Patton is Phenomenal!!!

[lgans316]

Mr. Robert Harris,

On a scale of 1-10 how much would you rate the Blu-ray edition of Patton ?
I hope that Godfather doesn't get slapped with obnoxious levels of DNR.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by patrick99

My theory as to why Fox so misguidedly went the DNR route on Patton: in order to fit the movie on a single disc. The bitrates on the Patton BD are fairly low, yet the movie occupies about 80% of the available space. Without the DNR, a single disc would not have accommodated the movie. That's my theory.

You may be right. The bit rates were lower probably due to the pristine nature of the source material which didn't force the compressionist at FOX to push the bit rates like they did with other titles.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Penton,

What I'm saying is that the software or algorithm used, either did not do the job correctly by simply reducing grain alone, or that what was requested of the vendor was inclusive of removing high frequency.

Might the methodology have been left over from the stone age?

I can't say that it wasn't.

Can you suggest a rational for reducing grain on a film of 65mm origination?

While I cannot currently join in any discussion re: the other title, I can tell you that Lawrence, photographed on stock two generations previous to Patton (5250), would not need any image manipulation in terms of grain or detail.

RAH

I know lots about Lawrence.
Already, said way too much a few weeks ago.

[WickyWoo]

It looks almost candy coated to me. The colors are pumped up far too bright (maybe that's how it's supposed to be, I've never seen it on film), and the DNR acts like hardened sugar syrup.

I'd put it up there with Hairspray's level of DNR (except it almost worked on that film)

[Grubert]

DVD ........................... .................................................. ...... BD

[sardaukar1977]

I was extremely impressed with the PQ of Patton, It was as the title of this thread says, phenomenal. It made some new movies look bad, now if Patton can be restored so well, why can't some other movies.

[patrick99]

Thanks, as always, for your insights, Penton.

As I have suggested before, I think, unfortunately, that we are already seeing the tension created by use of too much "added value" on the same disc with the movie (and I'm not talking about Patton or Fox now).

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Break Patton at the Intermission.

Mr. Harris, I don't think that is necessary at all.

Firstly, there is precedent of longer movies with no such compromise on picture quality.

For example, Fox's Kingdom of Heaven is 191 minutes long, encoded in famously-inefficient MPEG2. And this is what you thought of it:

Now in BD, Kingdom of Heaven is everything that I hoped it would be.

Miraculously beautiful, and a perfect work of compression and authoring, Kingdom of Heaven is one of the highest ranking members of my Best DVD List of 2006.

Home theater of this quality would have been unimaginable a decade ago.

Kingdom of Heaven in BD is Extremely Highly Recommended. My praise of this disc could only be higher if Fox had included the myriad of extras on their recent SD special edition.

Another example: A Passage to India is 163 minutes long and has over an hour of hidef extras, on the same disc.

Cutting to the chase, as some would say, A Passage to India looks beautiful as a Sony Blu-Ray.

The image and audio show off the technical attributes of the system while allowing the home video viewer to get a least a bit of understanding of what Passage looked like on the theatrical screen.

Is it perfect?

My personal preference would have been toward slightly less cyan-blue facial tonalities in the opening sequence, but aside from that the new transfer is a marvel.

Would DL have been pleased?

I believe so.

Those who have not yet experienced A Passage to India are advised to get their orders in early, as the initial pressing is apt to sell out quickly. This is one of those films that you'll want on Blu-ray.

Very Highly Recommended.

Secondly, if a 170-minute movie couldn't fit in a BD50 without compromising quality, then you could say the same thing about any movie over 90 minutes on a BD-25. Yet, there are numerous examples of movies in the 90-120 minute range that look very good. For example, just last week I finally watched Dog Day Afternoon, a 2+ hour movie, with an hour of supplements and pristine grain structure, on a BD25.

To say that Warner has done this incredible film proud would be an understatement, for their concurrent high definition releases on HD as well as BD, are note and letter perfect. There is nothing that could have upped the ante as far as transfer, or the "harvesting" of the image, be it from the original camera negative or an interpositive.

Let me say it loud and clear. Dog Day Afternoon is a perfect high definition disc, supported by multiple documentaries and a commentary track from Mr. Lumet.

