The Close Encounters Of The Third Kind BD review thread

[doctorsteve]

I'm sure it looks as good as it ever will... But why is Ben Williams having such an orgasm over the wonderful, stupendous, gorgeous swirling GRAIN of this movie. I've seen 300. 300 is a close personal friend of mine. Close Encounters is no 300. Yes, this flick is old and has grain, I'm sure. But GRAIN is rarely a selling point and only detracts from this review. He seems to be trying to shut up the nay sayers before they have their nay say. 300 was MEANT to be grainy - you won't convince me the same should be said for CE. Sorry, Charlie.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

I'm sure it looks as good as it ever will... But why is Ben Williams having such an orgasm over the wonderful, stupendous, gorgeous swirling GRAIN of this movie. I've seen 300. 300 is a close personal friend of mine. Close Encounters is no 300. Yes, this flick is old and has grain, I'm sure. But GRAIN is rarely a selling point and only detracts from this review. He seems to be trying to shut up the nay sayers before they have their nay say. 300 was MEANT to be grainy - you won't convince me the same should be said for CE. Sorry, Charlie.

The problem is that the electromagnetic propulsion drives of Unidentified Flying Saucers interfere with the electronic systems of movie cameras. Hense the grain.

[Banjo]

Geez, what bitterness.

It's a known fact that Spielberg prefer to use film due to the graininess. Though the movie is 30 years old. So naturally, you will notice more grain than you would with newer movies. Especially during shots where optical effects are displayed.

The reason why people are having orgasms is because it has never looked this good. Not to mention that it's a great movie.

[doctorsteve]

Quotes:
"This is a film that is very much of its time, with an abundance of film grain and exceptional contrast and color."

"Make no mistake, this film is full of glorious, living grain. It swirls around the frame and comes to life in almost every scene of the film. This is how Close Encounters of the Third Kind is supposed to look. It would be a complete travesty if this film had been smoothed out and homogenized for the Blu-ray release."

"This extreme level of detail is what allows the grain structure of Close Encounters of the Third Kind to be so perfectly rendered in this Blu-ray edition. I have never seen high definition video look as much like actual film as this Blu-ray does. Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a sterling example of how an older film can shine on Blu-ray."

As I said before - I'm sure it looks it's best ever. But to wave the flag and shout from the tree tops: "Hey kids, LOOK! It's grainy!!! Isn't that GREAT?!?!? Oh GAWD I need a cigarette! " Yeah... just something off about it IMO.

And - Yes, this is one of my favorites too - just watched it last week on DVD and just lent the DVD to someone else so they could watch it with their kid - so- SOLD, yeah - a great movie!! And I hear the Bly-Ray version has some great GRAIN in it!!! (cheeky)

[darkpoet25]

I will be looking forward to watching one of my all time favorite movies in full 1080p glory. Having seen this at least literally a hundred times, I will probably watch all three versions the night I get this. Sure it has grain but I won't let that deter or detract from me watching this. I mean come on IT'S 30 YEARS OLD!! This is the way that Spielberg wanted Sony to release this film. If it becomes that big of a deal, don't get it simple as that. Thank you Ben for solidifying a great release with your review.

[doctorsteve]

You guys have totally missed my point.

I know there will be grain
I know WHY there is grain.
I know that this movie is only five years younger than me, and I'm a little grainy myself.

Now I am in danger of doing what Ben did and that was give the grain too much importance and weight. Only I didn't do it in a review that people look to for guidance.

To paraphrase Brando in Apocalypse Now...

..."the grain. The GRAIN!"

I'm not saying I wish the grain were gone or "smoothed out". But telling people it great because of the grain doesn't quite fly... I'm no J6P, but grain has never positively contributed to picture quality as far as I can tell... so why feign erotic auto-asphyxiation and say it does. Is it true to the print it was taken from? Fine. Leave it at that. But if you're telling me you can see every errant piece of lint and scratch taken from the master print and tell me it makes the quality better? Don't take this the wrong way - but Go Fish.

[richard lichtenfelt]

I don't care if this one has more grain than Kansas, I'm getting it.

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

I don't care if this one has more grain than Kansas, I'm getting it.

As am I. Now I just need the other three food groups...

[Viiincent]

i was thinking the exact same thing... why in the WORLD would he be so ecstatic about the grain.. like it was a proof of great picture quality.

[Ben]

It is proof of great picture quality. Grain was intended in this film and far too many people equate grain with some sort of flaw in the transfer. That couldn't be further from the truth and I think its important that people dont equate high definition with a lack of grain. Grain is inherent in film and the film stocks of the late seventies that were used with higher speed cameras accentuated the grain structure. Spielberg has always been a fan of grain and he has even gone on record that he will not film in digital beacause he believes that grain is "alive" and gives a film a certain quality that separates it from other mediums. I agree with him and look for BD releases to preserve the intended look of the film, grain and all. So many HD DVD releases opt for transfers that smooth out this naturally occuring element of film and I'm always excited to see that Blu-ray avoids doing this. See Seven Years in Tibet and From Hell for other examples of BD transfers that preserve the filmic elements in their purest form.

