Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

The problem I have is that I often can't decide what stance I should take. Should I go for 'theatrical look always' or 'director's intent always'? There are examples of both that look great, and both that look awful. For the record, the 'purist' in me wants the upper picture, and the other the bottom one. Another part just wants to enjoy the damn movie, and doesn't want to nitpick every detail. Apocalypse Now looked absolutely beautiful on DVD (apart from the alter aspect ratio), even though the color scheme was altered from its original version. I'm wondering if it's worth going through the trouble of complaining that it's not the original version, when it still looks gorgeous? Anyway, I think judging every movie separately might be the best answer. Anyway, forgive my rant .

No, don't be silly, I have the same dilemma... The issue for me is when people say that films look more lifelike, therefore they're a better transfer. It's a mighty slippery slope, identical (for me) for those that wanted Goodfellas to look like Crank (I'm dating my PQ references purposely, pointing to the most egregious times of the "tier thread" wanking)

Brushing under the rug or no, it's a fascinating discussion for cinephiles, namely, discussions of audiences expectation versus directors (changing) intentions. It drives some of the more cerebral discussions of such notable cases (be it French Connection or Dracula), and differs entirely, I'd suggest, from discussions regarding over processing by post houses -without- the explicit direction of the filmmakers involved.

I think for sure FFC revisited the colour timing when he did the Redux, and I take the point of the insider from the other thread that this should be mentioned, but I don't think it should be conflated with genuine concern regarding overly processed, "digital"-looking transfers.

Another thing I have an issue with is "softness", often a complaint by some even when a given shot is clearly scanned and presented well (intact grain, etc.) but the camera person has chosen a given look. From diffusion filters to stockings on the lenses (see Star Wars, for one), I for one will be highly aggravated the first time somebody *****es about a given Hitchcock shot looking "soft", provided of course that Uni gives us the transfers of the classic films that we deserve.

But, yeah. I think almost all of us are in agreement, which is nice - able to point out DNR or other post-processing that distracts from a film-like presentation, and at least sensitive to the capture of the original look of a film, balanced with the changing aesthetics of living filmmakers as they tweak their former works over and over.

[Bill Hunt]

This is certainly a discussion that's been with us all through the home video age. It's gotten more pointed in the last few years with Blu-ray, however, because Blu-ray is really the first format that has the technical capabilities to almost transparently present a film looking and sounding as it does in a true theatre environment. So the question always becomes, should the BD presentation stay true to that first theatrical presentation, should it be "improved" to a more "state-of-the-art" appearance, etc? And then when the director weighs in with changes, that complicates things. Surely the artist has the right to control the presentation of his or her own work, and to determine exactly what he or she intended with the work, but when does it "cross the line" so to speak? When does editing changes, coloring changes, DVNR, enhanced visuals, etc, alter the work so much it essentially becomes a new work?

My own feeling is that I prefer a film to look like a film on Blu-ray. Yeah, I know we can add color to a B&W film these days, and I know we can remove all the grain to make an old film appear fresher and more new looking. But I'm not interested in seeing The Godfather looking like it was shot with the Red camera, or the Three Stooges looking like an 80s sitcom. Obviously, color timing, small editing and the use of noise reduction are more subtle changes, but to me that makes it all the more important that one be cautious and light-handed when applying them. If a director or DP does it, that's one thing. But you simply have a case of some mastering tech, who just doesn't much like grain on his masters, choosing on his own to use more DVNR as a matter of course, that's a whole other issue. And no disrespect to mastering folk - but again, this is the exact same sort of issue as some mastering guys using too much edge-enhancement as we transitioned from laserdisc and VHS to DVD. It's a learing curve for them too, and old habits die hard.

