray.htm

[Octavio]

And from our pals from High-Def Digest:

'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' is a true classic. The winner of multiple Oscars, the film works expertly both as an anti-establishment polemic and a transformative emotional experience. It's simply a must-see. This Blu-ray is nicely done as well, with video and audio that are probably as good as the material will allow, and an insightful package of supplements. Sure, 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' is never going to be a demo disc, but the strength of the film and this presentation demand that you add it to your Blu-ray library.


Highly Recommended

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/878/...ckoosnest.html

[diamondfoxxx]

Unless you have seen the theatrical presentation of the film--which maybe you haven't--it's hard to judge how a film should look on video; you can't judge the Blu-ray by comparing it to its standard DVD counterpart or any home video releases that came before it.

[eChopper]

how many people can remember what the film looked like??

i saw it decades ago as a kid- wouldnt have a clue about what it should look like

but i like my blu ray copy very much

[JasonR]

On HDNet Movies it looked terrible, I hope it looks better than that....

[jxs]

i think will pick up me a copy

[#Darren]

The only reason I bring this up is that the reviewer says "in facial close-ups, the grainier standard-def picture appeared to have more detail"...

[Daredevil666]

I'm tired of people saying a Blu-Ray may looks sub-par because a movie is old...
Look, 35mm is around 4 times Blu-Ray resolution, and last time I looked, when in professional lighting conditions you point a camera towards an actor, it doesn't matter if it was 35 years ago or not, the captured detail on the frame is still the same. 4 times the Blu-Ray resolution (or 4K).
The only difference can be if the stock used is fast or not (ie grain ? more grain ?), or if the director of photography screwed up the shot or not (ie made it soft focus, out of focus, bad light). This have absolutely NOTHING to do with age. You know, 35 years ago, the sun still shined about the same, and, get this, people wore clothes, they were cars, phones, press, and in fact about the same as today (except reviewers didn't have the internet to say absolutely wrong things to all to see ). Oh, and 35mm had the same resolution as today.
A transfert can look bad if a bad element was used for the scan, but again, AGE DOESN'T MATTER. Age damage is when the negative is torn, fading, speckles, whatever, many things that are always fixed for BR releases. AGE DOESN'T SOFTEN SHOTS IN FILMS. I mean to claim that a shot goes soft focus because of age... come on people

[Deciazulado]

I agree.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

AGE DOESN'T SOFTEN SHOTS IN FILMS. I mean to claim that a shot goes soft focus because of age... come on people

maybe i missed it, but i don't think anyone claimed that the movie might be soft because of its age.

as for the original post, i think some people are now just seeing DNR everywhere even when it isn't there.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by kefrank

as for the original post, i think some people are now just seeing DNR everywhere even when it isn't there.

Well I don't know whether the reviewer is imagining things or not, but I'd really like to buy this film.

[diamondfoxxx]

If a print is three generations old, then preserving the grain that gathered with age is ludicrous. Some DNR is necessary so that the true look of the movie will surface; all grain is not sacred.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by diamondfoxxx

If a print is three generations old, then preserving the grain that gathered with age is ludicrous. Some DNR is necessary so that the true look of the movie will surface; all grain is not sacred.

You make no sense.

[alexakajeff]

Originally Posted by dvdvision

I'm tired of people saying a Blu-Ray may looks sub-par because a movie is old...
Look, 35mm is around 4 times Blu-Ray resolution, and last time I looked, when in professional lighting conditions you point a camera towards an actor, it doesn't matter if it was 35 years ago or not, the captured detail on the frame is still the same. 4 times the Blu-Ray resolution (or 4K).
The only difference can be if the stock used is fast or not (ie grain ? more grain ?), or if the director of photography screwed up the shot or not (ie made it soft focus, out of focus, bad light). This have absolutely NOTHING to do with age. You know, 35 years ago, the sun still shined about the same, and, get this, people wore clothes, they were cars, phones, press, and in fact about the same as today (except reviewers didn't have the internet to say absolutely wrong things to all to see ). Oh, and 35mm had the same resolution as today.
A transfert can look bad if a bad element was used for the scan, but again, AGE DOESN'T MATTER. Age damage is when the negative is torn, fading, speckles, whatever, many things that are always fixed for BR releases. AGE DOESN'T SOFTEN SHOTS IN FILMS. I mean to claim that a shot goes soft focus because of age... come on people

[eChopper]

maybe he meant dirt/ dust as opposed to film grain