Patton is Phenomenal!!!

[X400]

Im watching Patton now.... and i dont see how it could be better at all.. my god screenshots dont do it justice!

u can even see the sweat bead on Pattons neck at the beginning of the movie when he's in front of the flag so i cant really imagine how much "detail" was taken out..


regardless the movie looks great

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by X400

Im watching Patton now.... and i dont see how it could be better at all.. my god screenshots dont do it justice!

u can even see the sweat bead on Pattons neck at the beginning of the movie when he's in front of the flag so i cant really imagine how much "detail" was taken out..


regardless the movie looks great

Are you mad, sir? Do you know what wrath will be brought upon you for making such an outrageous statement??!! Oops...you also own a 70" display. That violates the over 50" rule. Do you realize it is only the illusion of beauty you are witnessing?

[Ectoplasm]

Well, BR producing studios are probably more concerned about mass-adoption, and the general public doesn't appreciate a lot of grain.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Ectoplasm

Well, BR producing studios are probably more concerned about mass-adoption, and the general public doesn't appreciate a lot of grain.

I've been reading this thread for a while (after it was brought up in PM's thread), but generally stay out of it due to the fact that I don't have "Patton", nor care to!

My feelings on it are somewhat middle of the road. While I understand the "purists" POV, I do understand the people who are happy to get the film looking like it does (regardless of it's lack of detail).

However, I disagree with the statement above. I have spoken to several people (3-4) about Blu-ray recently and spoken about the fight AGAINST DNR, and how some films' look suffers because of it. After explaining what DNR does... the people couldn't understand why the studios would do such a thing. One person even said "well, that kind of defeats the purpose of HD, doesn't it?" These are not film fans who demand the film looks like the original presentation, these are people who just want the film to look the best it can.

I also have to wonder, if people don't like the look of grain, why are the POTC movies so heavily regarded in PQ?

~Alan

[WickyWoo]

Myself and others working on effective tools in the fight to educate people.

The 'beta test" we just did with some of the material has been quite effective

[#Darren]

Originally Posted by X400

so i cant really imagine how much "detail" was taken out..

According to RAH (I think he said) 10 to 25 percent loss of detail to what it would have shown had it not been over processed.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Now you’ve got me confused as weeks back, I received a lot of PM’s from folks giving me discrete links to the *science forum* (noted in the thread on the previous page) that unmercifully bashed the HDNet Movie presentation of LoA as something like an abomination, of which I thought you were one of the protagonists in that free-for-all.
.

I did not like the very few stills much that were presented. But some stills are not enough to judge the whole transfer. So I reserve my judgement about the transfer till I have seen it.
But how relevant is this transfer anyway if LOA is currently rescanned?

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Wicky,
I’ll withhold anymore comments on Hellboy until 'aramis' has a chance to view the Blu-ray because he was the original guy that mentioned he is both a fan of this title and actually saw the theatrical presentation. I think that would be the fairest thing for me to do.

I will say though, that I am familiar with the DI which was done at EFILM (Deluxe) as well as the Blu-ray encoding/authoring done inhouse at the studio of record.

I apologize- either I didn't write it clearly enough or you misunderstood me, but I haven't seen it in theaters. I've purchased it on a disk media three times now, however.

Sorry for the confusion. I am a huge fan of this movie but never got to see it in theaters as my wife was mucho pregnant when it came out.

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's had some DNR treatment but that it still came through with a great picture and light grain intact.

I look forward to seeing your official response on the matter. I love reading things like this I never get to see firsthand.

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Possibly I'm not being clear.

As I noted, Patton can give the illusion of beauty and quality on screens small enough to hide its deficiencies.

I can see people in that situation giving it a 9 or 10.

On large screens, and via quality playback, it becomes all too obvious that the entire look of a great film has been destroyed.

In that arena the Zero may not take it down far enough.

Mr. Hafner and I are in total agreement.

With all due respect won't BD players be playing to screens less than 70" in the majority of domestic houses?

I would agree that a higher standard is required for cinema houses but BD was never meant to be displayed in cinemas.

Surely you should revise your viewing standards for the platform it is being displayed

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

With all due respect won't BD players be playing to screens less than 70" in the majority of domestic houses?

I would agree that a higher standard is required for cinema houses but BD was never meant to be displayed in cinemas.