To look at all this from a purely art preservation perspective, consider da Vinci's Mona Lisa or a Michelangelo fresco painting. The physical process involved in the creation of those paintings means they have a certain specific look - a texture if you will - that results from the materials used during the period and the physical effort... the brushstrokes in the case of the da Vinci, or in the case of the Michelangelo the image looking a little patchy because only a portion of the image can be completed each day before the fresco material dries. Those things are an intrinsic part of the image - the very artistic effort is encoded in the image. Now, to represent these images in the digital age, we can easily scan or photograph the original works and use Photoshop filters to remove that brushwork and texture, so all we see is the pure image. But when you do that, you lose something that I think is important to the integrity of the work of art. The same thing is true with film - for over 100 years now, film has been a physical, photochemical process involving mechanical cameras and choices of exposure and film stock, and the available options have evolved over that time. Today, films can all look 100% perfect using fully digital HD cameras, and that's a wonderful thing - it's a whole new toolbox for filmmakers. But older films simply don't look like that - and they were never meant to. And if you go in and erase all those little bits of texture, you lose something important. You lose some of the signatures of the artists and their process, and you lose the visual indicators that place that film in the context of a specific period of film history.

But let's be honest: Presenting films on Blu-ray is itself not a science as much as it is an art. So as in all things, the key is to be sensitive to the issues and to find a balance - balancing the need to preserve the integrity of the original artwork with the need to refresh it for a new generation of viewers to appreciate. All we can hope is that the people who MAKE these decisions in the home video departments of the various Hollywood studios understand this and care about it as much as we do - and certainly this is usually the case. What gets frustrating is when the people making these decisions just don't understand or are ignorant of the issues. When people who are careful and do understand make mistakes - that's understandable, and you always know they're going to learn from it and try harder next time. It's far more frustrating when these same people - good and well intentioned though they may be - just don't get it at all, and don't realize they have a problem, or why it's a problem, or why anyone would care anyway.

Getting back to the subject of directors making revisions of their own films, that's trickier. My own preference is that if a director wants to make such changes, that's their right. But if the changes reach a certain point, I do think it's important for a lot of reasons (preserving the work of the other artists involved in making the film, preserving a sense of film history, and also respecting the film as fans have known it all their lives) to also preserve the original work as it was. Let the new version BE its own new version, but let the original version live on as it was. I think that's always been my feeling with regard to the most obvious instance of this whole director revisionism: George Lucas' Star Wars special editions. I'm happy to see George tinker with the films as he wishes, but I also want the original versions I've loved for so long preserved too.

Anyway, these are issues that we're going to have to live with always, especially as we move further into the digital age... and I for one am grateful that there are still enthusiasts who care enough to talk about it and debate it. I'll start really worrying when NO ONE is debating this stuff anymore.

[sharkshark]

Hey, Bill!

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

If a director or DP does it, that's one thing. But you simply have a case of some mastering tech, who just doesn't much like grain on his masters, choosing on his own to use more DVNR as a matter of course, that's a whole other issue.

To be honest, and I admit to talking out of my butt, I'd be very surprised if the mastering techs truly are working in a vacuum here. If anything, the more "smooth" looks of the likes of Patton are the result, I fear, of attempting to meet audience expectations. The trick then, as you've articulated before, is to educated the audience that perhaps their expectations (Patton should look like some NFL broadcast to be considered "HD") are flawed. The same could be said for colour timing - craving "natural", particularly when viewed out of context, would be just silly. Everything from gels on set to the latest DI tweak can make the colours any range that the DOP wants, and there's a real trend of late, it seems, to go for a more saturated look in order to appear "punchy", or to facilitate that "3D look" that some still use as an adjective to describe excellent presentations.

Thus, when all is said and done, we could very well be left with a definitive version of the film on HD disc that's timed in a way that's significantly different to the original intentions of the director, even if the director/DOP is the one retroactively calling for it.

I think the Lucas example is more challenging - here he's altering the films quite significantly, and it's hard for even the most novice film goer to miss that, er, Greedo's shooting first. When something like Patton is released, it's also easy to see that clearly we've got a technical decision to remove grain that should be inherent to the presentation, or with Spartacus where a troublesome master is made worse by further tweaking, rather than doing a new release from scratch.

Where it becomes silly is with the likes of Baraka or Planet Earth, where some complained of soft shots (ignoring, say, the 600mm+ lenses used on the latter). Baraka did include a pretty darned hyperbolic "extra" that extolled the perfection of the transfer, but to ignore some of the inherent issues with capturing the images when kvetching about a given transfer does something really important - it diminishes those cases where there really are things to worry about.

Penton's latest point about grading is, I think, entirely valid. It's super easy, I think, to brush this change of palate under the rug as the transfer seems so clearly superior in other ways (namely, the replication of a "film-like" look). It's equally easy to fall into the trap of spouting hyperbole in the opposite direction.

