Studios Ruining Older Movies on Blu? - Blu-ray Forum

J_UNTITLED · 07-05-2008, 05:44 AM

Article here. Discuss below.

Deciazulado · 07-05-2008, 06:11 AM

Man, Dr. Silverman was right, it has started.

__________________
Well, well, well, you're feeling fine,
Well, well, well, he'll make you, Dr. Robert

Ring my friend I said you'd call Dr. Robert - The Beatles

Petra_Kalbrain · 07-05-2008, 06:13 AM

For the most part, I agree with the article. However, I still want them to eliminate as much film grain as possible. But, can they really do that without compromising the contrast and lighting? I'm not that well informed of the technical aspect.

GGX · 07-05-2008, 07:33 AM

I find it funny how the article mentions Patton as having a faithful transfer and Dirty Harry not. When Patton is known to have been tampered with and Dirty Harry's transfer having a good reputation.

JadedRaverLA · 07-05-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGX

I find it funny how the article mentions Patton as having a faithful transfer and Dirty Harry not. When Patton is known to have been tampered with and Dirty Harry's transfer having a good reputation.

Well, this is the real issue -- pick any two film transfers... call one bad and the other great, and you'll likely get half the people agreeing with you and the other half saying you're crazy. Patton definitely had too much DNR applied (and EE in at least some scenes), but Dirty Harry almost certainly did also (I haven't seen that title... but it IS Warner).

Personally, I find Patton the more forgivable offense as Fox has been doing a very nice job overall and this seems to have been an error on a single title. Warner's policy of turning films into some nearly-animated virtual-reality-style mess I have a much harder time with. But they also release many more titles that I'm interested in than most of the other studios have, so I end up buying a lot of their titles... even though the transfers often leave me disappointed.

HOME THEATRE ADDICT! · 07-05-2008, 08:07 PM

I bought the rambo 3 pack at w.m. about a month ago on blu-ray. even though imo they made the picture somewhat improved, I wasnt impressed with the dts-hd mstr transfer. the first one sounded like crap, and I thought the other 2 sounded a little better, but not much! Im skeptical of buying old movies that have been remastered, cause you really dont know what youre getting and then its to late.

J_UNTITLED · 07-06-2008, 03:09 AM

It's sad how some older films may truly be lost to ever being finely remastered due to the harsh side effects of time and/or poor preservation conditions.

Deciazulado · 07-06-2008, 03:14 AM

someone really likes to bumps threads

aviman33 · 07-06-2008, 08:11 PM

I don't get what's wrong with grain. It's part of the photographers tool box. I studied photography for a while and spend many an hour in the dark room creating effects and moods by pushing grain of Tri-X pan film. If grain was bad we would have been using Panatomic X film (extremely fine grain) instead. It's all part of the artistic process. A telephoto lens renders very shallow depth of field, a wide angle lens results in just the opposite. It's all up to the director as to what mood they wish to convey. Gritty and grainy were part of the 70's look. When transferred to BD, accuracy should be maintained. I want the grain in perfect focus. Smoothing out or defocusing grain is just like colorizing in my book.

John

arush5268d · 07-06-2008, 08:16 PM

To be honest, I rather not have grain in my my Blu purchases.

If I had a dedicated home theater, with a nice projector I'd probably be OK with the natural film grain.

Blu Titan · 07-06-2008, 08:33 PM

There is always two sides to every coin, and the opinion of "experts" seems to be as variable as the weather. Interesting "bit" on Patton: Patton Blu-ray DVD was "enhanced to minimize the natural grain," but that in that case, the altering makes it look more like the theatrical 70mm presentation, so he doesn't take issue with that one. Call me crazy, but Mr. Penton appears to be right once again. I will be sure to mention this on the insider's thread.

aviman33 · 07-06-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arush5268d

To be honest, I rather not have grain in my my Blu purchases.

If I had a dedicated home theater, with a nice projector I'd probably be OK with the natural film grain.

Maybe we need 2 versions of BD movies. A big TV friendly version and a full home theater version. Oh, and maybe a 3rd version for the people who don't like black bars.

