The announcement of a pristine, digitally enhanced Blu-ray release of Edgar G. Uhlmer's grimy 1945 noir "Detour" got me thinking in granular terms...
The first CD I ever bought was Ennio Morricone's soundtrack to Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America." I had hundreds (thousands?) of LPs by that time, but it was the first thing I got on CD -- because of the dynamic range of the music and the recording, and the really quiet passages that always showed off the flaws in the vinyl pressing (rumble, ticks and pops from imperfections, static, scratches, dirt, etc.), no matter how careful you were with the record. There was a vinyl shortage in the 1970s, and most American records sounded terrible. Vinyl was mixed with cheaper plastics and additives (don't get me started on RCA Dynagroove), LPs got thinner and less uniformly flat, contaminants (like bits of label from recycled records) got pressed right into the grooves... I got used to the idea that I'd have to take back one out of every three or four records I bought for audible -- and often visible -- defects.
I almost forgot why I brought that up. Oh yes, it's the lead-in to this lead-in: In the early days of CDs, my friends and I used to joke about the idea of the Sex Pistols' "Never Mind the Bullocks..." appearing on little silver discs. The notion was so absurdly anti-punk: High-tech hi-fi did not show high fidelity to a DIY aesthetic. Today, of course, the means of production are in the hands of the workers and it's far, far cheaper to make CDs than cassettes or LPs -- and cheaper to burn DVDs than to record multiple VHS tapes. Still, the silver platters have multiple advantages (capacity, menu structures, programmability) beyond their quality of reproduction. You don't have to make high-resolution recordings in audio or video; it's just an option.
It would be a mistake to "clean up" the noise of some kinds of music, just as it would be counter to the spirit of, say, John Cassavettes (or Ed Wood) to create digitally pristine copies of their grittier work for Blu-ray release. A movie that was shot in 16 mm or on grainy stock for low-light conditions looks that way because... that's the way it was made. It's part of the work itself, integral to the experience the filmmakers created. Is it a good idea to "restore" ("remodel" is more apt) a movie to look brighter, sharper, clearer than it ever was before? Ask Owen Roizman, who shot "The French Connection" and was "appalled" by director William Friedkin's colorized (in the Ted Turner sense) version for the Blu-ray release. Friedkin says he likes this new look (stripped back to black and white, then layered with oversaturated color) better. Roizman said, "It's not the film that I shot, and I certainly want to wash my hands of having had anything to do with this transfer, which I feel is atrocious."
I've seen Blu-ray transfers that are gorgeous, but they don't look anything like any print of the title that I've ever seen. Is that a good thing? I guess it depends on what you want. If you want the boldest picture you can get on your home video equipment, then you're going to like images that makes your eyes pop. And you're probably going to want to watch new releases, whereas most of the movies I think are worth having were made in the previous century. (I began sitting in the front rows of theaters because I feel it is a more immersive experience, to use currently fashionable jargon. I wanted to see the emulsion. Now there is no emulsion to speak of, but one truth remains: The farther back you sit, the smaller the picture gets.)
On the other hand, if you want something that resembles a professional theatrical projection of a good 35 mm print, then you might find the DVD mastering preferable. What's with this soft, gloomy, hazy, desaturated "McCabe and Mrs. Miller"? What were Robert Altman and Vilmos Zsigmond thinking? Let's strip away that grunge to make it look shiny and new! That'd be like remixing the Sex Pistols to sound like Fleetwood Mac.
Oh, and in case you didn't click on the link above, that bit about the Blu-ray release of "Detour" was an April Fool's joke from the folks at DVD Beaver.
I'm glad you mentioned McCabe and Mrs. Miller, because having seen it in a theater a few years ago for the first time (twice in a row), and then seeing the DVD afterwards, I was pleased it looked more like a smaller version of what I'd seen in the theater, rather than a glossed over, razor sharp digital version. It's digital presentation can be improved, definitely, but trying to improve the actual image is horribly misguided. I'm reminded of the Region 2 DVD of Citizen Kane, where an overzealous "restorer" confused heavy rain the background of a shot for damage and erased it!
There are people who are doing Blu-Ray right though, and it's a joy to see Warner Brothers and Criterion putting out higher-resolution digital presentations of films in the way they were intended to be seen, grain and all, even if they won't end up being the most boldly stunning images to show off your expensive TV.
I also fear that as everyone's TV turns from 4:3 to 16:9, we'll be seeing tilt-and-scan versions of films. I know that a friend of mine took some convincing from me to assure him that the picture actually looked better when it wasn't stretched to fill his TV, or have the colors and contrast boosted so the picture was brighter. Many HDTVs are advertised for their "dynamic picture" settings, which make low-light scenes nearly impossible to discern and are so bright they're tiring.
I seem to have to lost my point, anyway I agree that films should not be buffed beyond recognition. I hate to imagine what the Citizen Kane restorer would do with the last third of McCabe, or the last shot of The Passion of Anna.
You forgot to mention the original 9.5-hour cut of "Greed" being found by the Beaver staff in Erich von Stroheim's niece's basement. I hear she knows a guy who has the original ending to Ambersons, too.
I completely agree here. This is the sort of thing I'm afraid of from blu-ray. I don't WANT everything to look all digitized and crisp; I want it to look how it was made to. I'm all for restoration in the case of rescuing degrading film and making it look as good as it did before, but I hate when they try to make it look "better".
Like Disney's Beauty and the Beast. In comparing my VHS copy with the DVD copy, it's clear their "restoration" just brightened all the colors resulting in a beast who hides in the shadows, yet is completely visible. On it's original release you couldn't quite make him out, so the reveal was a REVEAL. Now why does Belle need him to come into the light? We've seen him already!