Thanks for your comments!

[richard lichtenfelt]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

As am I. Now I just need the other three food groups...

I concur Dr.
A side of Cars, and the shorts collection should satisfy the RVA (recommended video allowance).

[doctorsteve]

Not saying you're the Devil, Ben. Just surprized to see you

I understand the reasons why people shoot with certain film or stylistic qualities (filters/aspect ratios/lenses, etc.) that are meant to enhance the experience or perspective in some way. But, it just strikes me that using the G word as a positive could ultimately be confusing for those that aren't looking to see every "flaw" (as a J6P would see it).

Think of 300, people expected clarity out of a new movie (for those who got it as a blind buy - having not seen it in the theatre, like myself). Honestly, I knew the grain was intentional. A stylistic approach, just as much as the stark B&W (with occasional color accents) of Miller's Sin City was important to that film.

I understand what you were getting at.

Discussing fidelity to the original is one thing, but to be blunt, every use of the word "Grain" sent up a warning flare (which I could dismiss, but the public may not). I can see the threads now: "Not buying CE3K, heard it's grainy".

(Shrug) Zero offense is meant, I hope you see what I'm getting at...

Regards, The Doc.

[Ben]

Doc... no worries! I completely understand what you are getting at and I certainly appreciate it! I'm just hoping that folks will understand that CE3K is supposed to look this way and that the grain is an important part of the look of the film. Grain is all too often confused with noise. They are two different animals, entirely! Now, if Ratatouille was noisy... that would be a problem!

[doctorsteve]

Werd.

By the way, nicely written review - just the same.


And that's not butt-kissin'... I save that fo' my ho's.

[Ben]

Thank you, good Doctor! I hope you enjoy the movie!

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

You guys have totally missed my point.

I know there will be grain
I know WHY there is grain.
I know that this movie is only five years younger than me, and I'm a little grainy myself.

Now I am in danger of doing what Ben did and that was give the grain too much importance and weight. Only I didn't do it in a review that people look to for guidance.

To paraphrase Brando in Apocalypse Now...

..."the grain. The GRAIN!"

I'm not saying I wish the grain were gone or "smoothed out". But telling people it great because of the grain doesn't quite fly... I'm no J6P, but grain has never positively contributed to picture quality as far as I can tell... so why feign erotic auto-asphyxiation and say it does. Is it true to the print it was taken from? Fine. Leave it at that. But if you're telling me you can see every errant piece of lint and scratch taken from the master print and tell me it makes the quality better? Don't take this the wrong way - but Go Fish.

Originally Posted by Viiincent

i was thinking the exact same thing... why in the WORLD would he be so ecstatic about the grain.. like it was a proof of great picture quality.

But, surely, it is, it is. I'll say it again: The image is formed by the grain. the grain in FILM is not an addition added to the image, the image is FORMED by the grain particles. It RAISES from it. A photon hits the silver particle on the negative, it changes it, the chemicals in developing help the silver particle grow and become visible (that's why it's called the developer), and then the silver particle clumped together with other silver particles next to it form a line, a point, a shape when seen together. If you don't see the grain; minimize it, smooth it or shave it off, you're not seeing to the bottom ultimate resolution of detail of the image; you minimize it, smooth it, or shave it off.

I'll paraphrase doctorsteve:

"But you're telling me if you can see every errant piece of grain and silver taken from the master print you tell me it makes the quality better?"

Yes.


__________________
I'll say it again, God is a concept by which we measure our grain - Jon Lennnono

[owa]

I thought I had finally got lucky. I found the blu-ray version of Close Encounters at Circuit City today but unfortunately, they wouldn't sell it to me. Argh.

[quetzalcoatl]

He is something I found today about the sound.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=169

[Blu Titan]

I was only going to get the Ocean's Trilogy this week, but I just preordered this one yesturday. It is really a great film. I saw a commercial this afternnoon on discovery theater just for this Blu-ray movie. I do not know if anyone else got to see the commercial, but it was impressive. A must for my collection.

[Scorxpion]

link:

http://www.hometheaterspot.com/fusio...hp?tid/139357/

video:

" But BD’s higher bandwidth and storage sheds a more revealing light at emulsion. Though subjective opinion will forever vary, for the first time grain all the natural aesthetics of film can be handled properly and beautifully with a disc that doesn’t have to compromise the presentation for the sake of spec or to ease the burden of the compressionist. "

Can anyone still behave and believe HD-DVD is a superior format this is only my comment.

Enjoy it my friends