Patton is Phenomenal!!!

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Does 70mm film look like this?

Thanks for the links to the pictures.

So they've applied a lot of softening to get rid of grain and detail, but then have attempted to make it sort of look crisp by applying some sharpening which has left halos around high contrast edges. End result is a soft blurred picture with excessive contrast at a very local level.

Even as a semi professional photographer I couldn't get away with submitting an image with those faults to a stock library, so how come a professional thinks it's acceptable to deliver image quality like that?

[Entertainment72]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Use the DNR in your TV and player. No need to ruin the picture for everyone else with a better understanding of what films are and what they look like. Sony VCR? So now VHS quality is the same as finely detailed 1080p with natural film grain? Ridiculous.

The ability to recognize sarcasm escapes you easily...

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

The ability to recognize sarcasm escapes you easily...

Especially if there wasn't any.

[Entertainment72]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Especially if there wasn't any.

I see you know my intentions before I do.. Talking for others just makes people look foolscreen.. I mean foolish.

[Brain Sturgeon]

Michel,

Thanks for the screenshots-- they really are telling. I have this title sitting on my shelf and was looking forward to screening it; but I have a feeling I'm going to be disappointed based on those screens.

It's funny-- when you initially look at those shots, you think "wow, that looks spectacularly pristine for a film shot close to forty years ago". Then, after looking a bit longer, it hits you-- or maybe a better description is that it doesn't hit you-- where is the detail in the faces? I wondered what Robert Harris meant when he said the "weight" of the image is gone. Now, after seeing those images, I know exactly what he was getting at. There is a certain joy to seeing film images reproduced correctly that is clearly lacking in these images.

It makes me think of a recent experience that I, and I think many others, have had with video reproduction, and that is with viewing images on flat panels with 120 Hz motion plus or motionflow (Samsung, Sony). When you first see it, you think "wow, that looks really 3D and CLEAR". Then, after a minute or two, it starts looking really awkward and artificial. That same awkwardness/artificialness strikes me here.

[Clark Kent]

It looks great aside from the fact that DNR has been used to remove detail. It's still recommended but the Blu-ray could have been even better.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Beta-guy

I was looking at the screenshots, and I thought that looked wonderful.

yeah same lol, doesnt matter what happens to any movie there will always be someone who has issues with it

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

What is important to me is well.. that I know what I like.. if you took the average person (not anal film purist) and asked them which picture looked better.. hmm let me guess..

lmao if they spent as much time trying to find solutions to break dependency on oil we'd probly all have had hydrogen car's by now lol

[robertc88]

[QUOTE=Brain Sturgeon;950521]

"It's funny-- when you initially look at those shots, you think "wow, that looks spectacularly pristine for a film shot close to forty years ago". Then, after looking a bit longer, it hits you-- or maybe a better description is that it doesn't hit you-- where is the detail in the faces? I wondered what Robert Harris meant when he said the "weight" of the image is gone. Now, after seeing those images, I know exactly what he was getting at. There is a certain joy to seeing film images reproduced correctly that is clearly lacking in these images".

I'd be quite surprised if it isn't evident quickly when you view it. Right off the bat and not reading anything beforehand about DNR, it was quite apparent to the point of me finding myself distracted when viewing.

[owa]

I thought it looked great. I'd probably have to see DNR vs non-DNR pics before I'd change my mind...especially considering the blu-ray was my first exposure to the movie.

In general though, I don't envy the studios having to resolve the issue of satisfying purists that want a faithful recreation of the film and general consumers/movie-fans that want everything to look hi-def (picture-perfect). Seems like a no-win situation except maybe for later releases where it appears to be a little easier to satisfy both camps.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by mhafner

The Patton HD looks like a soft video game, for Christ's sake!
A plastic concoction devoid of any resemblance to the original film!
No wonder that appeals to people who think that everything should look hyperclean and with all grain and texture removed. Hello, haven't you noticed that all fine detail is gone?
That it does not look like a film from the 70s anymore?
Patton is a text book example of how classic films should not be mastered for HD because they are no longer films this way but something entirely different. A filtered to death video.
Does 70mm film look like this?
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton1.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton2.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton3.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton4.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton5.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton6.png
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton7.png
No! Not at all! Thumbs way down for this revisionist version of Patton.

WOW it really does look soft. This will look awful on a large screen.

