The Holiday- Sony, what the hell is wrong?

[Chad Varnadore]

Trends always come in spurts and don't have to be limited to one particular DP. They usually aren't. Look at how SPR changed the way war films look from different directors and different photographers. For SPR, it was flattery to imitate the look. In these cases it may be nothing more than DPs wanting to get experience experimenting with something new or who have been sold on the process.

It's possible it was something done for cinema projection, that just doesn't translate as well to the brighter, more dynamic displays we can have at home. I didn't see any of these films theatrically. But, I feel that when you can't back it up or qualify an argument, you have to give the studio the benefit of the doubt as a reviewer. Believe me, your post isn't the first time it occured to me it could be something unique to Sony's labs, MPEG2, etc. But, after weighing everything, I just don't feel there's probable cause to go that direction yet.

From what I've seen this is less consistent with one studios production processes than films that have been tweaked during post. You could be right. It could be something Sony is doing on their own. After all, their labs could have been responsible for The Sentinel too. Finding Neverland is another that might fit the mold, but nowhere near as severe. But, I just haven't seen probable cause yet to think it's Sony. Every title of theirs that I was familiar with has had the dynamic range I expected. Only a few that I wasn't looked any different. And of those, it wasn't uniform to the special features. Talladega Nights' deleted scenes looked much better than the film. You could tell that they were cut prior to the added manipulation. It's not a given that whatever caused TN to look that way would have also effected the special features. But, it's logical to think that it would have as well.

It's a curious prospect though. And one worth pursuing, just in case. Which is one reason I point it out in the reviews, so there is something wrong, the studios and authoring houses will get wind of it. Maybe paidgeek can shed some light. But, until more evidence is in, I think the more obvious culprit is something they are doing in post, making it deliberate or at least an innate side effect. It makes sense. Just as color filters have always cut into dynamics, even resolution, digital correction could be eating into dynamic range as well if the manipulation is being painted to the entire frame and not just isolated spots, which seems more likely.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this isn't DVD. The same rules don't apply. This isn't a compromised format that has to go thru filtering etc. to meet the limitations of the media. Maybe if they were trying to cram in a bunch of extras in too tight a space. But, being a BD50, I'm sure the disc could handle it, leaving Sony no reason to alter the intended look.

[Brad Ley]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

I didn't see any of these films theatrically. But, I feel that when you can't back it up or qualify an argument, you have to give the studio the benefit of the doubt as a reviewer. Believe me, your post isn't the first time it occured to me it could be something unique to Sony's labs, MPEG2, etc. But, after weighing everything, I just don't feel there's probable cause to go that direction yet.

And I'm pointing out that I did see these films theatrically and the resultant Blu-rays don't match the look of what was seen theatrically. To me, that's proof positive number 1. Secondly, there's visible evidence (via the various trailers and the Talladega Nights deleted scenes you reference) that the images look better elsewhere. Whether this is due to intentional post processing to give the films a crushed, lights are off appearance is open to debate, but it should at least be the launch point of a few hard questions being asked, rather than a blanket, "That's how it's supposed to look. Trailers are made to look better than the film." The Blu-ray reviewer for Home Theater Forum actually says, "I'm pretty sure it's just a very poorly shot film." The Holiday is shot by one of the premiere cinematographers in the industry and Ben Williams is "pretty sure it's just a very poorly shot film."

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

From what I've seen this is less consistent with one studios production processes than films that have been tweaked during post. You could be right. It could be something Sony is doing on their own. After all, their labs could have been responsible for The Sentinel too. Finding Neverland is another that might fit the mold, but nowhere near as severe. But, I just haven't seen probable cause yet to think it's Sony. Every title of theirs that I was familiar with has had the dynamic range I expected. Only a few that I wasn't looked any different. And of those, it wasn't uniform to the special features. Talladega Nights' deleted scenes looked much better than the film. You could tell that they were cut prior to the added manipulation. It's not a given that whatever caused TN to look that way would have also effected the special features. But, it's logical to think that it would have as well.

But we're not necessarily talking about the same thing here. I don't think this problem is as connected to Blu-ray as much as it is the HD transfer process. These trailers and deleted scenes wouldn't necessarily be done at the same location as the feature. If you look at the behind the scenes features on Click, the interview stuff looks fine while the intercut film clips look as off as the feature. So logic creates a scenario where the feature transfer is messed up right at the outset. And it is this faulty master that is used all the way down the chain for Special Features as well as the feature encode. Deleted Scenes are often delivered by a completely separate facility.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

It's a curious prospect though. And one worth pursuing, just in case. Which is one reason I point it out in the reviews, so there is something wrong, the studios and authoring houses will get wind of it. Maybe paidgeek can shed some light. But, until more evidence is in, I think the more obvious culprit is something they are doing in post, making it deliberate or at least an innate side effect. It makes sense. Just as color filters have always cut into dynamics, even resolution, digital correction could be eating into dynamic range as well if the manipulation is being painted to the entire frame and not just isolated spots, which seems more likely.