Skillz5 · 07-06-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aviman33

...Oh, and maybe a 3rd version for the people who don't like black bars.

I am tired of the "black bar" discussion. I wish people would just understand and look at the picture difference from Pan and Scan and true movie aspect ratio.

We no longer live in the days of Sunday Night Specials anymore. Filling up the 4X3 picture is not required anymore...get over it!!! Now its about quality!

Alan Gordon · 07-06-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aviman33

Maybe we need 2 versions of BD movies. A big TV friendly version and a full home theater version. Oh, and maybe a 3rd version for the people who don't like black bars.

I fully expect there to be a time when you can buy two versions on Blu-ray. A 1:78.1 Pan & Scan and DNR'ed version or a untouched OAR version.

They can even use "S T R E T C H - O - V I S I O N" for 1:33.1 films!

~Alan

arush5268d · 07-06-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aviman33

Maybe we need 2 versions of BD movies. A big TV friendly version and a full home theater version. Oh, and maybe a 3rd version for the people who don't like black bars.

Hey, smartass: where did you see anything in my post about black bars??? And where did you see anything about me saying that there shouldn't be any grain at all? I said what I would prefer on MY setup...and acknowledged that if I also had a projector then I'd be OK with the grain.

So where do you get off with your comments?

Alan Gordon · 07-06-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arush5268d

So where do you get off with your comments?

He said that he felt that there should be TWO versions... one for people with bigger TVs and one for smaller TVs (referring to your post saying that if you had a bigger screen, you'd be okay with grain). Then he said that there should probably be a THIRD version with no black bars.

It made perfect sense to me... so I don't see why you think what he said was offensive?

As for your comments, I personally don't want DNR regardless of whether I'm watching on a 19-inch or a 30-foot screen... nor do I see why the size of the TV should matter.

~Alan

arush5268d · 07-06-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

As for your comments, I personally don't want DNR regardless of whether I'm watching on a 19-inch or a 30-foot screen... nor do I see why the size of the TV should matter.

~Alan

If you have a projector setup in a home theater then you are lookin for the theater look and feel. Grain and whatnot seems natural in that atmosphere.

aviman33 · 07-06-2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arush5268d

Hey, smartass: where did you see anything in my post about black bars??? And where did you see anything about me saying that there shouldn't be any grain at all? I said what I would prefer on MY setup...and acknowledged that if I also had a projector then I'd be OK with the grain.

So where do you get off with your comments?

My comment wasn't intended to be offensive. I was more or less agreeing with your position. My position is, I like my movies OAR and without any kind of DNR, which is more noticeable and annoying than grain on a front projection large screen. I understand than many people with 50" TV's are not going to be happy unless they get their DNR. Many DVD's had 2 sides. Maybe they can offer a BD disc with one side OAR and no processing and the other cropped to 16:9 with DNR.

arush5268d · 07-06-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aviman33

My comment wasn't intended to be offensive. I was more or less agreeing with your position. My position is, I like my movies OAR and without any kind of DNR, which is more noticeable and annoying than grain on a front projection large screen. I understand than many people with 50" TV's are not going to be happy unless they get their DNR. Many DVD's had 2 sides. Maybe they can offer a BD disc with one side OAR and no processing and the other cropped to 16:9 with DNR.

I feel like a fool now...i thought you were mocking me. My apologies to you.

Alan Gordon · 07-06-2008, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arush5268d

If you have a projector setup in a home theater then you are lookin for the theater look and feel. Grain and whatnot seems natural in that atmosphere.

I currently watch on a 30-inch TV. I'm planning on upgrading to a 46-inch.

My statements still stand... I don't see why TV size has anything to do with it.

