Plastic Patton?
Another debate about how much celluloid grain should be chucked or retained in a digitally-remastered disc has popped up, this time about Fox Home Video's Patton Bluray disc, which came out on Tuesday, 6.3. 08. Restoration guru Robert Harris has written in his latest Digital Bits column (dated 6.24) that technicians have over-tweaked the grain reduction and made this 1970 Franklin Schaffner classic -- particularly when viewed on a 46" or 50" LCD or plasma screen -- look too much like digital data and not enough like the film that was released 38 years ago.
Same Patton image from Fox Home Video's Bluray disc. [Ditto.]
The Patton Bluray disc looks sharp and pretty to everyone (particularly to philistines like myself), and, Harris acknowledges, has been well-reviewed on sites like DVD Beaver. But it just doesn't have that high-grade celluloid schwing. It isn't the 65mm movie that Fred J. Koenekamp shot, which was presented in first-rate, big-city theatres in a process that was called Dimension 150. It's a very good approximation of it, Harris is saying, but it's been made to look, in a very attractive way, like something else.
"I viewed [the Bluray] Patton on a 30" Sony HD XBR CRT," Harris writes, "and the image looked glorious. The information was so compacted, it was difficult to tell that anything was missing. Only later, when I viewed it on a larger screen, did it become apparent that all was not well.
"Faces were waxy, background detail was gone, [the textures in] clothing and on walls and the dirt on Jeeps was all missing high frequency information, and the image appeared dead, much like a video game."
The problem, Harris says, is that very few people in the video-preparation world know how to reduce grain properly so that losses of this sort are not evident in the final remastered image.
"There are digital facilities willing to remove the unwelcome grain," Harris says. "These facilities are all over the world. Some are extremely capable, others less so, and some not at all. You [can] get rid of grain by throwing the image out of focus. Not blatantly out of focus, but marginally...ever so slightly. Then you add a bit of digital sharpening, a touch of gamma, and a bit of basil.
"The final product? Grain reduced or gone. The verdict? Occasionally pretty, and, if no one compares it to the original, quite acceptable.
"Although every digital facility promises grain removal, and some have a quality product in incremental stages, I've personally seen the work of only one facility that, to my eye, has the capability to remove or reduce grain and not affect resolution, and by that I mean [making the mistake of] removing a large chunk of high frequency information along with the offending grain."
Another DVD Beaver frame capture from Bluray Patton disc.
I wonder which facility Harris is referring to (i.e., the one that knows how to reduce grain the right way)? I'm guessing it's in Los Angeles, but maybe not. I just need a hint, an acronym...something.
"The folks behind Blu-ray need to take a position," Harris states. "Is their system to be used as promised, to give the home theater enthusiast the cinema experience? Or will our film heritage henceforth look like video games?
"Studio executives need to be educated about grain, whatever it is that makes up an image and how it gets to Blu-ray, or sit back and allow someone else to deal with the technical end of things."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 25, 2008 at 9:31 AM
comment #1
York "Budd" Durden
says ...
The history of cinema doesn't matter to executives, only in the sense of, "could we remake Patton and turn a dollar over?" And as the age skews younger, there is absolutely no sense of history or historicity whatsoever.
The Digital Age will end up doing far more damage to the legacy of cinematic art than any Universal Studios fire. (And I say this as a former media archivist who butted heads constantly with people in the 90's over digitizing things and then just discarding the source elements now that they had been "preserved.")
Posted by York "Budd" Durden
at June 25, 2008 11:04 AM
comment #2
Muttley Laugh
says ...
He's referring to Lowry. They have learned much since they accidently removed the rain from the window panes in Citizen Kane.
Posted by Muttley Laugh
at June 25, 2008 11:09 AM
comment #3
Gordie Lachance
says ...
Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I said here 3 months ago:
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/03/the_way_it_is_1.php
Can someone explain something to me about HD video? I am thinking of converting to Blu-Ray and was looking at the 52" setup in my local big box retailer yesterday. They were playing the BR disc of Pirates of the Caribbean 3, and, to me, it just looked awful. I don't mean the color or clarity, which were amazing, but the image itself didn't look like any kind of movie I'd ever seen. It looked like a video game or something. Certainly not film.
Anyway, I've watched plenty of HD television broadcasts, and have always been impressed, but this dvd did not look like anything I'd enjoy.
Is it just the fact that obnoxious amounts of CGI don't render well in HD, or was the flat LCD to blame?
I just don't get why it looked like crap.
Posted by Gordie Lachance
at June 25, 2008 11:18 AM
comment #4
Richardson
says ...
Gordie -
It's two different things. There's a certain look that they go for on CGI-heavy movies on HD. I assume it's deliberate, because I saw it on 'X-Men 3' and, in a store, 'Spider-Man 3' and 'Pirates 3'. I'd assume it's on 'Superman Returns' too, because, with 'Superman', it was actually there in the theater too, where it looked like every close-up shot had been micro-managed to remove any pores and all the humanity.
I bet it has something to do with how these movies are mastered but what's scary is that it seems like a deliberate choice, and if it's what people get used to, then they're going to start complaining when movies *don't* look like that.
I'd also say, it makes the effects look more realistic in a way, albeit by lowering the bar for what "realistic" is.
Posted by Richardson
at June 25, 2008 11:23 AM
comment #5
bmcintire
says ...
Hilariously, the two comparative screen grabs he uses completely belie what he is saying. The SD image looks far more waxy and lacking in detail than the HD. It's practically a Madame Toussad's re-creation of the scene below it, only more orange-tinted and cartoonish - like the musical version: "PATTON!"
And film executives are already leaving the technology to someone else. That is why facilities like Lawry exist.
Posted by bmcintire
at June 25, 2008 11:37 AM
comment #6
Edward
says ...
I'm all for the digital revolution, but there is a reason film is different: it's a chemical process and has grain which gives it it's unique look. Remove the grain and you have crap. Pretty crap perhaps, but still crap.
Posted by Edward
at June 25, 2008 11:40 AM
comment #7
CinemaPhreek
says ...
Yeah, those two top examples seem more like a straw-man comparison. The supposed standard DVD looks more like a widescreen VHS.
Even Harris' article doesn't provide a decent side-by-side comparison. Hell, he doesn't even use an actual DVD to Blu-Ray one, he resorts to a made-up contest between two halves of the Mona Lisa (which is laying the subtext on a little thick if you ask me).
Posted by CinemaPhreek
at June 25, 2008 11:46 AM
comment #8
George Prager
says ...
Looks like some stills from TRON.
Posted by George Prager
at June 25, 2008 11:48 AM
comment #9
Ponderer
says ...
Jeez, did anyone even read what Harris said? Screengrabs will NOT illustrate the problem, for as even RAH says, the image looked magnificent on a 30 inch television. Even a big screen grab isn't gonna be revelatory. It's viewing at bigger HDTVs and up that the problems become manifest.
Posted by Ponderer
at June 25, 2008 12:23 PM
comment #10
tophertilson
says ...
A few months ago, I saw a portion of something from a BluRay disc- X MEN 3 maybe - at my local Circuit City. Not one of the special effects sequences mind you, but just a dialogue scene between a few characters. A few people around me were marveling at the detail. But I was a little bothered. It looked like the film itself it had been filmed on high def video. Now, I know, changing the aesthetic of X MEN 3 is hardly a crime against humanity. But do all movies on BluRay have that HD video sheen even when the original film wasn't shot on video? Bearing in mind that I'm a total luddite, I have to ask: Is the mechanics of this thing such that the presentation manifestly usurps the product? That sounds kinda horrible to me.
Posted by tophertilson
at June 25, 2008 1:00 PM
comment #11
rgmax99
says ...
