Patton and The Longest Day

[retablo]

Let's just have Criterion do EVERY disc. They will get it right every time.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by JRS03

Like I said.....none of us know what something looked in in 1952,1963 or 75 for that matter in the theater unless you were there and had the best memory in the world. Film degrades over time and colors fade. Whats accurate? Who knows....

some people like older films to look like they were shot yesterday...so its a personal preference. Personally I see MORE detail in Patton now then I ever did in every other medium.

yes you are right, some of us like our films the way the way were....grain and all. And that includes altering the films in anyway other than cleaning them up.

No one is saying that the Patton BD isn't the best yet in terms of home video presentation. Yes, there is clearly MUCH more detail than any previous VHS, Laserdisc, or DVD. I agree 100%.

The issue is that it could still look MUCH better. And this isn't a matter of having some magic memory that lets you recall its 1970 theatrical premiere. Patton was filmed on fine-grained 65 mm stock, and that has a certain look that the Patton BD definitely does not have. This isn't some flash-in-the-pan experience that one could never recreate - this is a standard film stock that has a standard look that those in the industry and those who are film enthusiasts know well. And if you want to split hairs, there are 70 mm showings of Patton to this day - there was one within the last month on the west coast if I recall correctly.

From some perspectives, the Patton BD does look very good. It is definitely extremely sharp and clear, and does look like a new movie in some regards. I won't exaggerate like some do and say that it's hideous or unwatchable - it is very watchable. I own the Patton BD because I love the movie and it isn't feasible to have my own 70 mm copy. The issue is that it is not ACCURATE. This wasn't filmed yesterday - it was filmed in 1970. Restoration is done to make films look like they did when they were first filmed (i.e. wipe away the decay of time) - the goal of restoration is not to "update" things to look modern. There is much more detail stored in the 65 mm film, and Blu-ray is capable of showing more of that detail if DNR had not been used excessively. And if you don't care about accuracy and want all films to look like they were filmed yesterday, there are plenty of noise reduction and sharpening algorithms built right into your HDTV.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by JRS03

Boy I sure would love to see this comparison side by side.

I am begining to think that there is nothing being lost, that this is just a viewing preference. Kind of like listening to the Beatles on CD vs LP, in Mono or in Stereo.

LP for sure! No contest.

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

i also think this movie looks great! BUT i have seen far worse excessive use of DNR and it does ruin the image for me .

I agree.... looks great... DNR is there.... not terrible like other films....

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

I don't think the DNR application on Patton is excessive, but it is there. .

EXACTLY.

Originally Posted by tvine2000

i think patton looked ok.
bill hunt talks about to much dnr shows up badly on large screens 100''and up.
on smaller screens patton looks fine..

I have a 106" screen, and it looks great to me, and "yes" I notice the DNR... but it's not too much.... I just have a hard time thinking people aren't pushing an agenda when they use this as an example of excessive DNR, and say it's "Unwatchable" that's just being negative for the sake of being negative in my opinion

Originally Posted by retablo

Let's just have Criterion do EVERY disc. They will get it right every time.

As much as I'd love that.... I'd go broke

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by JRS03

Like I said.....none of us know what something looked in in 1952,1963 or 75 for that matter in the theater unless you were there and had the best memory in the world. Film degrades over time and colors fade. Whats accurate? Who knows....

RAH knows.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

We return to old news, and I'll repeat the basics. Many will disagree. Some people reviewing discs have no idea what they're reviewing, as they have no basis of comparison. The trick here, as I've noted before, is to find someone whose eyes and ears match your own. At that point, right or wrong, you'll be happy.

Perception of Blu-ray disc quality is based upon several elements, among them the size / quality of the hardware system in use, an individual's background and knowledge of films and their history, and lastly at least a modicum of technical expertise.

I'm going to repeat some things that I brought up at the time of the P***on
release on Blu-ray, and these are concepts that go to the heart of the Blu-ray matter, and are unfortunately beyond the control of those who created and support the format.

At the most basic, there are no controls in regard to the quality of any film released on Blu-ray, as Blu is used merely as a digital bucket, simply holding data on a small shiny disc.

