Movies that need a new transfer

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by slimdude

It sure isn't because, I can't tell the difference between the two aspect ratios at all.

Good for you.

[bigkatninja]

My answer all DVDs to Bluray!!!

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by 42041

Just cause it's a prime doesn't mean it's tack sharp. Anamorphic lenses are softer than spherical ones in general, and Nolan's DP tends to use Panavision's older designs at wide apertures. Batman Begins, for example, was shot practically wide-open, and the photographically-inclined will know that's not where you find the optimal performance of your lens. Unfortunately some of the folks here have trouble accepting that filmmakers aren't shooting a Blu-ray demo reel and will probably complain about the softer image an unmolested TDK transfer would have.

No image shot on 35mm can be tack sharp. If anyone needs tack sharp, he better shoot IMAX or 70mm. But why Pfister mainly prefers anamorphic is because of it's detailed image, even when shooting with unconventional light where in Super 35mm it would end up too grainy. And if an image is soft it does'nt mean it lacks detail. You can't get deep focus in Panavision without using insane amounts of light, if you mean sharpness is based on depth. But detail on anamorphic is more than Super 35mm in most cases.

Originally Posted by 42041

There we'll have to completely disagree. It has something that looks sort of like grain and that's about as close as it comes.

In a HD Scan taken directly from the 35mm footage one might not even see a hint of grain because of it's low frequency, and the fact that grain in anamorphic is a bit squashed in comparison to Super 35mm grain which is resolved a bit more properly. The only reason why we see what looks like grain in the current release is because it's from a sharpened source, more clearly from a print of the sharpened 4k DMR version. But the fact is unnatural grain or not, it's not a fake grain or DNR-ed mess, it still looks like film.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by Scholer

No image shot on 35mm can be tack sharp. If anyone needs tack sharp, he better shoot IMAX or 70mm. But why Pfister mainly prefers anamorphic is because of it's detailed image, even when shooting with unconventional light where in Super 35mm it would end up too grainy. And if an image is soft it does'nt mean it lacks detail. You can't get deep focus in Panavision without using insane amounts of light, if you mean sharpness is based on depth. But detail on anamorphic is more than Super 35mm in most cases.



In a HD Scan taken directly from the 35mm footage one might not even see a hint of grain because of it's low frequency, and the fact that grain in anamorphic is a bit squashed in comparison to Super 35mm grain which is resolved a bit more properly. The only reason why we see what looks like grain in the current release is because it's from a sharpened source, more clearly from a print of the sharpened 4k DMR version. But the fact is unnatural grain or not, it's not a fake grain or DNR-ed mess, it still looks like film.

Interesting, does that mean film lenses are not that sharp in comparision to 35mm/digital SLR ones. Still photography is a hobby of mine and lenses opened up wide to even f/1.2 are absolutely sharp in the center and where you have focused. I'm not a fan of movies shot soft all the way through. I don't find it artistic at all, rather more like incompetance. It's one thing to have soft scenes in a movie, but the whole thing throughout......that becomes old real quick. Certainly, movies are not as sharp, not even remotely close, as still photography. I see that with all movies, even some 70mm ones. IMAX seems to have that cutting edge sharpness of still photography.

[BigLuvJason]

Originally Posted by ucfmatt

First Blood, Rambo, and Rambo III.

The sequels aren't that bad but First Blood looks horrible.

Waaaaay wrong What kind of tv?? First Blood looks very good!

[42041]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Interesting, does that mean film lenses are not that sharp in comparision to 35mm/digital SLR ones. Still photography is a hobby of mine and lenses opened up wide to even f/1.2 are absolutely sharp in the center and where you have focused. I'm not a fan of movies shot soft all the way through. I don't find it artistic at all, rather more like incompetance. It's one thing to have soft scenes in a movie, but the whole thing throughout......that becomes old real quick. Certainly, movies are not as sharp, not even remotely close, as still photography. I see that with all movies, even some 70mm ones. IMAX seems to have that cutting edge sharpness of still photography.

There's all sorts of lenses, but cinematographers don't always go for a very sharp look. For example, Panavision's C-series anamorphics, which Nolan's recent movies make use of, date back to the 70s, to movies like Alien, Star Wars, and Blade Runner. They don't have the fanciest coatings and computer-aided design, but some DPs actually like their characteristic optical distortion, flaring, and softness.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by 42041

There's all sorts of lenses, but cinematographers don't always go for a very sharp look. For example, Panavision's C-series anamorphics, which Nolan's recent movies make use of, date back to the 70s, to movies like Alien, Star Wars, and Blade Runner. They don't have the fanciest coatings and computer-aided design, but some DPs actually like their characteristic optical distortion, flaring, and softness.

Now see, Star Wars and Blade Runner ARE films that look sharp to me.

[Shanester]

I'm very surprised by some of the selections on here:

Casino Royale & The Shining look amazing imo.

Two that don't are Cast Away & Ronin.

I was disappointed watching these on Blu-Ray. Some of the scenes looked barely above dvd level

[The Apocalypse]

I'd say Tremors and The Phantom Menace. Both DNR related, especially TPM, which should have looked much better.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Maggot

Now see, Star Wars and Blade Runner ARE films that look sharp to me.

