1962 Mutiny on the Bounty in November 8 - Review up

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

All I can tell you about epics, is I think the closest thing *epic-ish* coming out is Jim Cameron’s redo of Titanic. Most are familiar with his planned upcoming exhibition of the 2D -> 3D conversion of this motion picture but, for best results, this 3D project encouraged him to first remaster the film in 4k (and then do the conversion) and apparently the new 4k DCP (2D) version is planned to be shown in some selected venues also next year.

...and as a by-product Penton-Man, we 2D Blu-ray viewers who just want a better quality home viewing experience get a higher-def video master. If it takes a 3D* retrofit for theatrical release to get studios to properly rescan and remaster catalogue titles, then so be it.

* I can enjoy some event pictures in 3D theatrically, but I have less than zero interest in this gimmick at home. Just give me more classic movies truly mastered for high def.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Yo Oliver ,
I thought all those fluent in German (including you) had left the forum. I really needed your services several weeks ago –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/insider-di...ml#post5333205

All I can tell you about epics, is I think the closest thing *epic-ish* coming out is Jim Cameron’s redo of Titanic. Most are familiar with his planned upcoming exhibition of the 2D -> 3D conversion of this motion picture but, for best results, this 3D project encouraged him to first remaster the film in 4k (and then do the conversion) and apparently the new 4k DCP (2D) version is planned to be shown in some selected venues also next year.

P.S.
b.t.w., to member ElliesDad, he/she is beautiful .

Hmmm, a seemingly standard commercial for dogfood? Seems it has some high frequncy noises in it for dogs - they would probably have preferred it in odorama though

Well, I have not that much fondness for Titanic but would like to see the LOTR trilogy revisited in 4k.

[Primal Sage]

Originally Posted by retablo

And it's not necessarily cheaper to shoot digital. You still have to shoot exactly the same as you'd shoot a movie on film. What IS cheaper is digital projection... taking away the cost to make prints.

Prints are definetely cheaper, yes. But there is much more to it than that. As I understand it most of the studios don't own the film cameras they shoot with - they rent them from Panavision for several thousand dollars a day. Compare that with buying a 4k digital camera for 30,000-50,000 dollars and you can easily spot a big save per movie. Also there is no need to scan the movie to a digital intermediate for post production work and then there is the actual cost of the cellulloid. Hard drives versus cellulloid - the echonomics are stratospherically different.

Regarding other 4k cameras than the Red One. Clearly I am behind on my knowledge. Which is excellent. We are further along than I thought :-)

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by Primal Sage

Prints are definetely cheaper, yes. But there is much more to it than that. As I understand it most of the studios don't own the film cameras they shoot with - they rent them from Panavision for several thousand dollars a day. Compare that with buying a 4k digital camera for 30,000-50,000 dollars and you can easily spot a big save per movie. Also there is no need to scan the movie to a digital intermediate for post production work and then there is the actual cost of the cellulloid. Hard drives versus cellulloid - the echonomics are stratospherically different.

Regarding other 4k cameras than the Red One. Clearly I am behind on my knowledge. Which is excellent. We are further along than I thought :-)

This all sounds great Primal Sage, but we also need Writers and Directors with 'epic minds'...DPs with 'epic eyes'...and Studios heads who aren't always barking "Hurry up. It's good enough. We'll fix it in post via CGI."

And while they're at it, they need to find some 'epic performers'. This current crop of ex-tube wannabe's just aren't cutting it on the marquee...

[Primal Sage]

Well, sure. Just great technology alone won't cut it. But when you combine this new technology with people like Riddley Scott and Peter Jackson, it looks quite promising.

And there will always be a big gap between the best and the worst directors, but if every movie in the theaters is shown in something equivalent to 70mm visually (some day in the digital future) then we can hardly complain about it.

[Ron Pulliam]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Than. Better eyes than you.

And no, that is not what is going on here. It's not a top-quality modern transfer. Simple as that.