The original concept of motion pictures released via the Blu system, and one of the major elements that made it immediately a higher quality carrier than HD, was the ability to carry 50GB of information. With longer films spread out within this far greater real estate, it became possible for one of the great promises of the format to be realized. That is the reproduction of film in the home theater setting... accurately replicating all of the visual and aural textures of the commercial motion picture theater.

Look at the Blu-ray of P**tton on a 30-40" screen, and it can look quite nice. View it at 60 or 100 and the image belies its technical limitations, as created NOT BY THE FILMMAKERS, BUT BY TECHNICIANS WHO THINK THAT THEY KNOW BETTER.

The film in question is of 65mm origin, shot on a relatively fine grained negative stock (Eastman 5254), and generally fully exposed. This means that the original OCN is thick, full-bodied, and gorgeous. It will reproduce with little or no grain evident on Blu-ray, and needs absolutely no help from anyone to look terrific. It is a matter of less is more. Take the film, scan it, reproduce it without any changes and put it out on Blu-ray. It may well have been the best Blu of the year, as opposed to one of the worst.

What is not in place, and it's something that probably cannot be put in place, is a means of controlling what comes out on Blu-ray -- what is placed in those buckets. What some technician does in a post house can easily make Blu-ray, as a format, look horrific as opposed to extraordinary. This isn't fair to Blu-ray, and shouldn't be used as a basis of considering a format.

In the end, it comes down to three points.

The first concerns the consumer. Many people feel that P****n is reference quality, but may have no idea what the motion picture PATTON, the Best Picture of 1970, can and should look like.

This is unfair without reference. I would bet that had these people seen the film properly mastered and released on Blu-ray that they would immediately note the difference in FAR higher resolution and detail, and would be even more amazed at the potential of the format as well as the quality of the film. The point is that as released on Blu, we are seeing merely the shadow of Patton, and are not experiencing the film. There is no way that anyone who has not seen the film in 70mm on a huge screen can know this.

Which brings us to the second point. And that is that the consumer should be able to fully rely upon those at the studio level to accurately, and with full quality, reproduce the motion pictures in their care for the Blu-ray audience. If this were done, and in many cases it is not, the consumer would not be placed in the position of spending their hard earned dollars, not receiving the absolute best that Blu-ray can provide -- and not knowing that there's a problem. The consumer SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE EDUCATED in film history and technical matters. They should, in the purchase of a Blu-ray, simply know that they are receiving the absolute best.

THIS IS NOT OCCURRING!

The final point is the education of the industry itself toward meeting the Blu-ray challenge and promise of accurately reproducing film for home video.

This is not difficult.

All that's necessary is the elimination of smoke, mirrors, and those entities that do far more damage than good as they sell their wares to the studios. Further, the studios need to get past the concept that the public wants glossy, smooth images on their 32" LCD. The audience doesn't know what they want, because they have been misled and miseducated. This is akin to adding more salt and harmful fat in the production of fries for a public that will step up and buy them at the fast food counter because they're there.

The ultimate answer is doing far less than many people are doing. If one simply leaves out a few steps, spends less of one's budget on making the image prettier, or easier to compress where a problem doesn't exist, we'll have the majority of Blu-ray releases meeting that promise of quality.

There's nothing really difficult here. We just need to get the industry away from snake oil, as well as the old way of thinking for standard definition DVD, that grain must be killed off in order to compress an image. That kind of thinking is as archaic as a horse and buggy caught in freeway traffic at 70 mph.

The image is imbedded in the film. It is made up of grain. The job is NOT to remake the film to one's personal liking. The job is simply to reproduce it as the filmmaker's intended and to give the highest possible quality to the public, without having them wonder if the disc that they have purchased is accurate or good enough.

Quality should be assumed in Blu-ray.

RAH

Linky

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by JRS03

its not there.....is this the article that was there this moring? And why did he takle down his reviews of these discs months ago?

Link works fine for me. Try here: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/ and then click on the Editorial link. As for the reviews, there's a ton found here: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews/dvdhidef.html

[Blaumann]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

RAH knows.