Dog Day Afternoon comes Extremely Highly Recommended. Those who do not quickly acquire a copy may be in jeopardy of having their license to view classic cinema revoked.

Or, to follow that math, then any movie over 105 minutes couldn't have fitted 30GB (counterexample: any HD DVD ever released - just look at Blade Runner).

In short: it's not the capacity.

[lgans316]

Mr Harris,

Could you please reply to this post ?

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...7&postcount=34

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by Aygie

What would you rather have, Patton DVD or Patton Blu-ray?

Neither. I would opt for some other film to watch. Or rent if I felt an urge to see it now. Or see a print, if possible.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

An absolute exaggeration to say the least. There is more detail revealed on the Blu-ray than has ever been apparent in ANY, I repeat, ANY home video format.

So? There is more detail than on the DVD? I'm so impressed. NOT.
If you can't see how much detail is missing I suggest you look at transfers with grain intact and fine detail. If you still can't see the difference I give up.

I have news for you bud... having an understanding of the art and history of film doesn't have a damn thing to do with the nit-piking that goes on in these forums. Most film enthusiasts go to the theater, a place in which the movie-watching environment is hardly perfect and the film elements can quickly show their wear and tear.

So? Because projecting film can and often will wear down the print it's ok to master BD disks not to look like film at all, with or without scratches? Or because you don't see scatches on Patton HD anthing else you don't see is fine? What kind of logic and argument is that?
It's not really difficult. Either you are fine with films not looking like (the original) film on HD (and I'm talking about the texture and detail, not random damaged frames) or you are not. It's a matter of principle. And this principle has very much something to do with the art, history and appreciation of film. If rejecting the look of Patton is nitpicking I wonder what actually we are allowed to criticise about the fundamental properties of a HD transfer? Please do tell.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by patrick99

My theory as to why Fox so misguidedly went the DNR route on Patton: in order to fit the movie on a single disc. The bitrates on the Patton BD are fairly low, yet the movie occupies about 80% of the available space. Without the DNR, a single disc would not have accommodated the movie. That's my theory.

I see no technical justification for that theory. Patton is ~170 minutes. With a 50GB Blu Ray disk you can encode this with grain and fine detail and get a very good quality picture. Patton as is could be put on a 25 GB disc without problems. Smooth stuff like this compresses well.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by sardaukar1977

I was extremely impressed with the PQ of Patton, It was as the title of this thread says, phenomenal. It made some new movies look bad, now if Patton can be restored so well, why can't some other movies.

Because Patton was not restored to anything. It was distorted. Restore = bring back to original condition (texture, detail, colors, contrast...). Patton never looked like this before this BD release. To put it nicely, it's a recreation or reinterpretation of Patton, not a restoration. To put it not so nicely, it's a distortion, even a destruction of Patton.

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by mhafner

I see no technical justification for that theory. Patton is ~170 minutes. With a 50GB Blu Ray disk you can encode this with grain and fine detail and get a very good quality picture. Patton as is could be put on a 25 GB disc without problems. Smooth stuff like this compresses well.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=259

[Entertainment72]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Because Patton was not restored to anything. It was distorted. Restore = bring back to original condition (texture, detail, colors, contrast...). Patton never looked like this before this BD release. To put it nicely, it's a recreation or reinterpretation of Patton, not a restoration. To put it not so nicely, it's a distortion, even a destruction of Patton.

I hope we get more recreations then..., just mess'n with you..

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by mhafner

Restore = bring back to original condition (texture, detail, colors, contrast...). Patton never looked like this before this BD release.

Agreed!

Well said.

For a film enthusiast, getting a copy of a coveted film that has been restored as closely to what was originally created and then reproduced from the highest standards the blu-ray technology will allow is priceless.

"It's good enough" is not the same beast or movie and has little coveted value for an enthusiast to own.

Paul

[robertc88]

I have a question. What was the reason(s) this film was released in this manner? It must have been viewed and needs to go through some type of audit or quality control would be my assumption.

This whole thing just doesn't seem right to me. Almost like they knew it and didn't care???????????

[owa]

Originally Posted by sardaukar1977

<snip>It made some new movies look bad, now if Patton can be restored so well, why can't some other movies.