Another thing I hate is that they don't only mess with picture, but with sound. I don't WANT a frickin' 5.1 mix of The Wizard of Oz, and certainly not of a film that was released in mono. At least they usually include the original mono track as well, but come on! That's one thing I like about Criterion: you get the original soundtrack.
I too always sit in the front row and the immersive experience is so much better.
Oh, and I still listen to vinyl here and there too. It's great to buy re-releases now on vinyl because they are put out on real heavy-duty discs. Dark Side of the Moon sounds fabulous.
To get off on a slight tangent, Jim, I'm curious as to what you think of correcting glaring mistakes in DVD releases.
When they finally get around to releasing "The African Queen" on DVD, there's a part of me that would like to see the crummy rear projection work cleaned up during the scenes on the rapids.
I haven't made the switch yet, but I'd buy an HD TV and a Blu-Ray player in a heartbeat if they were to ever do a Hi Def version of "Passion of Joan of Arc."
McCabe does worry me though, since it's a Warner's property and they seem to be leading the way on all the digital futzing/grain reduction work on Hi-Def. They've even said they're giving "Gone with the Wind," and "The Wizard of Oz" the Ultra-Rez treatment AGAIN in preparation for Blu-Ray.
One wonders just how much digital enhancement they NEED, not to mention how many other films would benefit from some of the resources being devoted to the umpteenth release of those two pictures.
Best,
BR
It seems Blu-ray has ushered in the phenomenon of people buying and playing movies more to show off their system than for the content of the movie.
I can see it now, some Hollywood smart guy cleaning up Quinton Tarantino's Death Proof for Blu-ray because it has alot of scratches and imperfections.
Yes, don't confuse the technology with the misguided efforts of some "restorationists." The home theater enthusiast community has been ranting long and hard over issues like grain and artificial sharpening for a long, long time, and if anything those efforts have intensified with the advent of Blu-ray, which makes these gaffes all the more apparent. Yes, we still get howlers like "Patton," "The French Connection," and Max Fleischer's "Gulliver's Travels" (which was cropped-and-zoomed from its 4:3 AR to fill a 16:9 frame), but then we get marvelous efforts like "Casablanca," "The Adventures of Robin Hood," The Godfather Trilogy, "The Third Man," and on and on and on. Today the number of stellar releases far outnumbers the bad ones, and the studios are (by and large) getting the message.
Since you mentioned a 16mm release wouldn't necessarily benefit from a Blu-ray release, I refer you to the upcoming Blu-ray release of the BBC miniseries "Pride and Prejudice," which was shot on 16mm and newly restored for its hi-def debut. There's a featurette on the disc discussing the restoration, a 90-second clip of which can be seen here; there's also the DVD Beaver screengrabs here.
You know, Blu-ray isn't inherently more sharp than DVD, and people don't have to "sharpen" or "digitally enhance" them to get its benefits. More pixels = more detail. That's why a responsible company will involve the DP in it's transfer if he or she is still around.
This backfired recently at Criterion when they took Vittorio Storarro's crackpot word that he originally intended "The Last Emperor" to be shot at 2:1, despite the fact that there never was a 2:1 print, and in the face of the clear evidence that he's just pushing his own universal ratio, Univisium. They mutilated that gorgeous pic, which was made for Blu-ray. Sigh.
Thanks for bringing this up.
I don't own a Blu-Ray player due to financial reasons, but I have friends who do. My experience in watching movies on Blu-Ray has ranged from thrilling to disorienting. On some films, even newer ones, the images seem too slick, too fluid, and too bright. The colors can, at times, seem fake - but not in a good way. I haven't had a chance to watch a movie like "McCabe & Miss Miller" or "The Conversation", and I'm wondering exactly how those transfers will be handled. I'm also interested in seeing some Technicolor films on Blu-Ray. Those could look like something from another planet if the transfers are overdone.
"McCabe & Mrs. Miller" is a great film to bring up when pointing out how restorations can actually take away the charm of a film. You watch that film to live in that time. I watched it for the first time on VHS when I normally watch everything on DVD. I felt like the VHS had been a time machine back to the era the film is in. But if the picture was crisp and pristine then that could have taken me out of the enjoyment of the rawness of the experience.
And this also helps explain to me some of your descriptions of why the cinematography of "Slumdog Millionaire" took you of the film whereas "Chop Shop" (which is a wonderfully shot film) radiates in your eyes.
I feel this way about many, many films. "The Third Man" had to be shot in that black-and-white as much as it had to taken place in real post-war Vienna.
I was thinking about this question when my sis and her boyfriend got the Blue-ray version of the Godfather. They are in love with their new HD TV, but I asked why they didn't just get the DVD version but they didn't have a good answer. I suspect they thought it would like Iron man or something.
When we started watching the movie (I was just happy to watch it on a large screen) they were vocally disappointed that the film was still grainy.
Oh well, too bad they didn't watch the movie for what it does offer instead of looking for the pristine visual offered by today's technology. Besides, I did enjoy watching a great movie on their huge TV, I plan on bringing some of my "old grainy" Kurosawa films over when they need me to watch the kids.
It's not just the classics they're buggering up (out of sheer ignorance or desperation to please or whathaveyou), but the thoroughly modern titles as well. I was in an audio-video store a month or two back when I walked past an HD-TV/Blu-ray demo playing Spider-Man 3 and couldn't believe how bad it looked. I don't quite know how to describe the quality of the image, but it was as if all the usual filtering techniques had been mercilessly scrubbed away to leave the individual elements openly identifiable, completely laid bare. This had a rather unfortunate effect on the viewing experience...