Linky

Yep. That's essential reading and probably pretty much all you need to know about it. Also interesting:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=8998

[Croweyes1121]

So in the final analysis: There is no right or wrong answer. Its all about personal taste. I for one think Patton looks amazing, in fact I see more detail than I ever have before at any time on every medium. To me this looks like it was shot yesterday and not in 1969.

Actually, that was about as far from my point as possible. There *is* a right answer: studios should NOT use DNR at the mastering stage. Ever. Let *us* decide if we want it or not once we have the disc. You want DNR? Turn your noise reduction up to the highest setting on your set and you can have excessive DNR on every title. And those of us who don't want it don't have to see it.

But if you want my personal opinion? Excessive DNR is a bastardization of the art form of filmmaking.

[JRS03]

Originally Posted by aramis109

Link works fine for me. Try here: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/ and then click on the Editorial link. As for the reviews, there's a ton found here: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews/dvdhidef.html

But alas no Patton or Longest Day review. They use to have them up there a few months ago but no longer. Why?

[JRS03]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Actually, that was about as far from my point as possible. There *is* a right answer: studios should NOT use DNR at the mastering stage. Ever. Let *us* decide if we want it or not once we have the disc. You want DNR? Turn your Noise Reduction up to the highest setting on your set and you can have DNR on every title. And those of us who don't want it don't have to see it.

So the right answer is: Let us decide so we can have both that seems fair.

Or how about two versions one with and one without? Would turning up your noise reduction all the way up produce the same say picture as Patton is now?

[Croweyes1121]

Let us decide so we can have both

Precisely. And the only way to achieve that is to not force the DNR on us at the mastering stage.

Would turning up your noise reduction all the way up produce the same say picture as Patton is now?

More or less, yes. And those who like the grain could turn their noise reduction all the way down. Everyone wins.

I noticed that you own Close Encounters on Blu-ray. That disc left the film grain fully intact. Try viewing the same scene on that disc with your noise reduction set all the way down, then all the way up. That would be a good demonstration of what I'm saying. People who want the grain can see it, those who don't can have their set scrub it away if they so choose.

[JRS03]

Originally Posted by aramis109

Link works fine for me. Try here: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/ and then click on the Editorial link. As for the reviews, there's a ton found here: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviews/dvdhidef.html

As I said why is Bill Hunt in the minority when it comes to this? Im not saying he wrong..Im saying almost all other opinions on other sites that I have read disagree.

[Croweyes1121]

As I said why is Bill Hunt in the minority when it comes to this? Im not saying he wrong..Im saying almost all other opinions on other sites that I have read disagree.

The short answer is because most people aren't as discerning as Bill is when it comes to things like this. Most people think that an image that looks pleasing is the same thing (or something better than) an image that represents the way a film is *intended* to look. I could Photoshop an image of the Mona Lisa and pump up the contrast a bit, run a filter to get rid of many of the cracks in the canvas, and smooth out the texture so that everything looks cleaner, smoother (more "pleasing", if you will)...but the end result wouldn't be the Mona Lisa anymore. It would be a digitized re-imagining of how I personally think the Mona Lisa should look. Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing? That part is personal taste, yes, and it totally depends if the person looking at what I've done agrees with my choices. But here's the problem: is my version accurate and reflective of what DaVinci actually intended when he painted that image? No.

[JRS03]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

The short answer is because most people aren't as discerning as Bill is when it comes to things like this. Most people think that an image that looks pleasing is the same thing (or something better than) an image that represents the way a film is *intended* to look. I could Photoshop an image of the Mona Lisa and pump up the contrast a bit, run a filter to get rid of many of the cracks in the canvas, and smooth out the texture so that everything looks cleaner, smoother (more "pleasing", if you will)...but the end result wouldn't be the Mona Lisa anymore. It would be a digitized re-imagining of how I personally think the Mona Lisa should look. Now, is that a good thing or a bad thing? That part is personal taste, yes, and it totally depends if the person looking at what I've done agrees with my choices. But here's the problem: is my version accurate and reflective of what DaVinci actually intended when he painted that image? No.

Hey I gotcha. I found out what I really needed to that it all comes down to personal taste.

