To Kill A Mockingbird classic Blu-ray Jan 31, 2012 Review

[Member-38928]

There are also sections of the film where optical blowups where originally done to create closeups of actors when the closeups were not obtained on set. They manipluated those shots too, even though they were always like that. Mr. Harris stated that he wished they would have left those shots alone. We are finally in agreement there.

Interesting, I wonder why they did this and how big of a 'blowup' are we talking about here, anyone know? And how were these shots manipulated for the blu-ray transfer?

[dougotte]

Originally Posted by joie

It was probably done because they wanted to move in on a character (on the witness stand, say) and either couldn't or didn't film it that way. It may have been an afterthought after seeing the first cut and/or a cost cutting decision.

Indeed, and it's a fairly common thing.
Doug

[Kakumei]

Originally Posted by ShellOilJunior

Universal didn't restore the film. They simply used excessive digital sharpening.

I dislike this transfer, as well, but if you watch the Universal restoration trailer you can clearly see how they did go about restoring this and many other films before applying sharpening. It is fine for us to dislike something, but we have to remain logical and factual. Have you watched:

[Show spoiler]

100 Years of Universal - Restoring the Classics - YouTube

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by joie

It was probably done because they wanted to move in on a character (on the witness stand, say) and either couldn't or didn't film it that way. It may have been an afterthought after seeing the first cut and/or a cost cutting decision.

Exactly right. It happened a lot back then. I can also tell you that no DP would have been thrilled to have the shot optically blown up with such added grain, but if that's what the director wanted that's what happened. If they'd had the tools to minimize the grain back then I can most assuredly tell you they would have used them - the idea would be not to suddenly have a shot that looked completely different than everything else in the film. Opticals were a way of life back then - DPs and directors had to live with them. It's why certain studios, especially in the 40s and 50s cut the opticals in short rather than letting them run for the entire duration of the a and b side of a shot. That's why you see the little shift before and after an optical on certain films - it's because the creators of that film wanted to get back to the production photography as quickly as possible.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

So after seeing it, what is your overall opinion of this transfer? thanks

Somewhere between fair and good. For Universal, it's great.

I just wish it had been done differently.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

Exactly right. It happened a lot back then. I can also tell you that no DP would have been thrilled to have the shot optically blown up with such added grain, but if that's what the director wanted that's what happened. If they'd had the tools to minimize the grain back then I can most assuredly tell you they would have used them - the idea would be not to suddenly have a shot that looked completely different than everything else in the film. Opticals were a way of life back then - DPs and directors had to live with them. It's why certain studios, especially in the 40s and 50s cut the opticals in short rather than letting them run for the entire duration of the a and b side of a shot. That's why you see the little shift before and after an optical on certain films - it's because the creators of that film wanted to get back to the production photography as quickly as possible.

Right. Lots of things happen in the making of films that are not "artistic intent". But, that's what they ended up with. Yeah, today we can go back and fix those things and make them look better. I just don't think we should, that's all.

[Melodious Thunk]

Sometimes I like to play a little game with myself of predicting when the next cross-fade will happen, based on the change in picture quality when the optical process had to be employed. Universal is basically spoiling my fun...

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Kakumei

I dislike this transfer, as well, but if you watch the Universal restoration trailer you can clearly see how they did go about restoring this and many other films before applying sharpening. It is fine for us to dislike something, but we have to remain logical and factual. Have you watched:

[Show spoiler] 100 Years of Universal - Restoring the Classics - YouTube

You dislike the transfer? It's still in your wishlist on the site here, no? So... you haven't actually seen it, right?

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Right. Lots of things happen in the making of films that are not "artistic intent". But, that's what they ended up with. Yeah, today we can go back and fix those things and make them look better. I just don't think we should, that's all.

I think the end of the day point is that they lose no matter what they do. Some people will be thrilled, some people will hate, some will be in the middle. They have to go with what they feel is best for the film that they own. But they simply cannot win no matter what they do and you know this to be true. While YOU might like it, there would be many who would not understand the extreme change in quality due to the disparate elements that had to be used to get this film looking as good as it could.

[lemonski]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

I respect Robert Harris and what he has done to promote awareness of the need for film preservation and restoration. But he is not 100% right 100% of the time.

No-one is infallible. But if there was anything egregiously wrong with the transfer wrt. DNR application, he would have stated so in his review - after all, he has been very vocal in the past (Spartacus, Patton, etc.) when this has been the case.

There is clearly a discrepancy of opinion here, but without knowing your credentials, I am inclined to believe RAH and the 3 or 4 other reviewers who say that the PQ is very good. I respect that some people will have a differing opinion; it's not for me to say who is right or wrong, just to be steered by respected people before making an informed purchase.

What I don't respect is someone passing judgement on the transfer without having seen the disc, and pronouncing it to the world as some kind of fact. To me, this barely qualifies as an opinion - more like deluded raving.

[whitesheik]

Originally Posted by lemonski

No-one is infallible. But if there was anything egregiously wrong with the transfer wrt. DNR application, he would have stated so in his review - after all, he has been very vocal in the past (Spartacus, Patton, etc.) when this has been the case.

There is clearly a discrepancy of opinion here, but without knowing your credentials, I am inclined to believe RAH and the 3 or 4 other reviewers who say that the PQ is very good. I respect that some people will have a differing opinion; it's not for me to say who is right or wrong, just to be steered by respected people before making an informed purchase.

What I don't respect is someone passing judgement on the transfer without having seen the disc, and pronouncing it to the world as some kind of fact. To me, this barely qualifies as an opinion - more like deluded raving.