Fine, agree. But then that is therefore a kink in the mastering process, which is what I've been saying. These masters should look as close to the intended theatrical look as is possible. As I said before, the trailer for The Holiday looks just like the film did when I saw it theatrically (as does TN). So if there is something being done in post giving it "deliberate or at least an innate side effect," than Sony should be utilizing the same facility and methodology that they did for the trailer, because the trailer telecine was able to eliminate or counteract this side effect. I, however, subscribe to the simplest explanation being the correct one... somebody is messing up these transfers and it's not getting flagged because QC personnel are taught not to QC "creative elements." And besides, intentional, stylized looks usually are connected to a mood or theme the filmmakers are trying to convey. The Matrix has a green tint to reflect the world of the computer. Saving Private Ryan has a very gritty, rough, realistic look to convey the reality and brutality of war. Rocky Balboa has a colder, blue tint to give it a slightly melancholy, moody personality. But the look of The Holiday is simply that of a projector whose bulb is about to blow like you're seeing it in a third run theater. Even you, in your review, admit to fidgeting with your settings because you couldn't tell if what was wrong was the disc or the display. That's a huge red flag and I'm surprised people are easily willing to dismiss it as filmmaker intent rather than seriously questioning if something is wrong or not.

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Another thing to keep in mind is that this isn't DVD. The same rules don't apply. This isn't a compromised format that has to go thru filtering etc. to meet the limitations of the media. Maybe if they were trying to cram in a bunch of extras in too tight a space. But, being a BD50, I'm sure the disc could handle it, leaving Sony no reason to alter the intended look.

That has nothing to do with it because the standard DVD (no offense Videophile) is just as bad and has the exact same issues as the BD. The master, the starting off point for everything after, is bad. Again, look at the making of on The Holiday. Interview clips and b-roll look just fine. But as soon as a film clip appears, it's like somebody notched the brightness way down.

But I realized about an hour after I posted last that I actually know someone who is very close to Dean Cundy. So I guess I'll just pose the question to him if I can. It could get interesting.

[Deciazulado]

mmm you might have something there. Some DVDs tell who the digital transfer/authoring house was for the disc at the end. Maybe these titles are being done in the same trasfer house?

I have too many BDs, so havent gotten to watch these, but if you say the look is drastically different from the theater (for the worse) that shouldn't be happening. (If they were different for the bettter, that would be normal because first generation digitally scanned negatives > fourth generation prints mechanically projected)

Anyway you mention the whites being dim. Can anyone digitally measure the levels of the whites? (digital screen capture). Clean white diffuse objects (not specular highlights) should hover at around (8 bit digital 16-235 video) near level 204 (or "87 IRE" in NTSC analog video with set up).

[Chad Varnadore]

Everytime a film is mastered both the DP and director are asked to supervise. I don't know the percentage of one's that do, but I've been led to believe it's pretty high. So, if the masters were approved by the DP or director, it would indicate the masters match what they intended.

The fact that you saw something different theatrically does raise a red flag indeed. But, I'm not sure that is conclusive either. Differences between film and digital projection not withstanding, the larger sized venue of cinema and the limited dynamic range that such large projection is usually limited to as compared to smaller consumer displays can complicate a comparison, particularly one based on memory. This is what I meant by the alteration being something that could have been designed to enhance the cinema experience due to limitations therein, that just doesn't translate as well to a smaller screen that doesn't have the same limitations. Even low CR pjs at 2k:1 have a broader dynamic than most theaters. Some CRTs have been calibrated to achieve as much as 50k:1 on/off CR. The home cinema is a very different beast. Comparison's between the two are always interesting and can be used to qualify a point. But, it's still not a guarantee of anything.

The fact that it's inconsistent with trailers and deleted scenes or other features on a disc, just indicates that those pieces weren't adjusted in the same way, ie. scenes cut prior to post correction. It could mean that the film is being altered during telecine. Or it could mean it was altered during production.

Hope your friend can shed some light. I'm very interested in hearing your findings. I still think it's worth posing to paidgeek in the insiders thread too. Surely he can elaborate on one of the films in question.

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Everytime a film is mastered both the DP and director are asked to supervise. I don't know the percentage of one's that do, but I've been led to believe it's pretty high. So, if the masters were approved by the DP or director, it would indicate the masters match what they intended.