If not, there's a reason: "Mutiny on the Bounty" was not filmed in high def as the "top-quality modern" releases were. Of course, if you're referencing "The Ten Commandments" and "Ben-Hur" as models of that paradigm, then I have to say it's because those titles were phenomenal box-office draws and "...Bounty" was not nearly as successful.

That said, no studio is going to go that extra mile with this title. THIS is as good as it's ever going to get for "Mutiny on the Bounty" (MGM-1962) on home video...in my lifetime, at any rate.

And it's the BEST that there has ever been up until this point. That's saying something.

Anyone pondering if this is a flawed transfer can rest easy. It isn't. It's the best there is going to be from a perfectly wonderful high-def master prepared several years back.

No HD-DVD cooties, on it, either. It's all there was ever gong to be....and far more than we had any hope to believe we would get.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Ron Pulliam

If not, there's a reason: "Mutiny on the Bounty" was not filmed in high def as the "top-quality modern" releases were. Of course, if you're referencing "The Ten Commandments" and "Ben-Hur" as models of that paradigm, then I have to say it's because those titles were phenomenal box-office draws and "...Bounty" was not nearly as successful.

huh? "high def" is a joke compared to 65mm negative

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Ron Pulliam

If not, there's a reason: "Mutiny on the Bounty" was not filmed in high def as the "top-quality modern" releases were. Of course, if you're referencing "The Ten Commandments" and "Ben-Hur" as models of that paradigm, then I have to say it's because those titles were phenomenal box-office draws and "...Bounty" was not nearly as successful.

That said, no studio is going to go that extra mile with this title. THIS is as good as it's ever going to get for "Mutiny on the Bounty" (MGM-1962) on home video...in my lifetime, at any rate.

And it's the BEST that there has ever been up until this point. That's saying something.

Anyone pondering if this is a flawed transfer can rest easy. It isn't. It's the best there is going to be from a perfectly wonderful high-def master prepared several years back.

No HD-DVD cooties, on it, either. It's all there was ever gong to be....and far more than we had any hope to believe we would get.

You had me there for a while after the first paragraph, but I strongly disagree with the rest of your post.

I am resting at ease too as I don't have sleepless nights because of bad to mediocre Blu-Ray releases. That does not change the fact that MoB on Blu-Ray is a big disappointment for many of us, studios like Sony and Fox would not have released this kind of product.

And I really had a good laugh at "perfectly wonderful high def master" - this is a joke, right?

[Primal Sage]

Originally Posted by Ron Pulliam

Anyone pondering if this is a flawed transfer can rest easy. It isn't. It's the best there is going to be from a perfectly wonderful high-def master prepared several years back.

No HD-DVD cooties, on it, either. It's all there was ever gong to be....and far more than we had any hope to believe we would get.

This is quite wrong. In the early days of BD and HD-DVD releases, the people making the HD transfers had not yet perfected the techniques required for doing so. Their tools weren't as advanced as they are now and compression algorithms not as advanced. You don't need to to scan every single frame of Bounty in 8k and do thorough cleanup to get a better result than the present BD. You don't need to throw the kind of money after the project that was thrown at Ten Commandments.

They just needed to make a new transfer. One without edge enhancement. One without DNR. The result would have been an image looking much better than what we have here. In stead they reused an old HD transfer which isn't competitive with other newer transfers. The movie being old has nothing to do with it.

Bounty is a 65mm film. It should look clearly better than 35mm movies from the same period. It doesn't.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

I love this movie. I've had the HD-DVD for about 4 years now and I've watched it probably 4 or 5 times and the transfer quality leaves a lot to be desired. Those bluray caps on DVD Beaver look pretty much just like the HD-DVD. Extremely smooth but not very sharp and lacking in actual detail. Look at Fletcher's jacket buttons fer chripes sake. Blurry. They were NOT like that in 70mm, I can vouch for that.