In the special effects sequences, for instance (or at least the part of one I stood by to watch), you could clearly discern the differences between actors shot in the studio, backgrounds shot separately or created using CGI, and foreground CG effects (in this case, Spidey's webbing and the Goblin's homing razor-bombs, or whatever the hell) -- and by "clearly", I mean crystal: there was no mistaking the different layers. In regular sequences, the image looked so clean, so digitally scrubbed of filtering effects (or "interference", they must've thought) that you might as well have been watching the cast perform in a home movie. The actors didn't look like they were involved in a professional shoot; they looked like they were attending a friend's wedding.
The filtering effects (I think) I'm talking about are those that create the distinctly gauzy quality of most pro film images: the delicate sheen of unreality that assists in our suspension of disbelief. It's precisely the difference between professional cinematography and consumer-grade digital video. Remove that sheen, and your suspension of disbelief flies away with it. Things just look too touchable, too tangible, too much like you're on set with the principals instead of watching a movie about the characters they play, if you catch my drift.
Anyway, if this kind of nonsense continues it won't be worth getting involved at all in the new video format. Too many people (in the industry itself!) simply haven't a clue what the hell's going on, making "business" decisions based on god knows what profit-loss chart variables and rarely using their own goddamned eyes and common sense to tell them that, "hey, this looks completely terrible!"
Or maybe it was just the particular combination of disc, player, TV and settings that created a uniquely dreadful looking picture in this instance. Mightn't necessarily be an industry wide screw-up, I suppose. And besides, what the hell am I complaining about? It's still only Spider-Man 3.
One of the great examples of "doing it right" is the Blu-ray of The Godfather. I have no idea if it looks the same as it did in the theatre but I know it looks way better than the original VHS and DVD releases that I watched so many times before. And they thankfully kept the film grain! The US release of Pan's Labyrinth is infamous for tinkering that removed film grain, making every person look like a wax reproduction rather than a person captured on film stock.
Criterion has done an amazing job over the years of remastering films and being responsible when taking it a step further to alter the way a film looks (even going so far as to correct things like the mis-framing of Yojimbo). Take a look at Days of Heaven. They worked with Malick and his cinematographer to alter the print (and they have some excellent documentation about that process, including how they repeatedly pulled back in order to not make it "too pretty"). Were they (Criterion and the filmmakers) wrong for changing the film? Their stated goal was to make it look the way it was always supposed to look (and perhaps did, in it's original prints). The Godfather restoration was much the same.
You mentioned sitting close in movie theatres and I'd like to mention something I've seen here in Denver that I just don't understand. We have a fantastic theatre called the Continental. It has a giant screen that has been here, I believe, since the 1960s. The screen is unique here because it is proportioned in 2.35:1 and it's curved - it's like the old Cinemascope screens. Your typical theatre screen these days is proportioned at 1.85:1 meaning they crop the top and bottom to show films in Panavision (the screen gets smaller for BIGGER movies!). The Continental is also taller than any screen in town so films in Panavision are absolutely HUGE on it (making it THE place to go for films shot at 2.35:1). But what blows me away about the Continental is that you will find that the majority of the people who show up an hour early to get in the front of the line end up taking seats in the back half of the theatre! I am completely flummoxed by this and always wonder why they even bothered to come to the Continental at all.
I'm a big believer in Blu-Ray, but only to an extent. For newer, "flashier" films (for lack of a better word), it tends to look great (Iron Man, WALL-E, certainly Speed Racer). I watched Pineapple Express on Blu two nights ago and am thrilled I didn't buy it on DVD. The colors pop, the detail is incredibly fine. Just enough grain in the right areas (see also Ocean's 13; I didn't realize Soderbergh's visual accomplishment when I saw it in theaters, but on Blu it was obvious). The movie felt fresh again.
Older films tend to be dicier, but in the best of cases, that's what happens. The Godfather trilogy on Blu has been pointed out before, and I'll gladly mention it again. It's stunning; probably the best representation of film I've seen on my home theater setup. But I'm going back and forth about whether or not to pick up the No Country for Old Men Collector's Edition on DVD or Blu when it comes out Tuesday. I love the movie, have yet to own it, but my roommate has the original release on Blu, and it looked way, way too pretty for the movie I remembered in theaters.
From what I hear, Criterion's doing wonders. I have The Third Man sitting at home, and I can't wait to check it out this weekend (never mind revisit the film, which I didn't really fall for the first time - don't shoot me, I was a young cinephile). If I like what I see, I won't hesitate when Last Year at Marienbad and The Seventh Seal come out in June.
An average, new 35mm print looks better than any DVD could ever look. There's simply more detail in analog film than in a DVD's 480-pixel tall image.
480 is not a ton of pixels. DVD was designed for the average-sized analog televisions of the late 1990s, and for that purpose it supplies slightly more info than can be displayed on those tube sets.
But DVD can't keep up with the medium-to-large hi-def sets that can display 1920×1080 progressive pixel images - often times at a proper 24 frames per second (instead of telecined to video frame rate)
A well-done Blu-ray provides a treasure-chest of detail. In fact, a nicely mastered film (no artificial grain reduction, no edge-enhancement, etc) will shine transparently on a good LCD panel.
The full image - lovely grain structure and all, shimmers in a hi-definition splendor.
35mm would look better than Blu-ray if it was zoomed to the size of your LCD screen, of course. Brighter and higer-res.
Blu-ray supplies:
1. Lower compression artifacts (who wants Casablanca to look like a jumped-up YouTube clip? No one.)
2. Much Higher Res (read the text in films! See background details! Enjoy and bask in your favorite scenes without feeling like the image is being mediated by a shoddy technology!)
3. Uncompressed audio at a higher bitrate (music and dialog sounds better)
4. Widescreen without the anamorphic stretching scheme of the inherent DVD 3:4 screen format (fine for film, but to stretch pixels? When DVD barely has enough of them?)
