This morning I just stumbled across an over at which so perfectly reflects my thoughts that I think it is imperative for me to post it here. Some time ago I reviewed and in the review I mentioned that the image seems to look with waxy skin tones and other issues which I suggested were the result of noise reduction to get rid of the film's inherent grain. Of course, instantly, on numerous message boards and online forums by self-declared experts, some of them claiming , even though these guys had not even seen the Blu-Ray version at all. Well, , as they say, so I couldn't care less about these people who seem to confuse their own innate geekiness with actual expertise. Anyway, is shedding some more light on the subject as a hole, and since he is a real expert on the subject of film restoration I was glad to see that he was using 'Patton' as the poster child for how not to transfer a film to Blu-Ray. Since some folks didn't want to believe me, maybe they will take it from him. The fact of the matter remains that and that it should remain in the movies if it was part of the original filmmakers' intent. It is not a matter of personal taste or public trends, and I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
This debate sounds very familiar. Back in the 80's we heard the same arguments when cd's came out. Fans of the vinyl records complained that the music was too pure and that they would rather have the pops and hisses on their favourite LP's rather than the cd's .
I for one had over 2,000 LP's and couldn't wait to switch over the new format for the clarity. I have the same opinion about Blu Ray and regular DVD's. I have close to 1700 regular DVD's and I'd rather the pristine clarity of Blu Ray any day. I for one love the look of Patton on Blu Ray and all other Blu Rays and will in time upgrade my favourite DVDs. But as with vinyl records and cds, it's a personal preference, so to each his own.
8/25/2008 10:58:17 AM
Hey...TexicoFrom Mexico....first...did you READ the Robert Harris article??? I think his expertise deserves a deal of respect...do we want the most accurate representation of a film or some fake looking waxy psudo realistic semi CG looking bastardization.
second...refering to anyone you disagree with as a MORON ...well...thats very Republican of you....and that is a REAL insult...lol
8/21/2008 12:52:51 PM
Total Morons....the whole point of HD is to remove as much grain, noise dirt etc as possible. Patton looks wonderful on Blu Ray...in fact one of the best releases yet. I am using a 70 inch Mitsu, Sony S3500 and it looks wonderful to me. I hope more of the older films use DNR to get rid of all that grain!
8/8/2008 10:37:55 PM
Just started to watch "Giant" on HD cable and it looks like "Patton!" EE everywhere and all the characters look like wax figures...had to turn the channel. The BD will probably look the same when they get around to releasing it, but I'm hoping for the best.
7/6/2008 4:16:43 PM
Great link to the article. One of the things I had noticed it the degree of image manipulation being done to a number of blu ray titles, creating transfers that seem ...for lack of another word...artificial. Robbing a film of some details and adding artificial enhancements does nothing to preserve a film or make its presentation better.
6/26/2008 2:35:52 PM
I would have to agree with you, FILM IS FILM. Coming from my background as a graphics artist/animator/photo troop, one of the hardest things to deal with is that digital pics/video does NOT have the resolution of film. And now we have HD capabilities, assetts that will let our digital conversions be as close to film as possible to the point of seeing the film grain and what happens? they BLUR it. Yes, thats right. Any photoshop gurus out there will know what I am refferring to. So whats the point of HD then if they are just going to "enhance" the source material? I have been renting my HD titles lately to avoid bad buys of films that really dont look that different from the DVD counterpart. GIVE ME TRUE TO LIFE FILM LIKE IMAGES PLEASE!!