I've not seen Gladiator since its theatrical release, and I remember (the way I usually don't for most films) that the palate seems pretty darned murky, almost annoyingly so. Contemporary reviews, like the one from Ebert, point to this fact. If this is now a "fixed" version, then making that explicit is, I think, entirely appropriate for any review of this disc. I think reviewers -should- be on the lookout, and if we shouldn't count on decades old memories of how the film looked projected at a multiplex, we certainly shouldn't stand for when somebody describes a given new transfer as more "natural".

To look at all this from a purely art preservation perspective, consider da Vinci's Mona Lisa or a Michelangelo fresco painting

A very interesting metaphor, given the great controversy that occurred at the time with two major restorations by these artists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Las...or_restoration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restora...hapel_frescoes

I think these guys (http://www.artwatchinternational.org/), with their contrary position to the results of these restorations, put to shame even the most erudite arguments that we could sum on on boards such as these.

As I said above, it's an interesting debate, one involving the ephemeral nature of film art (once thought a fairly permanent record), the role of the Auteur(s) in retroactively adjusting their work, the demands of commerce to fuel a nascent video format, and so on. All of these discussions, to me, are far more illuminating and intellectually nourishing than Gladiator ever was, but that, of course, is entirely beside the point.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

If anything, the more "smooth" looks of the likes of Patton are the result, I fear, of attempting to meet audience expectations. The trick then, as you've articulated before, is to educated the audience that perhaps their expectations (Patton should look like some NFL broadcast to be considered "HD") are flawed.

I wish this were strictly true. But in the case of Patton, it literally was a situation where the company that did the digital mastering originally cut their teeth in video/broadcast TV work - rather than film restoration or preservation - and as a matter of principle the owner of the company simply doesn't like film grain. So they made the choice to remove it entirely on their own, and did so not while checking their work on a large projection screen to really see in detail what the impact of that was, but rather on standard studio HD monitors. And afterwards, when lots of people rightly complained, the owner of the company still swore that the master looked great and there should be no reason for anyone to complain. I know, because I spoke with him at the time. Absolutely good point about the need to educate consumers - that's always been the challenge going back to the pan and scan vs. letterbox debate.

I think these guys (http://www.artwatchinternational.org/), with their contrary position to the results of these restorations, put to shame even the most erudite arguments that we could sum on on boards such as these.

Good link and I'll check it out. UPDATE: Make that GREAT link. Talk about increasing esotheric but fascinating art restoration debates!

As I said above, it's an interesting debate, one involving the ephemeral nature of film art (once thought a fairly permanent record), the role of the Auteur(s) in retroactively adjusting their work, the demands of commerce to fuel a nascent video format, and so on. All of these discussions, to me, are far more illuminating and intellectually nourishing than Gladiator ever was, but that, of course, is entirely beside the point.

Truly. Definitely a good debate, and an important one to have. I'm not familiar with the genesis of this whole new Gladiator BD color timing controvery, though I will admit to being somewhat susprised the issue was raised based on an examination of screenshots rather than the actual discs. I thought I'd read somewhere that "screenshot-ology" was frowned upon around here. Though that particular bit of text may have disappeared down the memory hole, I don't know...

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Truly. Definitely a good debate, and an important one to have. I'm not familiar with the genesis of this whole new Gladiator BD color timing controvery, though I will admit to being somewhat susprised the issue was raised based on an examination of screenshots rather than the actual discs. I thought I'd read somewhere that "screenshot-ology" was frowned upon around here. Though that particular bit of text may have disappeared down the memory hole, I don't know...

You're typing on an iPhone, aren't you...

Not to step on any toes, but I -think- the point was that either the screenshots were wrong, or that an aspect of the screenshots was being conveniently ignored (ie., Different Timing trumping DRM).

But, yeah, you don't need me to summarize, I get your point.

Yeah, that Artmatters site, very cool - free to sign up and access their "before/after" debates. More than a bit reactionary, but amusingly so (and certainly a very, very high level of discourse based on years of eductation.) Honest debate between art insiders, as it were.

Plus, you think BD caps are controversial, try taking a regular photo of a painting!

