Patton is Phenomenal!!!

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

Long live DNR.. grain is garbage.. grain will never be welcomed if at all possible in my home. I have an old sony vcr if I ever wanted grain I could use.

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.

[Entertainment72]

What is important to me is well.. that I know what I like.. and its not grain director intended or not.. btw.. Im at 33905.. last time I checked anyways.

Pans is amazing due to dnr.. To be honest with you.. if you took the average person (not anal film purist) and asked them which picture looked better.. hmm let me guess..

[Roland1919]

This is good to hear, mine is coming tomorrow from BB.

[blujacket]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

What is important to me is well.. that I know what I like.. and its not grain director intended or not.. btw.. Im at 33905.. last time I checked anyways.

Pans is amazing due to dnr.. To be honest with you.. if you took the average person (not anal film purist) and asked them which picture looked better.. hmm let me guess..

I bet you bought Foolscreen dvd's.

[Roland1919]

Originally Posted by cam555

im telling ya....its my top blu ray for video quality....and i have apocolypto and die hard 4 and all kinds...and its better than those!

But is it better that the best...i, Robot?

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

What is important to me is well.. that I know what I like.. and its not grain director intended or not.. btw.. Im at 33905.. last time I checked anyways.

Pans is amazing due to dnr.. To be honest with you.. if you took the average person (not anal film purist) and asked them which picture looked better.. hmm let me guess..

I own the US release of Pan's. I really enjoy it as I already loved the film. However, if given the option, I would've chosen the overseas release that didn't get the DNR treatment.

Point I'm trying to make is that it isn't a deal-breaker for me, but if I had the choice I'd rather have it with low-to-no DNR. I'm sure that sight unseen this is the best Patton has ever looked, and that's good, but it's also worth noting that this trend could hurt film-based movies as we move forward.

[cam555]

I robot is awesome.....but i was more impressed with patton...seriously. the first scene where he is giving the speech in front of the american flag is killer quality.

[Entertainment72]

Originally Posted by blujacket

I bet you bought Foolscreen dvd's.

No.. I bought foolscreen vhs.. is there a difference I tried playing an 8-track in my new vhs and it didnt work..

In the end it is my bd player.. my tv, my preference.. it is our preferences in the end that matter..

[Carlsberg19]

I dunno if any of you guys seen "beowulf" yet, but that filmed blew me away when i seen it, the picture and sound..my god!

[savage1984]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

Not trying to be a jerk, but when we create a thread, it takes seconds to use the spell check. It would make everyone posting in these threads look a little smarter. The word is "phenomenal." Just a suggestion since it seems to be happening with some frequency.

Oh and yes, Patton looks amazing on Blu-ray. Fox did a terrific job.

well you came off like one anyways. I noticed it was misspelled immediately, but you didn't have to make a point of telling the guy unless you just like to hear your own voice, so to speak.

[Blu Titan]

I am REALLY looking foward to this one. Unfortunally my wife bought it as one of my Father's Days gifts. So I must wait for now.

[Nameless Evil]

I was very pleased with this movie.
I thought the transfer was great for a movie that is old as I am
Yeah, it was a tad soft and I would have prefered a bit more grain, but it's still a good addition to the collection.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Beta-guy

I was looking at the screenshots, and I thought that looked wonderful, if they can remove the grain while keeping the detail and sharp picture then I'm all for it, .

But that is not the case here. The fine detail is gone! 1080p can have so much more detail than this waxy supersmooth CGI look.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

Long live DNR.. grain is garbage.. grain will never be welcomed if at all possible in my home. I have an old sony vcr if I ever wanted grain I could use. Patton will move to my top 3 to purchase now due to dnr..

Use the DNR in your TV and player. No need to ruin the picture for everyone else with a better understanding of what films are and what they look like. Sony VCR? So now VHS quality is the same as finely detailed 1080p with natural film grain? Ridiculous.

[aiman04]

Grain is overrated! It's a conspiracy!

LOL!

**Runs away!

[blukrank]

I'm going to pick Patton up today. Never scene the movie before. Everyone tells me its a great movie.
I always did like George C. Scott but for some reason never did see Patton?
I did think George made a great Scrooge in the 1984 version of A Chirstmas Carol. And I liked him in Firestarter.

[Lucy Diamond]

Originally Posted by cam555

im telling ya....its my top blu ray for video quality....and i have apocolypto and die hard 4 and all kinds...and its better than those!

Riiiiiiiiiiight!??!?!

Dude, this movie "blu" me awaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!


I don't know how it escaped me all these years, but it was actually a blind buy for me and I have no regrets at all.

Excellent all around although the soundtrack can be a bit abrasive and tinny at times.

All in all...totally worth buying.


ALSO...see VIVA LAS VEGAS!!! The PQ is even better!!!

[Riff Magnum]

It is super clean, but i see a lot of detail that i've never noticed on other releases and i've seen this movie a bunch. Yeah, maybe they should've left a little grain, but overall I think they managed to do a damn good job.

I luv it when the little kids salute him, and he gives that little smile for about a nanosecond.

[Squozen]

Those shots make me worried about what I'm going to see on my 92" screen... but oh well, it's not like Fox is going to remaster it.

As long as they're aware that the real film fans are unhappy, and the people that like their film to look like video understand that they can use controls on their TVs to ruin the picture instead of having the studios do it, I think we'll be okay.

[ZMan]

Just purchased it from Amazon based on the reviews here. Can't wait to see for myself all of the hype. Although, I must say, it's got to be great to beat I, Robot for PQ.