~Alan

07-05-2008, 05:44 AM	#1
J_UNTITLED Power Member Member since:Jul 2006	Studios Ruining Older Movies on Blu? Article here. Discuss below.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
older movies that you can't wait to come out on Blu-ray!	Wish Lists	tbizzle	96	09-03-2011 06:45 AM
Release More Older Movies on Blu-ray	Wish Lists	rjg77vett	2	08-17-2011 04:53 PM
Are older movies better on Blu-ray?	Blu-ray Movies - North America	KnightEye	55	04-01-2009 10:58 PM
When will most older movies be released in Blu-ray?	Blu-ray Movies - North America	kalby8	14	11-06-2007 01:29 PM

07-05-2008, 06:11 AM	#2
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7044 DVD collection:4040	Man, Dr. Silverman was right, it has started. __________________ Well, well, well, you're feeling fine, Well, well, well, he'll make you, Dr. Robert Ring my friend I said you'd call Dr. Robert - The Beatles

07-05-2008, 06:13 AM	#3
Petra_Kalbrain Blu-ray Archduke Top contributor Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Vancouver, BC 4K collection:5 Blu-ray collection:561 Blu-ray reviews:3 Trading Score:20	For the most part, I agree with the article. However, I still want them to eliminate as much film grain as possible. But, can they really do that without compromising the contrast and lighting? I'm not that well informed of the technical aspect.

07-05-2008, 07:33 AM	#4
GGX Banned Member since:Oct 2006 Location:Kentwood, Michigan Blu-ray collection:262 Trading Score:2	I find it funny how the article mentions Patton as having a faithful transfer and Dirty Harry not. When Patton is known to have been tampered with and Dirty Harry's transfer having a good reputation.

07-05-2008, 08:07 PM	#6
HOME THEATRE ADDICT! Expert Member Member since:May 2008 Location:Ohio	I bought the rambo 3 pack at w.m. about a month ago on blu-ray. even though imo they made the picture somewhat improved, I wasnt impressed with the dts-hd mstr transfer. the first one sounded like crap, and I thought the other 2 sounded a little better, but not much! Im skeptical of buying old movies that have been remastered, cause you really dont know what youre getting and then its to late.

07-06-2008, 03:09 AM	#7
J_UNTITLED Power Member Member since:Jul 2006	It's sad how some older films may truly be lost to ever being finely remastered due to the harsh side effects of time and/or poor preservation conditions.

07-06-2008, 03:14 AM	#8
Deciazulado Site Manager Top contributor Member since:Aug 2006 Location:USiberia Home Theater Gallery:6 4K collection:1159 Blu-ray collection:7044 DVD collection:4040	someone really likes to bumps threads

07-06-2008, 08:11 PM	#9
aviman33 Banned Member since:Jan 2008	I don't get what's wrong with grain. It's part of the photographers tool box. I studied photography for a while and spend many an hour in the dark room creating effects and moods by pushing grain of Tri-X pan film. If grain was bad we would have been using Panatomic X film (extremely fine grain) instead. It's all part of the artistic process. A telephoto lens renders very shallow depth of field, a wide angle lens results in just the opposite. It's all up to the director as to what mood they wish to convey. Gritty and grainy were part of the 70's look. When transferred to BD, accuracy should be maintained. I want the grain in perfect focus. Smoothing out or defocusing grain is just like colorizing in my book. John

07-06-2008, 08:16 PM	#10
arush5268d Banned Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Houston, TX Blu-ray collection:85	To be honest, I rather not have grain in my my Blu purchases. If I had a dedicated home theater, with a nice projector I'd probably be OK with the natural film grain.

07-06-2008, 08:33 PM	#11
Blu Titan Super Moderator Top ranked HT gallery Top contributor Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Edo, Land of the Samurai Home Theater Gallery:42 4K collection:41 Blu-ray collection:2864 Blu-ray reviews: 2 Trading Score:92	There is always two sides to every coin, and the opinion of "experts" seems to be as variable as the weather. Interesting "bit" on Patton: Patton Blu-ray DVD was "enhanced to minimize the natural grain," but that in that case, the altering makes it look more like the theatrical 70mm presentation, so he doesn't take issue with that one. Call me crazy, but Mr. Penton appears to be right once again. I will be sure to mention this on the insider's thread.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals