Patton is Phenomenal!!!

[SBrooks1]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

On smaller monitors, I'd give it a 10, on large screens, a zero.

With all due respect, I think that's taking your stance on this issue a little too far

[Entertainment72]

I'll look for Patton on VHS then to get an actual representation of it since the BD version is just so bad.

[Deciazulado]

Adding to what Penton-Man said above and of his efforts with this issue, I also can vouch that key persons have heard and been made aware of the opinions surrounding the title.

Output made directly under their supervision is some of the highest caliber and has been praised by the community.



Now returning to the Patton title specifically, almost every other image quality parameter is top notch and it's just the softness of detail at high magnifications that has prevented it from being a perfect 10. For my personal watching I solve this partially by increasing the sharpness and augmenting the contrast moderately, maybe around 1.5 dBs and y1.15. I get a Technicolor looking image (high contrast/saturated), which seems to suit it fine, and manages to make it good enough to watch acceptably at 2.5 PH. In that manner it made the impression on me that in some respects it looked better and more vivid than watching it almost 40 years ago from a print on a curved 70mm D-150 screen (which I once did).

Looking better than the last movie did at my local metropolitan theater a few days ago for sure, Meatloaf would say 9 out of 10 ain't bad.



One thing for certain, it, and the other large format films I've watched digitally recently, have made me crave more for curved screen wide OLEDs.

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by mhafner

I and Mr. Harris fully agree about the lack of authenticity of the look of Patton on BD. No need to play us against each other. That this as presented for now is not a restoration Mr. Harris will confirm 100%.

You can call it what you want but a zero is the lowest score Mr. Harris could dish out. Do you want a -1?

Excuse me, then Mr. Harris should not have given it a "hearty recommended" in his review at Home Theater Forum. I respect and appreciate his work, however, we only have his words to go by and they were much less critical than his current "clarifications." On the other hand, your comments reserved absolutely no praise for the film on blu-ray. He should have stated in his original review that the film was worthless on displays larger than 42"-50" as he has stated here at Blu-ray.com (considering he would score it a big fat zero). Your words on the subject and his review at Home theater Forum are incongruous. That's not my fault gentlemen. Choose your words wisely—we aren't psychics.

As I stated previously, I am more than satisfied with the quality of the "Patton" Blu-ray disc on my 42" display. It simply blows away all previous home video versions.

[space-monkey]

This whole thread is insane. Patton looks absolutely pristine.

I have a 42" television, and have no intention of ever going above 60".

But yeah, it looks absolutely amazing.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by space-monkey

This whole thread is insane. Patton looks absolutely pristine.

I have a 42" television, and have no intention of ever going above 60".

But yeah, it looks absolutely amazing.

Completely insane.

A movie looks the best it ever has on a home medium and everyone complains??!?!

[Headphone Czar]

Originally Posted by aramis109

You're so far removed from the point of contention that you're not even in the same zip code.

While I don't agree about the dislike of grain, I CAN understand the argument. Grain doesn't always come across as clear and "HD-like" to some people. It's not like how HD is on the Discovery channel.

However, the point stands that using DNR to remove grain is removing details from the picture. Fine detail in faces, clothing, textures, etc are permanently lost. Many times faces look glossy or "plastic-like" if too much DNR is used.

Many so-called "film purists" appreciate grain for the sake of grain. To an extent, I agree with this. It's how a movie feels "cinema-like" to me. It has a greater depth of the image. However, I also appreciate films shot on all-digital like Apocalypto and Crank. I think those look great too. The point of argument however is that when applying DNR to old titles you're changing how they are. You're removing details and going away from director's intent. In many cases, film stock is chosen to achieve a certain effect. I think Penton-Man wrote up a list of movies with links of what and why a director chose. Removing that is removing a part of that piece of art- it's like cleaning the Sistine Chapel and then painting over part of it to "improve" it.

You're probably not going to find too much traction to the "I hate grain" argument here. If directors choose to film digitally, I'm all for it. But I'm not for DNR on old classics or on new movies where that was what the director chose for a reason.

I could give a rats ass about the directors intent. Excessive grain like in T2 ruins the HD experience for me.. Very distracting.. Film digital.. Our panels are digital, & so is our music.. Unless artist want to release new albums on Vinyl, if they want to preserve the integrity of the Artist work.

[space-monkey]

I think it's one thing if it's intended for a certain look, like in 300, or some of Spielberg's recent films (SPR, War of the Worlds, Munich). But if DNR is used to make an image look as clean as possible on a home format, and the source wasn't intended to be noticeably grainy, I'm okay with it.

The thing about grain is that, on a big screen, you can't notice it much. When you shrink that, it becomes more concentrated and noticeable. That's the issue.