^ (bolding by moi)

Me too, which makes it a bit of a tough pill to swallow , especially, for one thing, having the knowledge that things have markedly improved in terms of monitoring displays and procedures in the mastering suites of many studios and content providers since 05/06, just in going from the source (be it an image sequence on a drive, like DPX, or a 10-bit HD master tape) -> Blu-ray disc. If memory serves, in this case the scanned source was a 35mm IP reduction print.

b.t.w., Robert Siegel just wrote an excellent article entitled “Behind the Mutiny on the Bounty” currently located at the top of the News section of this forum.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ (bolding by moi)

Me too, which makes it a bit of a tough pill to swallow , especially, for one thing, having the knowledge that things have markedly improved in terms of monitoring displays and procedures in the mastering suites of many studios and content providers since 05/06, just in going from the source (be it an image sequence on a drive, like DPX, or a 10-bit HD master tape) -> Blu-ray disc. If memory serves, in this case the scanned source was a 35mm IP reduction print.

b.t.w., Robert Siegel just wrote an excellent article entitled “Behind the Mutiny on the Bounty” currently located at the top of the News section of this forum.

I think you are exercising a lot of restraint there considering how the Blu-Ray looks
I finally got the Blu-Ray as a rental and like the screencaps indicated it looks very very much like the HD-DVD.

I think it is a shame that a movie as splendid looking as this one has not been given the treatment it deserves, imo better not to release at all than to release something that is so far from the optimum.

Robert Siegel outdid himself with MoB - fantastic.

[eChopper]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

^ (bolding by moi)

Me too, which makes it a bit of a tough pill to swallow , especially, for one thing, having the knowledge that things have markedly improved in terms of monitoring displays and procedures in the mastering suites of many studios and content providers since 05/06, just in going from the source (be it an image sequence on a drive, like DPX, or a 10-bit HD master tape) -> Blu-ray disc. If memory serves, in this case the scanned source was a 35mm IP reduction print.

b.t.w., Robert Siegel just wrote an excellent article entitled “Behind the Mutiny on the Bounty” currently located at the top of the News section of this forum.

what a disgrace

[rvmeeker]

Originally Posted by Primal Sage

This is quite wrong. In the early days of BD and HD-DVD releases, the people making the HD transfers had not yet perfected the techniques required for doing so. Their tools weren't as advanced as they are now and compression algorithms not as advanced. You don't need to to scan every single frame of Bounty in 8k and do thorough cleanup to get a better result than the present BD. You don't need to throw the kind of money after the project that was thrown at Ten Commandments.

They just needed to make a new transfer. One without edge enhancement. One without DNR. The result would have been an image looking much better than what we have here. In stead they reused an old HD transfer which isn't competitive with other newer transfers. The movie being old has nothing to do with it.

Bounty is a 65mm film. It should look clearly better than 35mm movies from the same period. It doesn't.

Well, I finally received my blu-ray copy of Mutiny on the Bounty, and I wanted to weigh in with my thoughts, and respond to Primal Sage, ROclockCK, and Oliver K. To be honest, I genuinely have mixed feelings about this release, primarily for the reasons already aired in this thread. No, this is not even close to a reference quality BR release -- disappointing considering what should be possible with the vastly-higher resolution of original 65/70mm source material (a la 10 Commandments & Ben Hur). In other words, if you're a big fan of this film, it's hard to ignore the "what could have been" factor.

On the other hand, I recognize that this is very likely the best this film will EVER look and sound on home video. The picture resolution is decent if not great for a BD. The colors, however, are beyond stunning. The cinematography of the Tahitian scenes is indescribably beautiful -- veritable eye candy displayed across the entire screen. The lossless sound, too, offers a spectacular presentation of Kaper's memorable score. For those reasons alone, I will treasure this disc.

Has anyone here actually done a one-on-one comparison between the HD-DVD and BD Mutiny discs? It would be really interesting to hear some commentary. If both transfers were in fact made off the same HD master, does the BD offer a discernible picture quality upgrade?

I enjoyed ROclockCK comments on studio legacy-redux dumpings, and could not agree more. It would be interesting to have more insight into the factors that go into this decision-making on the part of the studios. Clearly, someone is doing a cost-benefit analysis, and apparently concluding that any BD release is better than none in most situations. Does anyone really think that they lose significant sales when a title is released with only mediocre PQ? After all, most everyone I know still complains about "those damn black lines" on their televisions, and consider their iPod earbuds as hi-end audio. When I host a run-of-the-mill "civilian" at my pretty impressive home theater, they are usually oblivious to really how much better the picture and sound quality are compared to how they typically watch their streaming movies at home (ugh!). About all they comment on is the size of my screen. So much for the film-appreciation sophistication of the general consumer public ...

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, I'm guessing that our little group of high-def aficionados is just that: a relatively small niche group. There probably are simply too few of us to move the sales needle enough to convince studios of the wisdom of investing more into these legacy catalog titles. Question: are the actual unit sales numbers of individual BD titles available online anywhere? Exactly how many units of 10 Commandments, or King Kong, or My Fair Lady, or Mutiny are actually sold? A few thousand? Tens of thousands?

I've really enjoyed the continued discussions on this thread. Keep up the great commentary, everyone.

[ROclockCK]

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

I enjoyed ROclockCK comments on studio legacy-redux dumpings, and could not agree more. It would be interesting to have more insight into the factors that go into this decision-making on the part of the studios. Clearly, someone is doing a cost-benefit analysis, and apparently concluding that any BD release is better than none in most situations. Does anyone really think that they lose significant sales when a title is released with only mediocre PQ?

Sadly, no. However, with Blu-ray still only 20% to 25% of the home video market, and sales for catalogue titles so soft in general, it's hard to tell exactly how much impact this practice of legacy-dumping has been having. I suspect that diehard fans of these movies have been plugging their noses and buying this redux product anyway...just to have the movie on Blu.

But this is not a new practice rvmeeker, especially for Warners. They did exactly the same thing with their first wave of DVDs...straight porting hundreds of titles from their letterboxed Laserdisc masters (if we were lucky), and in some cases even working from masters barely enhanced over what was offered on VHS. Check out early snapcase DVD releases of Outland or Altered States for two notoriously poor examples of what Warners released just to "get DVD product on the shelves". It took years for these studios to go back and properly rescan and remaster their libraries. With some titles, we're still waiting...

Originally Posted by rvmeeker

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, I'm guessing that our little group of high-def aficionados is just that: a relatively small niche group. There probably are simply too few of us to move the sales needle enough to convince studios of the wisdom of investing more into these legacy catalog titles.

No doubt. What's changed with Blu-ray is the stakes (read: cost$$$) have risen dramatically to properly redo these catalogue titles. And this is at a time when we're still in recession, home video sales in general have softened, and Blu-ray still hasn't crossed over as the primary home video medium. Factor in the push to HD VOD for cable and other 'unboxing' streams, plus the diminishing will for studios to 'go-for-broke' on a high-end Blu-ray edition unless they can make it an 'event' release like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Gone With the Wind or Wizard of Oz. Guess where rescanning and remastering something like Mutiny on the Bounty falls on their scale of priorities?

However, it's not all bad news. I think the studios are already aware that these lazy legacy-dumps just aren't cutting it with either movie afficionados or mainstream fans, and will eventually get around to properly redoing their catalogues. What will most likely drive that is the need to feed the HD cable and streaming markets. The question is, "How much of that upgraded product will they bother to release on Blu-ray?" Some studios, like Columbia/Sony and Fox, have already made it clear that they want to get out of the manufacture and distribution of hard (physical) media for catalogue titles, and just license their HD masters for Blu-ray release via cottage labels.

So over the next few years, we'll likely see some of these 70mm epics treated much better on Blu-ray...just not likely released under the house label, or as widely and cheaply available as these second tier legacy dumps.