5. Deeper colors and more accurate motion. (I really like my Samsung connected to my Blu-ray via wideband HDMI cable.
While I won't toss my DVD player out, there is nothing inherently bad or distorting about Blu-ray. To me, it feel like the next best thing to seeing a properly projected 35mm print. All the technology is geared towards presenting the film in a way that is closer, visually and audibly, to the source.
When I watch DVDs now, I see blocky compression, stairstep jaggies, and digital noise. I'll never toss my collection out but my Blu-rays are vastly superior.
Best to think of Blu-ray as DVD for the LCD age. DVD is old (but not dead) tech.
And of course, a grainy old classic will still have "the look" as long as the master isn't overprocessed. I like what Lowry did with the old Bond flicks (deep cleanup and damage restoration, colors) but I wouldn't want The Third Man to look like it was shot on digital video.
The technology is agnostic. Go with the resolution. It's a format not just for videophiles but for cinemaphiles - and movie people.
JE: I think it all depends on the combination of digital mastering, your equipment (player with HDMI, upconversion; LCD, DLP, plasma, projection, etc.) and screen size -- as well as the mastering of the particular film on DVD or Blu-ray. I've seen those blocky compression artifacts... but not on any DVD mastered in recent years.
YES!! YES!! Thank you, Jim, for voicing what I've felt for months about Blu-Ray. Why do I need higher quality to see the string on the Lion's tail in THE WIZARD OF OZ even more clearly?
High definition is not everything. It's not even close. I'll keep my old movies in all their gorgeous low-definition wonderfulness, thank you very much. And I don't even have to replace my entire film library AGAIN.
As the DVD Extra reviewer for the MySanAntonio.com web site, I get press releases for upcoming DVDs. Where some titles do extremely well (those praised above, films made in a digital medium such as the Pixar films, etc.) on BD, I have to ask why the studios even bother with some titles.
Examples of films that have no reason for being on BD (other than studio greed) that came out just last month:
In some cases, there were perfectly good Special Editions already out that didn't differ from the BD editions except for the 1080i picture and a second disc. In others, there is no reason that a consumer should have to (or want to) pay $10-$15 more for a film that would view perfectly well in an upconvert player, which is the majority of most players being sold today.
There have been some beautiful BD restorations: the early James Bond films have benefited from the new BD masters. I did a scene comparison of "Goldfinger" using my 1999 Special Edition copy and the new BD version, and the folks at Lowry doing the restoration are doing it right.
My criteria for an acceptable BD upgrade is based on how much more bang they give me for the price. It's a tight economy, and asking people to pay more for a BD version that gives them the same extras (or none at all, as in the case of the recent "Ronin" BD release), is wrong.
The studios are playing on the fact that most people out there think that they have to have a BD version if they have an HDTV and a BD player. The upconvert feature on all BD players really makes that a moot point.
There are some films that I'm anticipating on BD: the Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings franchises come to mind. But those are all contemporary high-special effect films, and would benefit from BD's clarity.
I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to consumers to expect them to buy a BD version of a film that looks perfectly fine in standard DVD. Most romances, dramas and comedies fit that standard.
Some may disagree with my list above: that's fine. You may have your reasons for wanting the above titles in BD. It's my opinion that they don't warrant it, and that's what I will say if and when I review them.
Of course, if American consumers were armed with useful information, they would see there was no need for this new nonsense. PAL, in Europe, is the standard and provides a much superior image to NTSC and is comparable to Blu Ray, but PAL is manafactured for 4:3, but with modifications, could successfully outpace this demand for new technology. PAL has been doing this for years. With a region-free DVD player, upscaled to 1080p (this is a much cheaper technology), it could eliminate Blu Ray.
Why do people complain about Blu-Ray because "They don't want to replace their current DVD collection?" If you buy a blu-ray player you don't have to replace any dvd's, not a single one. Your Blu-ray player nor anyone else will not force you, and it will not make your DVD version any worse. You have the free will to decide if you are happy enough to stay with the DVD quality or if you want to pay to upgrade. You talk like you are content with your DVD's but for some reason would not be content with them anymore if you bought a Blu-ray player.
Ted nails the issue quite well - film will always have more detail than DVD or Blu-Ray. For purposes of projecting onto a giant theatre screen, digital projection is only now starting to match the quality. Jim - that's where I disagree with your statement: "On the other hand, if you want something that resembles a professional theatrical projection of a good 35 mm print, then you might find the DVD mastering preferable.".
The problem that needs to be defined (and has by other posters) is the difference between the blu-ray format and the person doing the master for that format. If excessive DNR and edge enhancement is employed, then yes - your fears are warranted. The grain will disappear, the emulsion cleaned up and the film will look artificial and spoiled. When done right, you're unlikely to get a better representation of the film at home short of buying a print and running ye olde projector in your basement.
If you want the best, most "immersive" film experience at home, then watching a 42" TV will not do it for you - regardless of the shiny disc format. For less than the price of a 55" TV, you can now buy a killer 1080p projector - throw that onto a 92" screen in your basement and I promise DVD will never be "good enough" again. Immersive? Oh baby...
JE: That's exactly it. We don't watch 35mm projected on 45" or 55" screens. I saw the Blu-ray of "The Searchers" projected at some friends' house on a good-sized screen and... well, it was like seeing the film for the first time. There was depth and detail beyond anything I'd ever seen. I am pretty sure John Ford -- or the audiences of 1956 -- never saw such breathtaking images. If you're going for a large-scale projection setup, Blu-ray can pay off spectacularly.
