Sony Black Crush on late-2014 / early-2015 BDs

[sixty-inch]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Fury looks like an amazing 5 star transfer if you don't have anything to compare it to. Even when comparing I think it looks better, crush or not.

Well you are wrong. We have something to compare to and you don't need to be an professional to note that something is wrong. The US BD of Fury is botchy that's a fact it deserves no 5 Star Rating with that heavy Black Crush.

[Wernski]

Originally Posted by Pecker

've already posted reasoning as to why something is on the OCN doesn't mean that we were supposed to see it, and yet that's been completely ignored.

Not true; I replied to your reasoning with a follow-up question.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Wernski

Not true; I replied to your reasoning with a follow-up question.

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not too well today.

Could you please post a link to your reply as I can't find it.

I've probably scrolled past it 5 times!

Many thanks.

Steve W

[BONKERS]

Originally Posted by Pecker

My personal opinion is that it'd help if people didn't post speculation and dress it up as fact.

I've already posted reasoning as to why something is on the OCN doesn't mean that we were supposed to see it, and yet that's been completely ignored.

Maybe I've missed something. Maybe there's an interview or a quote with director or DoP saying this isn't what the film is supposed to look like. Right?

Wrong.

I'm open-minded to the debate. Maybe the discs are too dark. Maybe they're not. But the only evidence we have so far is that there is detail missing which is on other versions, and as has been noted this isn't conclusive evidence at all.

Can we please wait for a definitive statement.

Steve W

UH... This IS conclusive evidence. It proves without a doubt, that it's a FACT that the transfer has had the greyscale clipped at some point. Taking the non clipped versions and doing the same thing provides the exact same result. Nearly every single case has the same problem.


Whether it's intentional by the film makers is another story.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Wernski

These Sony blus are being taken from the OCNs?

Is this what you're referring to?

Answer, almost certainly yet.

As Robert Harris and Roger Deakins have both pointed out, a 4K scan is a complete waste of money unless you're going all the way back to the OCN, and scanning at 4K is substantially more expensive than scanning at 2K.

So, as these come from 4K masters, it's 99.9% certain they scanned the OCNs.

Nonetheless, all of this is irrelevant to the discussion. there are any number of stages at which a film is printed down and altered post-OCN, sometimes with a presumption that the levels of degradation will change the look of the film, sometimes when this is done so deliberately.

The point remains, just because any one early copy of a film has visible detail does not mean that every bit of that detail was intended to be seen.

Steve W

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by BONKERS

UH... This IS conclusive evidence. It proves without a doubt, that it's a FACT that the transfer has had the greyscale clipped at some point. Taking the non clipped versions and doing the same thing provides the exact same result. Nearly every single case has the same problem.


Whether it's intentional by the film makers is another story.

That makes no real sense, as my entire comments are based on what the film makers may or may not have intended us to see.

Steve W

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I've already posted reasoning as to why something is on the OCN doesn't mean that we were supposed to see it, and yet that's been completely ignored.

Who cares about the OCN? That's not what's actually shown in movie theaters, and it's not what's used to prepare home video versions.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Who cares about the OCN? That's not what's actually shown in movie theaters, and it's not what's used to prepare home video versions.

Erm...that's my point.

My whole point is that just because you can see something in one version, doesn't mean you should see it.

Steve W

[Wernski]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Is this what you're referring to?

Answer, almost certainly yet.

As Robert Harris and Roger Deakins have both pointed out, a 4K scan is a complete waste of money unless you're going all the way back to the OCN, and scanning at 4K is substantially more expensive than scanning at 2K.

So, as these come from 4K masters, it's 99.9% certain they scanned the OCNs.

Nonetheless, all of this is irrelevant to the discussion. there are any number of stages at which a film is printed down and altered post-OCN, sometimes with a presumption that the levels of degradation will change the look of the film, sometimes when this is done so deliberately.

The point remains, just because any one early copy of a film has visible detail does not mean that every bit of that detail was intended to be seen.

Steve W

Yup, that was it.

If they're not using the OCNs, then Sony is presumably using completed masters to make their blus of, right? (That's not a rhetorical question, someone please jump in and correct that if I'm wrong.)
And we know the info is still visible in the dark areas of those movies at that stage, because we see it in the other versions everybody's comparing the screenshots to (i.e. the digital copies and DVDs), right? So why would/should Sony then be darkening them additionally to crush the blacks? That seems past the point where someone at Sony should be making artistic decisions about the movie, where instead it should be their duty to be as faithful and accurate to the already finished and post-produced film they've already got in their hands.

[chip75]

I'm not sure how much help theses capture of the Fury are, they're from a trailer. I don't have the movie to compare, they look pretty good but there's a colour difference to the BD shots I've seen, so I'm not sure how finished the grading on the trailer was. It looks a few steps away from the finished product!



Another 15 behind the spoiler tab ...