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

With luck it shouldn't be a problem then.

In fact, PHE's 888 number doesn't ask for any personal info at all; they just ask the color of the UPC and the "NA" number on the disc hub (both apparently to confirm you have the old version), then tell you to mail only Disc 1 with your name, address & phone number to the address previously given. (As stated in the Gladiator thread, you can use any old envelope; it doesn't matter if Disc 1 gets broken in the mail as it's just POP.)

I'd go ahead and call the 888 number anyway, though, because (a) there's a report some people are getting a different P.O. box to mail their discs to and (b) there's a slim chance they're using ANI (the non-hideable version of Caller ID for toll-free numbers) to track the phone calls and match them to the returned discs.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Not to step on any toes, but I -think- the point was that either the screenshots were wrong, or that an aspect of the screenshots was being conveniently ignored (ie., Different Timing trumping DRM).

Well... guess we'll just add that to the list of things I (and others associated or friendly with either myself or The Bits) have been anoymously accused of "conveniently" doing around here.

Yeah, that Artmatters site, very cool - free to sign up and access their "before/after" debates. More than a bit reactionary, but amusingly so (and certainly a very, very high level of discourse based on years of eductation.) Honest debate between art insiders, as it were.

Plus, you think BD caps are controversial, try taking a regular photo of a painting!

I can only imagine! Truly a great site, and fun reading. Thanks very much for the link. By the way, I'm an Android guy... who can in no way, shape or form type well via phone keyboard. I'm old school desktop PC.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

In fact, PHE's 888 number doesn't ask for any personal info at all; they just ask the color of the UPC and the "NA" number on the disc hub (both apparently to confirm you have the old version), then tell you to mail only Disc 1 with your name, address & phone number to the address previously given. (As stated in the Gladiator thread, you can use any old envelope; it doesn't matter if Disc 1 gets broken in the mail as it's just POP.)

I'd go ahead and call the 888 number anyway, though, because (a) there's a report some people are getting a different P.O. box to mail their discs to and (b) there's a slim chance they're using ANI (the non-hideable version of Caller ID for toll-free numbers) to track the phone calls and match them to the returned discs.

Yeah, I guess my point is, you just can't hurt to be a little careful, when you're being asked to send in a disc without any kind of other documentation. That's all. I'd just hate to have anyone get screwed.

[chris0]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

Well... guess we'll just add that to the list of things I (and others associated or friendly with either myself or The Bits) have been anoymously accused of "conveniently" doing around here.

Some of us don't go to places in this forum we used to frequent because of that swirling, angry memory hole.

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

By the way, I'm an Android guy... who can in no way, shape or form type well via phone keyboard.

Have you tried the Swype keyboard? It's really amazing. They've got a really cool video tutorial page.

[ScuseMe]

Hi Bill,

Are there any rumblings around about a blu-ray release of Das Boot? It's one of my all-time favorite war movies. My wife and I saw it in the theater in the early 80's and it was magnificent….except for the atrocious english dubbing

Later I purchased this movie on LD, then again on DVD, and finally had the chance to watch it properly shown in its native German with English subtitles. I'd love to have it on blu to upgrade my 1997 DVD. Unfortunately, except for a rumored German release, I've read nothing else about it.

Thanks!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

By the way, I'm an Android guy...

Recent picture of Mr. Hunt:

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by chris0

Have you tried the Swype keyboard? It's really amazing. They've got a really cool video tutorial page.

No, I haven't. I'll have to check it out. Actually, while we're sort of on the subject, does anyone here have an iPad? I've been thinking about getting one, but am actually waiting to see what the first Android tablets are like. I hear the Samsung Galaxy Tab (as I believe it's going to be called) will be pretty good. Rumor is it gets announced in about 10 days or so.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by ScuseMe

Hi Bill,

Are there any rumblings around about a blu-ray release of Das Boot? It's one of my all-time favorite war movies. My wife and I saw it in the theater in the early 80's and it was magnificent….except for the atrocious english dubbing

Later I purchased this movie on LD, then again on DVD, and finally had the chance to watch it properly shown in its native German with English subtitles. I'd love to have it on blu to upgrade my 1997 DVD. Unfortunately, except for a rumored German release, I've read nothing else about it.