Somewhat on the subject: Watching Dr. Strangelove on HDNet Movies recently, I was struck at the horrible, dust-speckled and dirty condition of the transfer.
Didn't Kubrick do a frame by frame restoration in the 1990s on Strangelove? And didn't the Landmark theatre in LA show a restored digital version last year?
The films shown on HDNet Movies are usually stellar, so I was quite surprised at the condition of the Strangelove transfer.
Any thoughts?
Posted by rgmax99
at June 25, 2008 1:02 PM
comment #12
rgmax99
says ...
Excuse me, I mean the image quality of the films shown on HDNet Movies are stellar.
The actual quality of a lot of the movies shown on HDNet Movies are not.
Posted by rgmax99
at June 25, 2008 1:04 PM
comment #13
Muttley Laugh
says ...
Screen caps could never illustrate the issue he is discussing,
Sadly, I think this is similar to audiophiles trying to explain to iPod users why MP3 is not a reference format. It's fine for portable music players but the limitations become crystal clear when playback is on a high end stereo.
Most folks don't have the proper equipment at home to expose these issues. By the time they do, the precedent of DVNR will be entrenched.
Posted by Muttley Laugh
at June 25, 2008 1:05 PM
comment #14
erniesouchak
says ...
Harris might be referring to Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging, where he did the digital restoration of "The Godfather."
Posted by erniesouchak
at June 25, 2008 1:13 PM
comment #15
Chris Willman
says ...
I almost didn't buy a HDTV or Blu-Ray player because a lot of what I was seeing in store displays looked like high-def video and not a transfer of a film. But for me, plasma looks much more like film than LCD. I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to the technical aspects of this stuff. But I would just say that I'm very happy with how classic films look on my 1080 Panasonic plasma 42" set with a Blu-Ray player. When I go over to a friend's house and look at something on his slightly bigger LCD set, I find that everything looks so obviously clean and digital, it's unwatchable, to me. This is just an instinctual observation, and others' mileage may vary, but I've gotta say: If you like a natural film look, start with plasma.
Posted by Chris Willman
at June 25, 2008 1:23 PM
comment #16
Rich S.
says ...
I remember a similar debate with respect to LPs v. CDs, which resulted in oversampling.
I've found that HD is terrific for stuff recorded in HD video format. It's hit-or-miss when it comes to filmed content. I watched When We Left Earth and Shadow of the Moon on Discovery HD recently and was somewhat disappointed. I thought that since NASA at the time used the very best photographic equipment, that would translate to HD. But for the most part, it only served to show the limitations of the original film stock.
The more recent stuff of the shuttle launches, recorded on HD video, looked breathtaking. However the footage was not necessarily cinematic. I think that points out the difference.
Posted by Rich S.
at June 25, 2008 1:24 PM
comment #17
CinemaPhreek
says ...
Ponderer - very wrong. You can easily see differences in comparisons between standard DVD and HD when done properly. The easiest solution is to do blow-up of a section if you don't think the differences will translate well to smaller PC monitors.
Posted by CinemaPhreek
at June 25, 2008 1:53 PM
comment #18
Ponderer
says ...
If you're going to blow up the images, fine, of course, you've matched the effective resolution. However, people were making judgments based on the tiny shots posted above, which was little better than critical analysis on an iPhone screen. I'm also not talking about comparing DVD to HD, but comparing this HD source on a 30 inch screen to a, say, 60 inch screen or better, which are two different experiences.
(For the record, I watched the Patton BD on my 61 inch set this weekend. While I don't have the eye that RAH has - who does? - there was a smoothness about the image that was distinctly at odds at what I remembered. A pity, as I was very excited when I saw that giant opening American flag fade in, getting a sense of the shot's scope for the first time.)
Posted by Ponderer
at June 25, 2008 4:12 PM
comment #19
Walter Sobchak
says ...