[Show spoiler]

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by Pecker

My personal opinion is that it'd help if people didn't post speculation and dress it up as fact.

I've already posted reasoning as to why something is on the OCN doesn't mean that we were supposed to see it, and yet that's been completely ignored.

Maybe I've missed something. Maybe there's an interview or a quote with director or DoP saying this isn't what the film is supposed to look like. Right?

Wrong.

I'm open-minded to the debate. Maybe the discs are too dark. Maybe they're not. But the only evidence we have so far is that there is detail missing which is on other versions, and as has been noted this isn't conclusive evidence at all.

Can we please wait for a definitive statement.

Steve W

We're waiting on that indeed, hopefully not for much longer.

As for THE INTERVIEW, I saw it twice in theaters, and I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that the UV, DVD, Netflix and clips used in the special features all look virtually identical to what I saw in theaters, and the BD absolutely, categorically does not.

As the only other explanation is that the filmmakers decided to crush the blacks for the BD release alone, and then somehow the makers of four other films, from various eras, shot on various formats, all contacted Sony in the same month and asked for that to also be done to their films, I feel pretty safe in saying that no, the filmmakers' visions are not represented on these BDs.

If I'm proven wrong, I'll gladly admit it. I just think that's exceedingly unlikely.

[Clark Kent]

Sony's technicians have a pretty bad history of tampering with color-grading and contrast for home video release. It took them several tries before they got Ghostbusters close to ideal on Blu-ray.

I have no idea why the original camera negative has been brought up. For the major Hollywood studios today, the Digital Intermediate is the movie's finished look for all intent and purposes unless someone tinkers with it for home video.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Wernski

Yup, that was it.

If they're not using the OCNs, then Sony is presumably using completed masters to make their blus of, right? (That's not a rhetorical question, someone please jump in and correct that if I'm wrong.)
And we know the info is still visible in the dark areas of those movies at that stage, because we see it in the other versions everybody's comparing the screenshots to (i.e. the digital copies and DVDs), right? So why would/should Sony then be darkening them additionally to crush the blacks? That seems past the point where someone at Sony should be making artistic decisions about the movie, where instead it should be their duty to be as faithful and accurate to the already finished and post-produced film they've already got in their hands.

If that's what happened, I agree.

But we're still waiting for Sony to say something.

Surely the powers that be must know by now.

Steve W

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

Sony's technicians have a pretty bad history of tampering with color-grading and contrast for home video release. It took them several tries before they got Ghostbusters close to ideal on Blu-ray.

I have no idea why the original camera negative has been brought up. For the major Hollywood studios today, the Digital Intermediate is the movie's finished look for all intent and purposes unless someone tinkers with it for home video.

Transcendence, Inherent Vice, and Intestellar had no digital intermendiates, and they looked fantastic! So not all films use a DI, and imo, none should.

[amoergosum]

New review of The Interview:

What becomes a continuing problem for The Interview are the invasive black levels. Compared to the streamed VOD presentation, the feature seems to have underwent IRE tinkering before Blu-ray. Shadow detail is utterly crushed. Inside dark locations, actors blend in with their surroundings through shadows. It’s an oppressive look – maybe somewhat ironically? – but in actuality makes scenes hard to view.

Specifically, a nighttime sequence involving a tiger is ruined. This is the most egregious. From a distance (Franco’s POV) there is little to see. The tiger is barely visible. Rogen completely disappears. While this look can (occasionally) grant the illusion of depth, it’s just an illusion. And, the cost is rather high.

Source:
http://www.doblu.com/2015/03/13/the-...lu-ray-review/

[filmmusic]

Any news by Sony on the matter?
They're still denying that there is a problem?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Poya

Transcendence, Inherent Vice, and Intestellar had no digital intermendiates, and they looked fantastic! So not all films use a DI, and imo, none should.

The directors of those movies are extremely rare exceptions. They're basically film fetishists. The vast majority of directors who still shoot with film use DIs now.

[grrrarg]

This thread has me worried for the future. Imagine Sony finally fires whoever is responsible for all these discs... and then Universal hires this individual?

Maybe we can get some catalog titles from Universal from 12+ year old HDTV broadcast masters encoded with Universal's patented, unobtrusive DNR techniques combined with black crush!!

[Poya]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

The directors of those movies are extremely rare exceptions. They're basically film fetishists. The vast majority of directors who still shoot with film use DIs now.

Fair point. Though, I find it extremely ironic how Quentin Tarantino is the biggest lover of film out there, yet his recent films have been through a DI.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by grrrarg

This thread has me worried for the future. Imagine Sony finally fires whoever is responsible for all these discs... and then Universal hires this individual?

Maybe we can get some catalog titles from Universal from 12+ year old HDTV broadcast masters encoded with Universal's patented, unobtrusive DNR techniques combined with black crush!!

Well, at least you wouldn't be able to see the horrible DNR.