Warner Brothers is doing the same thing with classic Looney Tunes cartoons. Turning up the saturation till the colors are the same garish primary colors as todays cartoons and ruining the line quality
Re: 16-mm: I have an imported HD DVD of Mike Figgis's Leaving Las Vegas, which was shot on 16-mm, and the difference between it and the DVD is remarkable.
I'd much rather see old films in HD than new ones. New releases have less detail than most black-and-white, Academy ratio films. Plus: I have the opportunity to see new films in better quality IN A THEATER—so I spend much less time watching them at home. The real possibility HD offers is an experience much closer to that of seeing a 35-mm print, for those who don't live in New York and LA. It's not equal to film, but it's much better. Imagine being able to watch Buster Keaton at home and still see all the details of his performance in the wide compositions, like you can in a 35-mm print.
The real danger is that studios spend all their time cleaning up stuff that shouldn't be cleaned up.
Jeffrey Wells wrote multiple posts complaining about how Criterion's The Third Man Blu-ray had too much grain in it, calling for the grain to be removed. He even went so far to claim that all films should have the same amount of grain—as if the historical and aesthetic background was of no issue, and that the filmmakers wouldn't have wanted any grain there anyway! Let's cleanup these Italian neo-realist masterpieces, because if they'd had access to better film stocks, they woulda used 'em! Eventually Wells admitted that his TV was setup with souped-up sharpening and that Criterion did a fine job on The Third Man. He badmouthed the release for days because he didn't know how to set up his TV! (In fairness, manufacturer defaults are generally horrible—I know mine was.)
If the studios feel they need to make artificial, waxy transfers of films to satisfy consumers with terribly calibrated TVs, then HD is useless. If it helps us see films closer to the details and color of the theatrical release, then it's a wonderful thing.
Friedkin's bastardization of his film's color, which Chris Bellamy and I discussed a podcast or two back, isn't an HD issue, but a director-messing-with-his-work-and-destroying-a-cultural-artifact issue. It could have just as easily been done on an regular DVD.
JE: "I'd much rather see old films in HD than new ones." I'm with you there. If you've seen certain magnificently preserved silent-era prints (in 35mm or HD), they can take your breath away. IMAX may be bigger and louder, but so what?!
A little home-video history:
Crappy alterations that privilege wow factors over accuracy are hardly new with Blu-ray. The DVD of Citizen Kane had so much digital noise reduction that it erased the rain outside the window in one scene. Artificial sharpening wrecked picture quality on numerous movies, most notably Cold Mountain and the first two releases of Terminator 2. This is hardly an advantage of Blu-ray over DVD. In fact, in pretty much any movie where you can complain about alterations to the Blu-ray, the DVD is the same way. The reverse is not true. Very few Blu-rays have been artificially sharpened, for instance.
Blu-ray has several major advantages:
The obvious one is the increase in resolution. While there have been some complaints that this is making movies look better than was intended, 35 mm film has more effective resolution than Blu-ray does. While you may dislike the way certain films are mastered, this is an issue with the mastering process, not Blu-ray. Older films that relied on optical composites may indeed have effects exposed, but this was also a problem with DVD. The simple fact is, while DVD looks better than VHS (which was always sub-optimal), it was made to maximize the potential of mid-1990s TVs, not to accurately reproduce the movie.
Detail is important, and I don't see why it's any less important in Marley & Me than Iron Man. Visual presentation isn't just for effects movies. Large amounts of information are lost when you downscale to DVD resolutions and can't be added back in by upscaling. Yes, people with large projection set-ups will benefit more, but even on 30" TV, the difference between upscaled DVD and Blu-ray is pretty clear unless you have poor eyesight or sit far away.
And to David Lawler: PAL has 20% more resolution than NTSC, and you have to put up with everything being sped up by 4%, music having its pitch a semitone too high, etc. Blu-ray has 500% more resolution than NTSC and 400% more than PAL and plays at the correct framerate. That's not really comparable.
However, it is important to remember Blu-rays vastly superior audio capabilities as well. The AC-3 audio that was standard on DVDs was a step above MP3s. DTS was available but rarely used because of tight limits on bandwidth and space. Blu-rays greater capacity means higher-resolution audio and generally lossless, meaning you are hearing something identical to the theatrical master. YMMV depending on your audio equipment, of course.
Vinyl recordings have the capacity for far more information and dynamic range than CD. The noise floor is a problem but a good vacuum/fluid record cleaner can do wonders in that department- I've noticed as much as a 98% reduction in pops and clicks after a good cleaning. To get the information out though, it helps to have a good cartridge/tone-arm/turntable/phono pre-amp and pre-amp, amplifier and speaker set up.
The goal of "high fidelity" audio is to achieve the closest thing to the sound of the original recording as captured by the original medium. Shouldn't that be the image and sound goal of high definition video?
There is an interesting letter in the March '09 American Cinematographer from the D.P. on Quantum of Solace, Roberto Schaefer, that covers the issues involved in the post production of films from the standpoint of the cinematographer. Often they are simply not contracted to see the film through the digital intermediate stage, let alone DVD or Blu-ray authoring.
JE: You said it: "The goal of "high fidelity" audio is to achieve the closest thing to the sound of the original recording as captured by the original medium. Shouldn't that be the image and sound goal of high definition video?"
That sounds like a worthy goal -- but, of course, artists rarely use film, video or audio recording to simply "capture" reality. Images and sounds are filtered, compressed, distorted and otherwise tweaked for various reasons. (Motown records were recorded and engineered to sound great on dashboard AM radios, for example -- not to sound like what was actually being played in the studio.) Early CDs made from the LP masters sounded terrible, because they were originally mixed to compensate for the properties of sound being reproduced in vinyl grooves. What sounded good when pressed into a record didn't sound so great if you just listened to it "naked."