[JasonR]

Okay, maybe three of the shots look soft. Compared to 98% of my Blu-Ray titles, it still looks awesome. I will buy this movie regardless, and from the looks of it be very pleased. mhafner, you make it sound like the worst title ever. When in all reality, it is probably one of the best looking titles to date.

Could it look better, probably. It doesn't mean this looks bad....

[JasonR]

Sorry, I just don't think this looks bad????









Where this looks more processed, I couldn't see it affecting my overall viewing experience.

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by JasonR

Sorry, I just don't think this looks bad????

What sized screen do you have? It will look very soft on a larger sized screen.

Take a good second look at these images. Soft and lacking detail. Look at the backgrounds - blur city. Look at the close ups of the faces - where are the pores that you usually see on Blu ray face close ups? It may look OK on a small TV to some, but put it on a large screen and I can see what the complainers are talking about. And yes their faces do looksoft and "plasticy", like a clean NTSC TV image.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by JasonR

Sorry, I just don't think this looks bad????

Just look at this top picture. The word is not so much 'bad' but 'completely unauthentic' and 'baring hardly any resemblance to the film it came from'. It looks like a PS3 video game. This is simply not "Patton, the Film". It's "Patton, the Plastic CGI Video Game".
It's a completely different look. One can like such a look, of course. One can shoot whole films like this with digital cameras and it would be the correct, intended and authentic look for such a film. But this is not how Patton was shot or intended to be seen. It's a radical recreation of the film. It's this what people who know the look of this film are complaining about. Not the look per se which is a look like others and has its place when it was intended by the film makers.
The other annoying aspect is that if this plastic look and lack of all fine detail is just an unwanted side effect of the primary goal to get rid of (excessive) grain (which is a separate issue worth talking about) then there are methods to reduce or eliminate grain and leaving the fine detail in! That was not done here. So either Fox was too cheap/uninformed to do it properly or they really wanted that completely unauthentic look. In both cases they deserve harsh criticism.
Fox has released many HD transfers before this one that had no such problems and demonstrated competence in how to handle film elements and transfer them to BD in such a way that the look and feel of film is intact, together with the detail. That makes Patton a rather disturbing case.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

I see you know my intentions before I do.. Talking for others just makes people look foolscreen.. I mean foolish.

Intentions are just that. What is sarcastic about your love for DNR? Oh, you mean the VCR part only?
You joker you! You did not really mean that? I'm so relieved! Thank you! Thank you!

[NutsAboutPS3]

Originally Posted by JasonR

Sorry, I just don't think this looks bad????

Even those relatively small pictures look very soft to me. Particularly the top one where there are lots of small details, you can really see the lack of sharp definition. In the other two pictures, the weave of the clothing fabric isn't resolved, whereas in good quality Blu-ray transfers you typically can see a lot of detail in the fabric in those types of close up shots of people.

[Jimbo976]

This Blu-ray is amazing - one of my favorites in my 120+ Blu-ray collection.

[AxlVanHagar]

Patton does look great, but yes it could have been better without the DNR treatment. I don't think the DNR has robbed Patton of much detail but it just doesn't look like film anymore, it looks digital. As a film/photography fan this saddens me. Again Patton does look great and is deserving the praise it is getting for the most part. Easily the best it has ever looked in a home theater. I just wish it still looked like film. For a comparison of DVD to BD click the linky and scroll down a bit. There are a few screen captures comparing the two. Patton is full of detail and vibrant color on BD

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

[X400]

wow screens look remarkable, but i notice the lack of fine detail that ppl are complaining about... however this reminds me of when i was a kid... or even now.. seeing a really fresh looking classic movie/show on tv (ie get smart)

i couldnt say it looks bad but i could say "it could look better" (although you can say that about any bd out there)

[AaronSCH]

Some of the guys in this and other forums mystify me. I understand that "Patton" isn't a "perfect" transfer. But some of the comments are simply idiotic. I have seen the most recent two-disc DVD incarnation of "Patton" and watched the Blu-ray last night. I may not be as, ahem, "sophisticated" as some of these self-proclaimed film experts but I find the Blu-ray an enormous improvement over any previous incarnation of the film on home video. The difference is simply night and day—even with the heavy-handed DNR. If you love the film, don't hesitate buying this disc. Last night I also watched "Master and Commander" which quickly came under some broad-sided attacks after its release. I was very pleased to see that one of my favorite films looked spectacular on Blu-ray disc.