Yeah, before reading about the controversy surrounding Patton, that was my first thought as well. Even now, after reading all about the issue at hand, it's hard to change my view on it. Basically, without seeing how it's "supposed to look", I have to go with what I know and judging it based on that (the blu-ray), it looks great.

[AaronSCH]

Since some of my comments have been grossly taken out of context and other words seem to have been put in my mouth, I think I should set the record straight and quote myself:

... I understand that "Patton" isn't a "perfect" transfer. But some of the comments are simply idiotic. I have seen the most recent two-disc DVD incarnation of "Patton" and watched the Blu-ray last night. I may not be as, ahem, "sophisticated" as some of these self-proclaimed film experts but I find the Blu-ray an enormous improvement over any previous incarnation of the film on home video. The difference is simply night and day—even with the heavy-handed DNR. If you love the film, don't hesitate buying this disc.

That statement is true. I also previously stated that I wish the film grain had remained intact. But we got what we got. However, this is still the best version of Patton that has EVER been available on a home video format and it is without-a-doubt worth picking up on Blu-ray disc. I didn't say any more or any less about the disc.

However, I feel mhafner's previous remarks about the disc are exaggerations to say the least:

Originally Posted by mhafner

Because Patton was not restored to anything. It was distorted. Restore = bring back to original condition (texture, detail, colors, contrast...). Patton never looked like this before this BD release. To put it nicely, it's a recreation or reinterpretation of Patton, not a restoration. To put it not so nicely, it's a distortion, even a destruction of Patton.

Although he had real concerns regarding this Blu-ray edition of Patton, Robert A. Harris said the following which seems a much more "educated" assessment of the disc than some overheated comments:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris, Home Theater Forum

...This is a meticulously created BD disc of one of our greatest films.

Everything about it appears to be absolutely, delightfully perfect.

But it seems to be yet another example of film that no longer looks like film.

The reality of this situation is that I'm probably preaching to the wind. This is a disc that will be wonderfully reviewed, as it deserves to
be, and the public will revel in the image's clarity and brilliance.

And they will be pleased.

Do I like this Blu-Ray of Patton?

Absolutely!

Can I recommend it?

Without a doubt.

Can I live with it?

If there's no alternative.

I cannot however, get over the point that film should look like film, video should look like video, and data like data.

And here is a film magnificently photographed in 65mm, that looks like data.

For a disc that I was looking forward to giving five stars and an extremely high recommendation, with nothing higher possible...

I give a hearty Recommended.

Who knows...maybe mhafner's credentials are superior to those of Mr. Harris, but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Scale of 1 - 10 on Patton isn't an easy answer.

On smaller monitors, it looks beautiful, with problems only appearing probably above 42 - 50".

On smaller monitors, I'd give it a 10, on large screens, a zero.

So maybe, just maybe it isn't the abomination mhafner has painted. I must admit, I am not the owner of a screen larger than 50" but on my 42" LCD screen, Patton looks awesome. Maybe my attitude will change when I add a larger monitor to the home theater, but I am quite happy now.

And the comment I made regarding the cineplex being an imperfect experience had absolutely nothing to do with the Blu-ray edition of Patton. It was a response to this comment Squozen left in a previous post: "the real film fans are unhappy and everyone else likes their film to look like video." It was an arrogant comment to make. I was merely pointing out that the enjoyment and knowledge of film had zero to do with the technical squabbles going on in these threads. Of course we want the best picture and sound possible, that's why we keep buying the same flicks over again. But on the other hand, I am sure many of us have found ourselves pausing during channel surfing to watch a less-than-stellar cable broadcast of one of our favorite films even though we own it on DVD or Blu-ray. It's about balance and being reasonable. 'nuff said.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by AaronSCH

Who knows...maybe mhafner's credentials are superior to those of Mr. Harris, but I doubt it.

I and Mr. Harris fully agree about the lack of authenticity of the look of Patton on BD. No need to play us against each other. That this as presented for now is not a restoration Mr. Harris will confirm 100%.

So maybe, just maybe it isn't the abomination mhafner has painted.

You can call it what you want but a zero is the lowest score Mr. Harris could dish out. Do you want a -1?