The difference between Mr. Harris and people on this board is that he is a professional - and one who has, for years, been in the trenches. He's handled every kind of negative and IP and fine grain and whatever. So, yes, one tends to accept what he says rather than what people say who have not been in the trenches, have never handled a negative, have never been in a transfer room and have basically learned what they know about film from the Internet and these sorts of boards. There's nothing wrong with it, but reality is reality

I know everyone thinks I'm being snarky when I say these things, but I in no way intend to be - I'm just trying to introduce an occasional fillip of reality into the discussion. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions and to state them, but once stated, those opinions are open for challenge and discussion.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

I think the end of the day point is that they lose no matter what they do. Some people will be thrilled, some people will hate, some will be in the middle. They have to go with what they feel is best for the film that they own. But they simply cannot win no matter what they do and you know this to be true. While YOU might like it, there would be many who would not understand the extreme change in quality due to the disparate elements that had to be used to get this film looking as good as it could.

I don't disagree with any of that. It looks nice...but there needs to be a discussion about it and I think opinions such as mine need to be heard instead of the thread simply becoming a 2,000 post love-fest. We shouldn't just blindly accept the techniques Universal applied to this title lest we go back to the days of Patton, The Longest Day, etc. Stock footage manipulated to match production footage, etc etc etc.

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by Kakumei

I dislike this transfer, as well, but if you watch the Universal restoration trailer you can clearly see how they did go about restoring this and many other films before applying sharpening. It is fine for us to dislike something, but we have to remain logical and factual. Have you watched:

[Show spoiler] 100 Years of Universal - Restoring the Classics - YouTube

Thank you very much for that video Kakumei, I watched the entire piece and it was very good! These guys are indeed the caretakers of these old movies and the preservation and restoring of these classic movies is these guys' life's work. It is clear to me that Universal takes this stuff very seriously and its obvious that their staff is the same. It is pretty clear to us how important To Kill a Mockingbird is, so you know dang well they feel the same way.

Perfection is not universal, I mean my 'perfect' may be nowhere near yours or close. I guess I am grateful that I am not as picky as some of you guys seem to be. I am very happy with the transfers on the vast majority of my blu-ray collection, offhand id say 99% happy.

Have fun picking apart perfection guys, cause that is what is seems like some of you are doing.

[hudakj]

To be fair, even Robert Harris doesn't call it "perfect"

My take on the Blu-ray is that it generally looks beautiful. A very nice job. I'm less thrilled, albeit not overly disturbed, by the handling of field enlargements, as rather than grain slowly building, it just isn't there. It's matched to the surrounding shots. This is a technical judgement call, but I don't agree with it.

A quality product, and better than most Universal blu-rays (most likely), but there are issues with this release that are minor, but notable. It's just that their exemplary efforts in preserving the film outweighs these things.

[Member-38928]

Originally Posted by bentvalve

I am very happy with the transfers on the vast majority of my blu-ray collection, offhand id say 99% happy.

99% happy with 582 = unhappy with almost six so its more like 99.5% happy or unhappy with almost 3 of my blu-rays.

[Kakumei]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

You dislike the transfer? It's still in your wishlist on the site here, no? So... you haven't actually seen it, right?

I'm not sure you've read earlier portions of this thread, but transfer screenshots, and transfer videos have been linked to at various points. My eyes aren't the sharpest around, but, having been an encoder myself for years, they do pick up on fine detail past and present. I am not one for the 'looks better in motion' argument to deny the importance of screen captures. I believe that everything looks better in motion, while those that look good at a stand-still look even greater. I made my stance clear in my earlier post. I don't expect you to reread a many page long thread so I'll just quote

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Kakumei

... even those of us who disagree with the reward of a perfect PQ score. This is undoubtedly going to be the best the movie has/will ever looked...

Originally Posted by Kakumei

... Just because you don't find DNR offensive doesn't mean you have to pretend excessive DNR isn't present, or that the picture is perfect. A 3.0 doesn't mean unwatchable, and that's really much closer to where this video ended up.

... I saw the Universal 100th Anniversary video displaying their restoration before and afters. It reminded me of Disney's Bambi before and after video. Just about made me nauseous seeing some of the moments of destruction. I don't get how they can't see the picture quality noticeable degraded at some of the DNR phases. It's visibly present ... Granted, not all DNR is bad, and they've done a lot of good work reconstructing old film cells and removing debris, but not all phases of the process are equal!

... To Kill A Mockingbird [screen captures] makes their overenthusiastic use of DNR even more apparent than the promotional video, now, ...
crying because i really wanted several of these movies

It's true, I purchase discs that aren't perfect, but, outside of Criterion , I usually spend $5-10 on them so I don't feel bad .

[DarknessBDJM]

As long as the purported problem areas take up a small fraction of the film's running time it will be ok to me (though not quite what it could have been).

[Oblivion138]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

The difference between Mr. Harris and people on this board is that he is a professional - and one who has, for years, been in the trenches. He's handled every kind of negative and IP and fine grain and whatever. So, yes, one tends to accept what he says rather than what people say who have not been in the trenches, have never handled a negative, have never been in a transfer room and have basically learned what they know about film from the Internet and these sorts of boards. There's nothing wrong with it, but reality is reality

And yet, mention his name in conjunction with the Bram Stoker's Dracula transfer, and watch people scream that he has no idea what he's talking about.

[William H Pratt]

and watch people scream that he has no idea what he's talking about

I'm MORE likely to accept & believe the opinion of an experienced Professional than that of a nonprofessional no matter how LONG & LOUDLY they scream.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Oblivion138

And yet, mention his name in conjunction with the Bram Stoker's Dracula transfer, and watch people scream that he has no idea what he's talking about.

I'd like the hear Whiteshiek's thoughts on Bram Stoker's Dracula. That BD looks nothing like the numerous theatrical screenings, LD's, or DVDs I've seen which all looked reasonably similar (aside from resolution).