So, yes, I would hope the guiding principle would be to reproduce the artists' work as it was when they completed it. Not to seek "high resolution" just because today's technology is capable of it. Remember the standard caveat issued on all back-catalog CDs: "WARNING: The music on this Compact Disc preserves, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording, but its high resolution also reveals limitations in the master tape, including noise and other distortions." Things that used to disappear beneath record noise (and, believe me, I used my Discwasher and Vac-o-Rec religiously, along with a Discwasher anti-static turntable pad and lord knows how many other devices) were often audible on the original tapes, and were then transferred to the CDs.
PS To me, LPs often do sound better than CDs, if you can eliminate all the other noise distractions to which LPs are vulnerable -- including just the whoosh sound of the stylus moving in the groove, especially at the beginning and end of the side, and sometimes even between tracks. I had a Boulez recording of "Daphnis et Chloe" that started off so quiet you weren't sure you could hear anything, and it never got as quiet as even a full concert hall. As you say, there's also a lot you can do to get a warmer sound from CDs, including analog conversion and equalization between your CD player and your ears.
If you have a hdtv the best way to go is blu-ray. I have films like "Natural born killers" and "Raging bull" on blu-ray and these are 2 films I have seen many,many times and they simply enhance what is already there and sometimes make you notice things you never did. Play a standard dvd then play the blu ray of the same title and theres no comparison that blu is the way to go.
I just want to comment that the great Mexican classic "La Sombra del Caudillo" was shot on 35MM film stock. But when the movie was banned by the Government (the film depicts the 1920's assassination of a faction of military officers who opposed a rival group of military offices for the Presidential position within the PRI party, which still ruled the country when the movie was shot in 1960)
Copies of the film were locked away, and when the film was finally released to the public in the 90's, the only surviving version was a 16MM copy (the rest had been destroyed). This is the version used on TV and DVD formats. While you can still watch the film without much trouble, it has the flaws of slightly muffled sound and different degrees of clarity (sometimes it looks dark, sometimes bright)
I am not familiar with the restoration process, but I don't know if it's possible to fix this movie. Since it was shot on 35MM, but only exists as a 16MM, I don't know if all the visual and sonic flaws that it has can be fixed to make it better and more enjoyable. I just wanted to comment on this, since the discussion is about the necessity of restoring gritty, low budget movies for digital perfection. "La Sombra del Caudillo" looks like such a film, but not by choice or budget.
> Vinyl recordings have the capacity for far more information and dynamic range than CD.
Sorry, but this is factually wrong. This is such a flat-out incorrect statement that I wouldn't bother addressing it except for the fact that it's such a widespread audiophile myth.
In theory, an analog signal SHOULD have more information than anything digital, since after all, it's an unbroken signal. Here's the problem: analog equipment introduces DISTORTION at all stages of the recording and reproduction process.
But then again, I like the distortion. So do you. The distortion we're talking about is what introduces (not recreates) warmth into an analog recording.
For this reason and others, sometimes an LP sounds better than a CD. But let's not kid ourselves that when we're hearing an LP we're hearing more information than what we would on a CD. We're not, unless the CD was mastered poorly. (Unfortunately, due to the loudness war, sometimes that's exactly the case, but that doesn't make CD an inherently inferior medium.)
Besides, mastering engineers will tell you that when they master for vinyl, everything's rolled off above 15k anyway, and pretty much anything above 10k is just noise.
JE: Thank you, jimmy!
I think that one good thing to point out is that movies have almost always looked great in theatrical, 35mm release. I recently watched "Casablanca" and "Singin' In the Rain" in 35mm, and was completely blown away at the quality and beauty (and these were not prestine prints, either). What I hope Blu-Ray technologist will do is find a way to use digital technology to recreate the 35mm feel as best as possible, because this is the pure, original veiw of countless films. I am not an expert on the subject, nor have I had the pleasure to watch many Blu-Ray discs, so I would like to know if any effort has been made to do something of this sort. Of course, this could bring a fear of the end of the world if Home Video (or just "Home") eclipses the theater, but I have a feeling that the movies will find a way, as they always seem to do.
Not to get in to audiophile wars, as what Jimmy says is indeed correct--- to an extent. The problem is that MP3s compress your sound waves together, which gives the music a muffled feel, even if the clarity is considerably higher than what you have on a vinyl. Even I, with not much of a trained musical ear, can hear the sound-wave compression when I listen to an MP3.
I'm surprised that there was a commenter above that would trash DVDs like they killed their mother. It's still the most ideal and convenient method of home viewing, and on an upconverting DVD player (which are becoming the norm), even DVDs with bad transfers look great. No, it doesn't have the clarity of 35mm film--- but there's nothing like going to a theater.
And thanks a lot, Jim, your talking about seeing The Searchers projected on blu-ray has had me obsessing with getting a home thater of my own. Just what I needed, more debt!
I think blu-ray does improve the quality of most films shot in 35mm -- visibly but marginally. There's a simple demonstration you can do to see what blu-ray brings to the party. All it takes is a blu-ray player, a reasonably-sized display, and both HDMI and component (RGB/YUV) cables. Connect the blu-ray player to the display using both HDMI and component cables. Load a BD into the player and switch the display between HDMI and component inputs.
It's a not-well-publicized fact that all blu-ray players MUST degrade the video to 480P over all outputs EXCEPT HDMI. HDMI is the only way true high-def is fed to a display. (This is true only for BD discs with copy-protection, which is effectively, everything). If you're using component or S-video cables to connect your blu-ray player to your display, all you are getting is an expensive, high-end DVD player.