The fact that you saw something different theatrically does raise a red flag indeed. But, I'm not sure that is conclusive either. Differences between film and digital projection not withstanding, the larger sized venue of cinema and the limited dynamic range that such large projection is usually limited to as compared to smaller consumer displays can complicate a comparison, particularly one based on memory. This is what I meant by the alteration being something that could have been designed to enhance the cinema experience due to limitations therein, that just doesn't translate as well to a smaller screen that doesn't have the same limitations. Even low CR pjs at 2k:1 have a broader dynamic than most theaters. Some CRTs have been calibrated to achieve as much as 50k:1 on/off CR. The home cinema is a very different beast. Comparison's between the two are always interesting and can be used to qualify a point. But, it's still not a guarantee of anything.

The fact that it's inconsistent with trailers and deleted scenes or other features on a disc, just indicates that those pieces weren't adjusted in the same way, ie. scenes cut prior to post correction. It could mean that the film is being altered during telecine. Or it could mean it was altered during production.

Hope your friend can shed some light. I'm very interested in hearing your findings. I still think it's worth posing to paidgeek in the insiders thread too. Surely he can elaborate on one of the films in question.

I am checking to confirm that the color corrected master was approved by one of the films responsible persons. If it was (and it almost always is), then you just have to accept that they were going after a certain 'look'.

[dearjim]

It was silly of me trying to fine-tune my TV color using this blue-ray Disc!!! At first I thought it was me !! Now I know!

[paidgeek]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Everytime a film is mastered both the DP and director are asked to supervise. I don't know the percentage of one's that do, but I've been led to believe it's pretty high. So, if the masters were approved by the DP or director, it would indicate the masters match what they intended.

The fact that you saw something different theatrically does raise a red flag indeed. But, I'm not sure that is conclusive either. Differences between film and digital projection not withstanding, the larger sized venue of cinema and the limited dynamic range that such large projection is usually limited to as compared to smaller consumer displays can complicate a comparison, particularly one based on memory. This is what I meant by the alteration being something that could have been designed to enhance the cinema experience due to limitations therein, that just doesn't translate as well to a smaller screen that doesn't have the same limitations. Even low CR pjs at 2k:1 have a broader dynamic than most theaters. Some CRTs have been calibrated to achieve as much as 50k:1 on/off CR. The home cinema is a very different beast. Comparison's between the two are always interesting and can be used to qualify a point. But, it's still not a guarantee of anything.

The fact that it's inconsistent with trailers and deleted scenes or other features on a disc, just indicates that those pieces weren't adjusted in the same way, ie. scenes cut prior to post correction. It could mean that the film is being altered during telecine. Or it could mean it was altered during production.

Hope your friend can shed some light. I'm very interested in hearing your findings. I still think it's worth posing to paidgeek in the insiders thread too. Surely he can elaborate on one of the films in question.

I have confirmation that this master was carefully reviewed and approved by the films talent. The color correction choices were made specifically at their request and under their supervision.

[Deciazulado]

Well, that settles it

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

I have confirmation that this master was carefully reviewed and approved by the films talent. The color correction choices were made specifically at their request and under their supervision.

Thanks for looking into it!

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Brad Ley

The Blu-ray reviewer for Home Theater Forum actually says, "I'm pretty sure it's just a very poorly shot film." The Holiday is shot by one of the premiere cinematographers in the industry and Ben Williams is "pretty sure it's just a very poorly shot film."

Hey Brad...

I can certainly understand if you disagree with my opinions about the film. I can assure you that as a trained cinematographer myself, even the greatest cinematographers in film history take the occasional misstep. While I personally don't find Dean Cundey's work to be all that remarkable, I think it is worth pointing out that The Holiday is significantly different from the majority of his work. His work is typically very glossy and polished. Perhaps if you were to take a look at some of Nancy Meyers' previous films you would see that many of her films have the same washed out and crushed look as The Holdiay. Something's Gotta Give leaps to mind. Anyway, the emerging Blu-ray format is finally making video available to the consumer that has the potential to be transparent and accurate to the DP's intent. If it inspires debate, then the home video world is all the better for it.

[GasCat]

Personally I disagree with the OP.

Many of the scenes took place at night and they were obviously after a soft warmer look. This was acheived. You do not need to have cold glaring whites and vibrant colors when the object of the film is to relax in a scene with actors portraying people falling in love. This wasn't an action film. The look of the film was consistent throughout, this shows a care for quality control.

As for the film, I believe it needed several more re-writes. The film shows how bad Cameron Diaz acting could get. She was horrendously unbelievable in her character portrayal.

Eli Wallach gave a standout performance as did Kate Winslet. Half of Jack Black's performance was worthy of high praise but there were times when he should have been directed or the scenes reshot. I blame this on either a faulty script or the lack of proper direction. I compliment Sony for including a "making of the film" extra shot in HD.

I'd give it a 6/10. This could definitely be called a "girl film". If watched with someone special give a temporary four points extra credit should the night turn to pleasure (mission accomplished).