Patton is not meant to look grainy, it's just not. The DNR is just fine.

[thebluemax]

Me thinks the PQ of "Patton" is beautiful, if that is what DNR does then give me another gorgeous Blu-Ray "Patton" anytime.

[thebluemax]

Originally Posted by space-monkey

This whole thread is insane. Patton looks absolutely pristine.

I have a 42" television, and have no intention of ever going above 60".

But yeah, it looks absolutely amazing.

I have a 60" and "Patton" looks gorgeous on Blu-Ray. The negative comments are crazy and insane, here is perfection and some people are not happy, very sad.

[lgans316]

However, I feel mhafner's previous remarks about the disc are exaggerations to say the least:

Don't disregard mhafner's comments as he has a ship load of knowledge and experience on these areas.

[AaronSCH]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Don't disregard mhafner's comments as he has a ship load of knowledge and experience on these areas.

Sorry, even if I was Catholic I wouldn't believe in the Pope's infallibility. He's got an opinion. It's not sacrosanct.

[Flomaster]

I've never seen the movie so its in my netflix queue im sure I wont be disappointed if PQ and AQ and above par.

-=Jason=-

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by thebluemax

I have a 60" and "Patton" looks gorgeous on Blu-Ray. The negative comments are crazy and insane, here is perfection and some people are not happy, very sad.

Some people may like the way it looks, but to say this is "perfection" is simply not correct, since it does not look the way the actual movie looks.

[Beta Man]

It's not "perfect" but it gives you the same "wow... this movie was made WHEN?" as the Kubrick titles that are out. I think it came out in 1970, that's 38 years ago.... to think anything can look this good from 38 years ago is amazing.

It's not "reference" quality for Blu-Ray.... it IS reference quality for what Blu-Ray CAN do, if done properly for a 30+ year old movie.

*All opinions... if you don't like it, tough *

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Grubert

dvd...... BD.....

does it look a little softer yes but MUCH better I guess thats just my opinion id take the bd over the others any day lol

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

It's not "perfect" but it gives you the same "wow... this movie was made WHEN?" as the Kubrick titles that are out. I think it came out in 1970, that's 38 years ago.... to think anything can look this good from 38 years ago is amazing.

It's not "reference" quality for Blu-Ray.... it IS reference quality for what Blu-Ray CAN do, if done properly for a 30+ year old movie.

*All opinions... if you don't like it, tough *

Once again, while some people may like the way this BD looks, it is simply not correct to say this was "done properly," since it doesn't look the way the actual movie looks.

[robertc88]

Watch "The Professionals" and then post your thoughts with it versus Patton.

I guarantee I already know what you are going to say!

[Brain Sturgeon]

Originally Posted by space-monkey

I think it's one thing if it's intended for a certain look, like in 300, or some of Spielberg's recent films (SPR, War of the Worlds, Munich). But if DNR is used to make an image look as clean as possible on a home format, and the source wasn't intended to be noticeably grainy, I'm okay with it.

The thing about grain is that, on a big screen, you can't notice it much. When you shrink that, it becomes more concentrated and noticeable. That's the issue.

Patton is not meant to look grainy, it's just not. The DNR is just fine.

This statement is entirely misguided-- it is the exact opposite. Grain and film detail is MUCH more noticable on a correctly set up larger screen than it is on a smaller screen. Smaller screens hide the faults of the image much, much better. That is why Rob Harris' comment on the "9-10" rating on Patton on small screens and "0" rating on large screen makes sense.

The bottom line here is that, yes, the image from the BD is very good, much better than anything we've had previous. But, it is not an accurate representation of the original film. On a large screen, the image is very pretty until you appreciate the loss of texture detail, then it becomes distracting and artificial. The images could be better, and enthusiasts have constructively expressed that to the powers-that-be in the studios-- this is a done deal per Penton Man, and as he states, there is no need to beat the studios over the head on this issue-- they know.

I agree that there is no need for some of the fire and brimstone rhetoric on this title, but is it such a big problem to give constructive criticism on a title for future improvements? Enthusiasts in the know are wondering why DNR was needed for a this title when the grain structure of the original 65mm master is inherently fine.

We are all trying to improve the medium, and discussing these issues on a public forum is not a bad way to bring improvements. Discussion of the problems with the original The Fifth Element transfer and the misframing issue on POTC: COTBP brought those problems to light and brought the improvements we have on those titles. Patton BD is not a bad title to own, and I do-- but great as it is, it could have been better.

[/]

[iownu]

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.

The interest in this thread made me take a peek. Yeah lol Jesus. The movie looks like the friggin' Hulk. Terrible job. Looks basically like a surface blur. That coupled with the original obvious studio lighting on these old sets makes the movie look like a green screen short.