I performed this test using the Blade Runner blu-ray disc, with a Sony BDP-s300 player and a high-def video projector with an 8-foot screen. I used the scene in which the Tyrell complex is approached from a long shot. With the HDMI input, even in the long shots the windows in the buildings are crisply defined rectangles. Switch to component and they become indistinct blobs.
Blade Runner was shot in 35mm and the blu-ray treatment is a visible improvement. The real benefit from blu-ray is with a true high-def source, such as 70mm film or modern material shot directly on high-def video. The problem is that not enough classic material was shot in these formats; only a few dozen films from the wide-screen road show era of the 50s and 60s were shot in 70mm. The format seemed to be reserved primarily for filmed versions of Broadway musicals and Biblical epics. I would like to see a well-done BD of Spartacus, or Ben-Hur, or Lawrence of Arabia. The VistaVision Hitchcock films (Vertigo, North by Northwest) would also be good candidates.
"JE: "I'd much rather see old films in HD than new ones." I'm with you there. If you've seen certain magnificently preserved silent-era prints (in 35mm or HD), they can take your breath away. IMAX may be bigger and louder, but so what?!"
Yeah, I was just in San Francisco in February for the SF Silent Film Festival's winter event, and saw a gorgeous print of Murnau's Sunrise as well as a pretty nice Rohauer (boo!) print of Our Hospitality. I still remember my first time at the festival, I think in 2000, when I saw Steamboat Bill, Jr. in all the rich detail. Keaton's performance is so subtle that you really need the big screen to get all the laughs (there was no concern of how the films would play on TV, of course).
So...seriously now, was this post an April Fools' Day joke? After rereading it and skipping around the comments a few times I'm still awfully confused about what it's supposed to be saying, and I like to think I'm not THAT dim. The post seems to suggest that HD video and invasive digital manipulation must go hand in hand, that what happened to 'The French Connection' is synonymous with film restoration, and that Blu-ray reveals more detail than you'd see in 35mm when it's in actual fact still much less. (Detail lost from making dupes for release is something worth throwing into that equation, but it's not mentioned here.) Then there's the statement that you've apparently never seen a Blu-ray that looks like a film print, even though you had to have at least seen something from Criterion by now, and they're just as nuts now about visual integrity as they are on DVD.
And despite all this you say you'd much rather see old films in HD than new ones. Confusing!
Sorry, but I find D M Arnold's submission that 70-mm is the only film format that is a true hi-def source laughable. There's certainly more grain in 16-mm and 35-mm sources than 70-mm, and 70-mm transfers great to BD, but to pretend that that 35-mm isn't as high resolution as 1080p is silly.
Also, Arnold's statement that all copy-protected BDs are output as 480p in analogue is incorrect. There's a completely different flag, called an ICT flag that has to be activated. I think Warner Bros. and Paramount are the only studios that have done this on any of their discs, and there's some sort of warning on the back of the box that indicates if it's been used (though probably not in a very big font). So using Arnold's system, you could be toggling between identical and near-identical resolutions (although analogue only goes up to 1080i60). Also, the flag downconverts to 540p, not 480p. It's still completely stupid and one of the reasons I don't own a blu-ray player, but it's not quite as low as 480p. Plus, down-converting higher-res source often yields better results, especially since compression and color are superior on HD media.
If you really want a fair comparison, stick a DVD of the movie in. (Another option would be to go into your player's setup and switch it to 480p output, but for reasons previously stated, it'll still be better quality than the DVD.)
I'm a fan of Blu-ray because it lets me see a movie with an image that's the closest to the original source. That could be film or an HD master that exists somewhere. I've changed my set-up at home over the years simply to see "2001: A Space Odyssey" the best possibly way. I've moved from a letterboxed VHS tape to Laserdisc to DVD to Blu-ray. Ah, finally a format that looks like I'm watching Kubrick's 70MM film on a light table!
Great column,
even worse is that newer high def TVs that have a 120 hertz refresh rate which means the screen is refreshing double the rate as normal TVs. I put in a Blue Ray disc of Full Metal Jacket and the film looked like it was shot in video. I ended up turning off all the new features on my TV to make the film look half way normal.
Further correction to Jeremy: component video can do 1080p, though some TVs and Blu-ray players don't support this. Strictly speaking, you have 1920x1080 resolution either way, but using HDMI, you can be sure that that pixels in the source will correspond 1:1 with the pixels in the display and color accuracy is better. It's also less prone to interference. Here's a link that shows some comparison shots.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102
I don't see how anyone could think the DVD represents the film better in any of the examples. This has nothing to do with new vs old movies as while film stocks have improved, 35 mm has had more effective resolution than Blu-ray pretty much all along. Yes, there is a problem with some discs not accurately representing the film, but this has nothing to do with media and was in fact a bigger problem with DVD as alterations were made to compensate for the relatively low resoltuion of DVD.
Ace: You are correct. I should have been more clear. I didn't mean to suggest that component can't handle 1080p (although my original post reads that way), but to my understanding, the analogue outputs on Blu-ray only go to 1080i60. This isn't a technological hurdle, but a licensing one. I don't understand it and it makes no sense to me, but there you have it.
And Chris is right—besides the over-saturated, over-bright factory settings that come with most TVs, there are a ton of idiotic "features" that do even worse things to the picture. It's ironic—at the same time we get TVs that can accurately replicate 24fps, we get idiotic TV manufacturers trying to create their own artificial-looking version of the movie, filling in missing frames to get to 60fps. And there are other vulgar "features." I had to set my Sony to "text/game mode" to stop it from brightening the picture during dark scenes! No joke. Sweet Jesus.