[rvmeeker]

Originally Posted by ROclockCK

What's changed with Blu-ray is the stakes (read: cost$$$) have risen dramatically to properly redo these catalogue titles. And this is at a time when we're still in recession, home video sales in general have softened, and Blu-ray still hasn't crossed over as the primary home video medium. Factor in the push to HD VOD for cable and other 'unboxing' streams, plus the diminishing will for studios to 'go-for-broke' on a high-end Blu-ray edition unless they can make it an 'event' release like Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, Gone With the Wind or Wizard of Oz. Guess where rescanning and remastering something like Mutiny on the Bounty falls on their scale of priorities?
...
However, it's not all bad news. I think the studios are already aware that these lazy legacy-dumps just aren't cutting it with either movie afficionados or mainstream fans, and will eventually get around to properly redoing their catalogues. What will most likely drive that is the need to feed the HD cable and streaming markets.
...
So over the next few years, we'll likely see some of these 70mm epics treated much better on Blu-ray...just not likely released under the house label, or as widely and cheaply available as these second tier legacy dumps.

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Rock-Around-The-Clock (yes, I too read Parade Magazine!). But they do beg some questions. First, you say that costs to redo these catalog titles have increased. Really? I've always assumed that hi-def transfer costs have gone down over the years. I remember when Blu-ray (and HD-DVD) first came out, it was predicted that product releases would be relatively slow as it took considerably longer (i.e. more expensive) to do an hi-def transfer than a conventional DVD transfer. With the thousands of titles that now have actually made it to BD, I can only assume that the per-disc cost for these transfers has plummeted. Am I wrong?

Second, I don't see how the push to VOD and streaming is going to lead to yet higher-quality HD transfers. My limited exposure to that stuff does not generally impress me. Furthermore, the greater the resolution of a "print", the more video broadcast bandwith it requires. Considering the mediocre hi-def expectations of the average consumer, why would a media company allocate more bandwith than is minimally required for it to tout a broadcast as "hi-def"? What passes for HD on some of my satellite channels is clearly far short of 1080p. And the little streaming video I've seen shows very low PQ. Consumers seem to be demanding convenience far more than PQ, so although I hope you are correct, I don't understand why you believe this trend will possibly lead to good things.

Finally, I do agree that it's possible that more and more of these legacy titles may migrate to smaller Twilight Time-type labels, but I'm not sure if that necessarily translates to reference-qualiity transfers. For example, I'm thrilled to have "The Egyptian" on blu-ray, but I'd say it falls considerably short of reference-quality. Do you have any sense of what the actual cost comparisons are for a true high-quality transfer vs. a run-of-the-mill dump? I have no idea myself, but it would be interesting to know the numbers. I would think that Criterion might be willing to tackle some of this stuff, but that assumes the major labels would license their titles, an unlikely scenario I would think.

[thebluemax]

Just watched the BD "MOTB" and I thought the PQ was average at best, to soft, lack of clarity, some blur, and facial color is far to intense. However, The AQ was good. This is in dire need of complete restoration. The picture quality at times was excellent, other times difficult to watch. Did I enjoy the home video movie experiance ? No.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by thebluemax

This is in dire need of complete restoration.

No it's not. It just needs a modern scan from 70mm elements and minimal digital futzing.

[Melaus]

"Well DVDbeaver very much gives it the thumbs up, & the screencaps look great. I'm sure it would look a wee bit sharper if the original negs were scanned, but that's not going to happen, so my order is still in. If I could only accept a film looking the best it could ever look, then my DVD/Blu-ray collection would be down to about five discs" Quote CinemaScope

Well done C.S.

One of the best and most applicable assessments so-far!

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

No it's not. It just needs a modern scan from 70mm elements and minimal digital futzing.

Me thinks My Fair Lady needs the same treatment.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Melaus

"Well DVDbeaver very much gives it the thumbs up, & the screencaps look great. I'm sure it would look a wee bit sharper if the original negs were scanned, but that's not going to happen, so my order is still in. If I could only accept a film looking the best it could ever look, then my DVD/Blu-ray collection would be down to about five discs" Quote CinemaScope

Well done C.S.

One of the best and most applicable assessments so-far!

^ bolding by moi.

My assessment is that some viewers are in dire need of something like this procedure either for one or both eyes….

Penetrating Keratoplasty - YouTube

Not to worry though, as I think, unlike Lasik, you get very good insurance coverage for a total corneal replacement (PK).