Fox Home Video is the enemy. Wade into them. Spill their blood. Shoot them in the belly. When you put your hand into a bunch of goo, that a minute before was a Blu-Ray transfer, you'll know what to do.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at June 25, 2008 5:41 PM
comment #20
MathewM
says ...
The over processing of older films to remove grain and pop the colors is similar to current CD production. Albums are now heavily compressed to give a sense of "loudness" but in the process turns the music into a wall of sound. The reason for this is simple; too stand out. Most people listen to music in their cars nowadays so the louder the better.
Older movies will look soft when transferred to HD so the studios feel the need to goose them up to appeal to movie buyers. Thing is that I can't imagine too many HDTV's in Best Buy displaying Patton. I say find the cleanest print out there, clean up any major nicks or scratches and leave the grain be. One odd example I saw recently was Amadeus on HDNET I believe. Overall I really enjoyed re-watching the film in HD, positives being the color and shadow detail. However the print they did the transfer from was in pretty poor shape; some scenes had blue blotches streaming up the frame. Also the film had a slightly over processed look to it, lots of edge sharpening. I hate to sound like a videophile but it is what it is.
Posted by MathewM
at June 25, 2008 8:44 PM
comment #21
nemo
says ...
What shocks me is the news that Patton was released 38 years ago. Am I old or what? I'm sure I remember watching it when it was first released only 7 or 8 years ago.
Posted by nemo
at June 25, 2008 10:04 PM
comment #22
Edward
says ...
God, I was really young back then. I agree with MathewM. Find the best quality film master, clean it up, remove the scratches and dirt and do whatever tweaking need to be done to make the digital master as close to a pristine film as is possible.
Posted by Edward
at June 25, 2008 10:18 PM
comment #23
Glenn Kenny
says ...
I agree withChris WIllman—LCD sets will only compound the wax-museum potential of a Hi-Def disc. When I went to buy a flat-screen last year I brought the Warner Blu-Ray of "The Wild Bunch" as a demo disc. On a 50-inch LCD set, it literally looked like a too-bright, outdoors-lensed soap opera. The Hitachi plasma I eventually bought got it just right. Warners tends to do pretty well with older titles on Blu-Ray. Which are then subjected to complaints that they look "anachronistic." (Read that somewhere with respect to the Blu-Ray "Bullitt," which in fact looked terrific.)
Richardson's observations put me in mind of the Blu-Ray for "The 6th Day," that complete crap Schwarzenegger film. The Blu-Ray is clearly mastered to deliver the most digital "bang" for the buck, with that too-vivid faux-3D crispness. It's the sort of thing that's so eye-catching on a showroom floor that many would never notice what an abomination the movie is, or step back and say it doesn't look like a movie. Quite a few knotty problems we''ve got in this brave new world.
Posted by Glenn Kenny
at June 26, 2008 8:10 AM
comment #24
BurmaShave
says ...
I'm not going to get a Bluray system until they stop making ugly packaging with Bluray splashed all over it. Let's bring some class please. I shudder to think what Criterion is going to look like when it starts going Bluray. This shit is as bad as the firs DVDs Fox put out.
Posted by BurmaShave
at June 26, 2008 8:49 AM
comment #25
Bob Violence
says ...
I shudder to think what Criterion is going to look like when it starts going Bluray.
Probably not much different than what they're putting out now. The hideous blue plastic case and whatnot aren't mandatory.
Richardson -
Superman Returns had that dull video sheen to it (even in theaters) because it was actually shot on video, and not even particularly well.
Posted by Bob Violence
at June 27, 2008 2:50 AM
comment #26
escort-models.com
says ...
You may also choose to have your leisure time with the help of kiev escort services. It would be a marvelous time spending, because you will get both active and passive free time. As you can know sex is an activity the purpose of which is to have a totality of body and mental reactions. So you have active free time and in the same time an amazing relaxation that is really useful for your health.
Posted by escort-models.com
at February 7, 2011 12:28 PM
comment #27
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability solution
Posted by janee
at May 17, 2011 4:01 AM