I am with people that think Blu-ray should be used to best preserve the director's intentions, which can be done. I agree that some have way too much processing such as grain removal or edge enhancement, which worked better when used right with DVD but are unnecessary with Blu-ray. A grainy film on Blu-ray should still look grainy, but the grain should come through better than it did on the DVD, the look the particular grain and film stock has can be better preserved on Blu-ray. We won't see amateur or really low budget films on Blu-ray unless they develop a big following, for a long time. At least one of the big studios (I wish I could remember which one) has pledged not to use any image processing on their Blu-ray transfers, I hope this trend catches on. I know you aren't a fan of Kevin Smith's movies, Jim, but just as an example, he has said that the HD-DVD was the first time he'd seen Clerks 2 look exactly like he wanted it to. I think that is more important than it looking like the 35mm version which a director may have not been perfectly happy with. I know this article applies more to older movies, but when done right, the look and feel of the original projection can be achieved.
As studios start A. realizing additional processing is unnecessary at HD resolutions and B. Quit using the same master that was produced DVD to create the Blu-ray (this is often why we see digital processing, especially overdone). We will see things more as they were originally projected, from the master, looking more like what the director saw before shipping it off to be copied even than what was in the theaters.
I also don't mind cleanup done to remove visual problems or scratches. I just don't like filters that are applied to the entire frame. If done like the upcoming Metropolis Blu-ray, which I have high hopes for, I think it is fine. That is, going through every frame and cleaning it up pixel-by-pixel with something along the lines of Photoshop rather than filtering a whole frame in one click. Not "enhancing" it, just restoring it. Of course this won't be done as much as it is expensive.
Just for the record:
Ryan, I wasn't comparing vinyl to MP3, I was comparing vinyl to CD. I'm not sure where you got the MP3 part from, unless maybe you thought I was referring to the digitally compressed audio track of a movie DVD, although that's not the same as MP3.
as long as they don't mess with Leprachaun in the hood or UHF i will be fine
Sorry Jimmy, I shouldn't have phrased it in the form of a correction. It was early and I was tired.
Just to toss this in:
Jon said: We won't see amateur or really low budget films on Blu-ray unless they develop a big following, for a long time.
Actually we already are, to my surprise. During the format war one big issue was that HD DVD was "friendlier" to small companies because the licensing and manufacture weren't nearly as expensive, but even so there are still quite a few obscure releases on Blu-ray already from various indie distributors (Blue Underground has a few out and has announced several more, for example--stuff along the lines of 'The Bird With the Crystal Plumage' and 'Vigilante'). A lot of the smaller movies released so far do have what you could arguably call a big following, but a format that already has 'Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter' in its selection is starting to seriously branch out.
If more studios follow Disney's example and include a DVD and Digital copy with every movie, the whole "I don't want to get the DVD cause I'll just have to get the Blu-ray soon enough" problem would be solved. If you have a Blu-ray player, you can still take the movie to a friend's that doesn't or watch the DVD or digital copy on your laptop, or whatever portable device you use. If you DON'T have a Blu-ray player but think you may and are waiting on the players to be cheaper or to get an HDTV or whatever, you can still buy this version and watch the DVD for now. Your growing collection of companion Blu-rays may cause you to want to get a player sooner.
I don't know if some sort of red tape prevents them from putting the DVD on side B like HD-DVD did on several titles. I prefer separate discs with artwork, but this will also make them afraid that someone is getting one copy and giving/selling the DVD and digital copies to people that may have bought their own. Having it on side b like hd-dvd kept both versions in the same hands.
It was pointed out once or twice but it's worth repeating: check the settings on your HDTVs people, especially if you're using an LCD. Cinephiles should be watching on top of the line plasma screens, but if you're using an LCD, make sure all image processing options are turned off--they royally screw up the image. And don't don't ever judge the image quality by what you see in the store unless it's in a dimly lit to completely dark room, and the person who set it up knows what they're doing.
And why is plasma better? The obvious reasons are: better black levels, better contrast ratios, better color accuracy, better viewing angles. One reason that might be less obvious--motion resolution. 1080p is only true for static images, but most screens can't display 1,080 true lines of resolution when the image is in motion. LCDs, due to their slower response times, suffer this problem much more than plasmas--a typical 60hz LCD can only show 300-500 lines of motion resolution, while a 120hz gets up to 600 (according to hdguru.com). Even the lower end plasmas display around 950 lines, and the higher end ones can do the full 1080 (like Panasonic's new G10). And considering how cheap even Panasonic's plasmas are now, it's hard to see why anyone who loves movies would buy anything else (unless you can afford Mitsubishi's Laservue, which in that case please invite me over!)
We're getting a bit off-topic here, but seeing as Shaan brought it up:
I own one of those newer Panasonic plasmas (after having owned a Sharp LCD, which had banding and smearing issues), and I agree with most of Shaan's comments about plasma HDTVs. However, you've really got to baby those suckers during the first so many hundred hours of use, and you might always be a little bit paranoid about prolonged image retention, should you watch a number of films in 2.35:1 or 1.33:1 ratio. Heck, mine shows slight image retention in the bottom center of the screen whenever I watch subtitled movies.
Above and beyond all that, if (like me) your eyes are sensitive to yellow/green phosphor trails/lag, you may find a number of high-contrast (especially black-and-white, Sin City being a notable example) films pretty tough to watch. When dark colours cross over bright whites, you'll get yellow flashes, and you'll even notice yellow flashes if you move your eyes around a high-contrast image.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that cinephiles should choose LCD over plasma, as I definitely prefer the latter, overall (for most of the reasons Shaan listed above, especially motion resolution/response time), but that they should be aware of said plasma issues. I'm just hoping that the phosphor lag diminishes over time, as the set gets older (I'm probably between 300 and 400 hours of use right now). Or I'll have to invest in some special yellow-filtering sunglasses. ;)