Surely you should revise your viewing standards for the platform it is being displayed

It all depends on viewing distance. Even on smaller screens, at a viewing distance of one screen width, for example, the problems are quite apparent.

[Bullseye]

My copy arrived while I was away on vacation. I will probably try and watch it over the weekend. I hope I won't be too disappointed. Thankfully my screen is only 50".

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

My copy arrived while I was away on vacation. I will probably try and watch it over the weekend. I hope I won't be too disappointed. Thankfully my screen is only 50".

I don't think you'll be disappointed..... it looks stunning. (besides... it's an awesome movie..... I'd watch it on VHS! )

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I don't think you'll be disappointed..... it looks stunning. (besides... it's an awesome movie..... I'd watch it on VHS! )

Oh I have seen it many times on VHS and DVD. But I am looking forward to seeing it in HD.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Myself and others working on effective tools in the fight to educate people.

The 'beta test" we just did with some of the material has been quite effective

Awesome!

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

With all due respect won't BD players be playing to screens less than 70" in the majority of domestic houses?
I would agree that a higher standard is required for cinema houses but BD was never meant to be displayed in cinemas.
Surely you should revise your viewing standards for the platform it is being displayed

Huh? 1080p has almost the same horizontal luminance resolution as 2K which is used for screens 10m wide and more in cinemas! No, it's not designed to be watched upto 64 inch plasmas only, sitting so far away that you can't resolve 1080p detail any more.

[Deciazulado]

^^ As most 2K scans have 83.33 p/mm the image width is:

For Super 35 with 24 mm ground glass markings : 83.33 p/mm x 24 mm = 2000 pixels
For Super 35 with DIN 23.5 mm ground glass markings : 83.33 p/mm x 23.5 mm = 1958 pixels
For Regular Academy (Sound) 35mm 20.955 mm ground glass markings: 83.33 p/mm x 20.955 mm = 1746 pixels

Many theaters don't show 100% of the projector aperture width so you see less on screen.

Mechanical vibrations, gate heat flutter, focus knobs.

A lens. Direct view 1920 doesn't have one.

[DavePS3]

This is definately the best this film has looked. There are some shots where the camera was more focused on say, Patton's shirt than on the face making the face just slightly out of focus but there's nothing you can do about little things like that. Just a really great experience seeing a film look so crystal clean and not tinted or with other optical effects to stylize the look. Beautiful.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by DavePS3

This is definately the best this film has looked. There are some shots where the camera was more focused on say, Patton's shirt than on the face making the face just slightly out of focus but there's nothing you can do about little things like that. Just a really great experience seeing a film look so crystal clean and not tinted or with other optical effects to stylize the look. Beautiful.

Pssst. You have not seen a film, you know?

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Pssst. You have not seen a film, you know?

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Possibly I'm not being clear.

As I noted, Patton can give the illusion of beauty and quality on screens small enough to hide its deficiencies.

I can see people in that situation giving it a 9 or 10.

On large screens, and via quality playback, it becomes all too obvious that the entire look of a great film has been destroyed.

In that arena the Zero may not take it down far enough.

With respect to Mr Harris his opinion here is absolutely unclear. Brief excursus into the philosophy of review scores:

1. In the above example who's right, the small-screeners giving Patton a 9 or the large-screeners giving it a 0? Don't the small-screeners directly contradict the large-screeners here?

2. Or is it that a title's review score should be relativized to the size of the display on which it's viewed? In that case all one has to do is find a sufficiently small screen -- perhaps 15" or thereabouts? -- for which each disc gets a 10 no matter how poor the encode. That would make reviewing trivially easy.

3. Even if review scores should be relativized to some parameter surely it shouldn't be display size. What does a person sitting at optimal viewing distance from a 42" 1080p set fail to see in Patton which is apparent to someone watching the same disc on (say) a 72" screen at any distance? If the viewing distance is uniformly optimal, no defects should go unnoticed and there should be no reason for Patton to get a 9 at 42" but a 0 at 72".

4. So perhaps it's not display size but viewing distance which Mr Harris really had in mind. Patton gets a 9 on smaller screens because it's assumed that the viewer is sitting beyond optimal viewing distance. Hence Patton gets a 9 "provided you can't see it very well." That's like saying Burger King gets four Michelin stars provided you can't taste what you're eating.

Isn't it simpler to maintain that Patton gets a low score absolutely, and defend that opinion, rather than go through the hoops of relativizing scores to some other factor?