Star Wars was worked over by Lowry's filtering, but Blade Runner? Aside from the occasional recomposited 65mm effects element, we have very different ideas of what a sharp image is...

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by EclipseSSD

I'd say Tremors and The Phantom Menace. Both DNR related, especially TPM, which should have looked much better.

Apart from ROTS they could all be improved:

- TPM needs the DNR removed.
- AOTC needs the green shift removed (what is so wrong with the more colourful presentation of the DVD?)
- OT could use 4K transfers.

Batman Begins (too soft) and the Dark Knight (especially the contrast, I am less susceptible to EE it seems..)

Predator UHE without the overzealous DNR.

LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring without the green tint.

And maybe it's me but I always get the idea that the Matrix films could look better.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Scholer

No image shot on 35mm can be tack sharp. If anyone needs tack sharp, he better shoot IMAX or 70mm. But why Pfister mainly prefers anamorphic is because of it's detailed image, even when shooting with unconventional light where in Super 35mm it would end up too grainy. And if an image is soft it does'nt mean it lacks detail. You can't get deep focus in Panavision without using insane amounts of light, if you mean sharpness is based on depth. But detail on anamorphic is more than Super 35mm in most cases.

Conversely, an image with detail isn't necessarily sharp. Resolution and sharpness are different things, and I believe that many people here would prefer artificially sharpened images over a more detailed but softer one, because they view their TV from too far away. You can see it on these forums, Dark Knight always comes up in these "reference PQ" threads, but a more film-like, natural looking anamorphic film, something like Inglourious Basterds perhaps, rarely does. Which is why the WB techs might feel like they're in a tough spot with TDK, they don't sharpen stuff for no reason.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Aquel

Dark Knight (especially the contrast, I am less susceptible to EE it seems..)

Not to mention the completely incorrect color timing.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=5544

You can also see how badly the image is sharpened compared to the theatrical trailer. Just a horrible mess and only fanboys would ever proclaim this reference quality.

[The Apocalypse]

The Rocky movies. Not buying any of them until they see better days.

[Scholer]

Originally Posted by 42041

Conversely, an image with detail isn't necessarily sharp. Resolution and sharpness are different things, and I believe that many people here would prefer artificially sharpened images over a more detailed but softer one, because they view their TV from too far away. You can see it on these forums, Dark Knight always comes up in these "reference PQ" threads, but a more film-like, natural looking anamorphic film, something like Inglourious Basterds perhaps, rarely does. Which is why the WB techs might feel like they're in a tough spot with TDK, they don't sharpen stuff for no reason.

Actually we have to agree here. I know most people prefer sharp digital looking images rather than really detailed ones. But it's not always that detailed picture are underrated. Like Blade Runner is considered as sharp by nearly everbody and Thin Red Line, which is in my opinion one of the most beautiful films shot on anamorphic ever, often tops best PQ lists all over the net and if I'm not mistaken here even at places. And I don't think The Dark Knight 35mm footage were sharpened to digital levels of sharp, they were merely sharpened enough to bring out slightly more detail and as a consequence bring out the fine grain to a coarser very slightly Lowry looking grain. I agree that Dark Knight doesn't look the best, but I can't say it looks like a DNR or fake grain travesty either.

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by retablo

Not to mention the completely incorrect color timing.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison.php?id=5544

You can also see how badly the image is sharpened compared to the theatrical trailer. Just a horrible mess and only fanboys would ever proclaim this reference quality.

We don't know however which colour timing is correct (or somebody must remember how it looked on the big screen, I certainly don't).

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Aquel

Apart from ROTS they could all be improved:

- TPM needs the DNR removed.
- AOTC needs the green shift removed (what is so wrong with the more colourful presentation of the DVD?)
- OT could use 4K transfers.

Batman Begins (too soft) and the Dark Knight (especially the contrast, I am less susceptible to EE it seems..)

Predator UHE without the overzealous DNR.

LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring without the green tint.

And maybe it's me but I always get the idea that the Matrix films could look better.

I agree. They do look good, but could look better. I read somewhere that The Matrix was sourced from a 720p master which was used for the DVD, correct me if I am wrong. I think I read it on this forum. A nice 4k scan of the first (classic) would be nice!

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Aquel

We don't know however which colour timing is correct (or somebody must remember how it looked on the big screen, I certainly don't).

Yes we do. The theatrical trailer is correct. The blu-ray is way off. The film theatrically always had a bluish hue, which is missing from the blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

I agree. They do look good, but could look better. I read somewhere that The Matrix was sourced from a 720p master which was used for the DVD, correct me if I am wrong. I think I read it on this forum. A nice 4k scan of the first (classic) would be nice!

Yeah, that's incorrect. No way it's from a 720p master. It looks far too good. They are sourced from the previous HD-DVD masters, so the bitrate could be better, but otherwise they are pretty solid releases.

[PBateman87]

RoboCop.

[bluejays999]

Batman Begins, why would they give it a crappy HDDVD port?