Thanks!

I haven't heard anything yet, but I would be somewhat surprised if Sony wasn't already working on an HD transfer, or had even already finished it. Putting past issues aside, perhaps Penton has an insight. I imagine it would take a bit of work to really nail it for HD, but it's a great film and it's one that Sony has always been quick to release on DVD in the past, so I'd be surprised if a Blu-ray wasn't already planned for release at some point in the not too distant future.

[Bill Hunt]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Recent picture of Mr. Hunt:

Ha! Something like that.

[ScuseMe]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

I haven't heard anything yet, but I would be somewhat surprised if Sony wasn't already working on an HD transfer, or had even already finished it. Putting past issues aside, perhaps Penton has an insight. I imagine it would take a bit of work to really nail it for HD, but it's a great film and it's one that Sony has always been quick to release on DVD in the past, so I'd be surprised if a Blu-ray wasn't already planned for release at some point in the not too distant future.

Thanks Bill, I appreciate your response. Hopefully Sony thinks the same way you do

[Moviefan1203]

Originally Posted by ScuseMe

Hi Bill,

Are there any rumblings around about a blu-ray release of Das Boot? It's one of my all-time favorite war movies. My wife and I saw it in the theater in the early 80's and it was magnificent….except for the atrocious english dubbing

Later I purchased this movie on LD, then again on DVD, and finally had the chance to watch it properly shown in its native German with English subtitles. I'd love to have it on blu to upgrade my 1997 DVD. Unfortunately, except for a rumored German release, I've read nothing else about it.

Thanks!

There is a German release due in October, but I'm not sure if it will have English subtitles or not.

http://www.bluray-disc.de/news/filme...f-blu-ray-disc

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

The problem I have is that I often can't decide what stance I should take. Should I go for 'theatrical look always' or 'director's intent always'? There are examples of both that look great, and both that look awful. For the record, the 'purist' in me wants the upper picture, and the other the bottom one. Another part just wants to enjoy the damn movie, and doesn't want to nitpick every detail. Apocalypse Now looked absolutely beautiful on DVD (apart from the alter aspect ratio), even though the color scheme was altered from its original version. I'm wondering if it's worth going through the trouble of complaining that it's not the original version, when it still looks gorgeous? Anyway, I think judging every movie separately might be the best answer. Anyway, forgive my rant .

For me personally, I want as much of the image that was filmed as possible even if the director intended for a different ratio. If enough was filmed to cover a 1.78:1 ratio then I would prefer to see all that information to fill up my screen even if it was intended to be 2.35:1 unless of course that image opening leads to things being seen that don't belong. Thats just me though.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by merrick97

For me personally, I want as much of the image that was filmed as possible even if the director intended for a different ratio. If enough was filmed to cover a 1.78:1 ratio then I would prefer to see all that information to fill up my screen even if it was intended to be 2.35:1 unless of course that image opening leads to things being seen that don't belong. Thats just me though.

Don't post this over at AVS...they'll tar and feather you!

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by merrick97

For me personally, I want as much of the image that was filmed as possible even if the director intended for a different ratio. If enough was filmed to cover a 1.78:1 ratio then I would prefer to see all that information to fill up my screen even if it was intended to be 2.35:1 unless of course that image opening leads to things being seen that don't belong. Thats just me though.

Heh, it's not just you (see HBO broadcasts), but for, uh, just me, I'm pleased you're in the minority.

I got into this damn hobby for OAR, and you'll have to pry my cold, dead hands from any 16:9 redux of a wider aspect. But, yeah, you're of course welcome to your opinion, and I respect you're right to share it. I just think that the preference is, erm, "misguided".

[meckel]

Originally Posted by Bill Hunt

No, I haven't. I'll have to check it out. Actually, while we're sort of on the subject, does anyone here have an iPad? I've been thinking about getting one, but am actually waiting to see what the first Android tablets are like. I hear the Samsung Galaxy Tab (as I believe it's going to be called) will be pretty good. Rumor is it gets announced in about 10 days or so.

Bill,

My wife got me a iPad for Fathers Day. It's pretty cool so far. I have had an issue or two with no flash support, ESPN3 uses flash. I now have a use for all the digital copies I have. Feel free to PM an questions you have.