[Riff Magnum]

Hmmm, that's very tricky when we start venturing down the road of artist intent. Who's to say that given today's tech, Davinci would have chosen to paint the Mona Lisa at all? I believe the director of Patton is dead, correct? If so, who's to say he wouldn't like the "cleaner" look presented on the BD? Maybe he hated grain too, and chose 70mm film because that was the only available option at the time that could reduce the perceived graininess that he wanted to reduce. I'm stretching it a bit i know, but no one can really say what an artists intent would be if they had our existing tech available to them at the time. Let's not just assume that all artists are luddites and will always frown on any changes done within the medium.

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Hmmm, that's very tricky when we start venturing down the road of artist intent. Who's to say that given today's tech, Davinci would have chosen to paint the Mona Lisa at all? I believe the director of Patton is dead, correct? If so, who's to say he wouldn't like the "cleaner" look presented on the BD? Maybe he hated grain too, and chose 70mm film because that was the only available option at the time that could reduce the perceived graininess that he wanted to reduce.

"Cleaner" has no relationship to loss of resolution unless work is performed poorly. One can easily have both "cleaner" and full resolution. This was not the case with the *atton Blu-ray.

I'm going to repeat something because it needs repeating. The work performed on that film is not necessarily the same work being done today at Fox, where many of the new releases (at least those from newer masters) are superb.

RAH

[Riff Magnum]

LOL!! You can't even type the word PATTON. It's that bad, huh? I have no reason to doubt what you're saying about P**ton, i was just commenting more on all of us always assuming we know what the directors intent actually was. I guess there's no word on a new edition coming for PATT$$?

[Croweyes1121]

no one can really say what an artists intent would be if they had our existing tech available to them at the time

Right you are. Hence the most respectful, truthful way to present any film is the way it was *originally* created. Take the old Spielberg / Lucas debate for example. Spielberg freely admits that he would never have made "Jaws" or "Close Encounters" the way he did in 1975 and 1977. But he sees those films as an example of the kind of filmmaker that he was at that stage in his life and doesn't change them in 2009. George Lucas, on the other hand, is always finding something to do "better" with his old films with modern technology. Is the new version of "A New Hope" *better* than the old version just because it's the way George Lucas wants it seen today as opposed to how he was able to make it look in 1977? I'll let you be the judge of that. The point is, the original, untouched, non-manipulated version should be an option for those of us who believe in the importance of that preservation. And an excessively DNR'ed image is *not* a representation of the original work. It isn't about what's better or worse. Those concepts are subjective by definition. The simple fact is that a non-DNR'ed disc is faithful to the original image and an excessively DNR'ed one is not. Again, if someone decides that they prefer the look of more DNR, that's a decision they should personally be allowed to make on their own television set without forcing it on the rest of us.

[Riff Magnum]

Very true. I hate the revision that's been going on with the old Star Wars. It's simply ridiculous.
You win and all you had to do was invoke the name of George lucas. LOL!!!

[Croweyes1121]

Off topic, but you kick a** for that avatar, Riff! I'm originally from St. Louis myself.

[JRS03]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Right you are. Hence the best way to present any film is the way it was *originally* created. Take the old Spielberg / Lucas debate for example. Spielberg freely admits that he would never have made "Jaws" or "Close Encounters" the way he did in 1975 and 1977. But he sees those films as an example of the kind of filmmaker that he was at that stage in his life and doesn't change them in 2009. George Lucas, on the other hand, is always finding something to do "better" with his old films with modern technology. Is the new version of "A New Hope" *better* than the old version just because it's the way George Lucas wants it seen today as opposed to how he was able to make it look in 1977? I'll let you be the judge of that. The point is, the original, untouched, non-manipulated version should be an option for those of us who believe in the importance of that preservation. And an excessively DNR'ed image is *not* a representation of the original work. It isn't about what's better or worse. Those concepts are subjective by definition. The simple fact is that a non-DNR'ed disc is faithful to the original image and an excessively DNR'ed one is not. Again, if someone decides that they prefer the look of more DNR, that's a decision they should personally be allowed to make on their own television set without forcing it on the rest of us.

Wow...I agree. On both counts.