Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
[Closed] Recent Viewing Part III
-
- CommentAuthorDreamTheater
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
Martijn wrote
Odd? I find BlueRay to be a horrible, headache-inducing medium, that highlights each detail to such a level that it detracts from the story. And contrary to Bob, I find it does a thorough disservice to old films.
I'll stick to DVD as long as I can.
The highlighting of each detail, I see it as an enhancement to the film, because that's how the director shot it, and how he had it in his head. How can something like that detract from the story, to see the film in all its originally intended glory? Case in point: Blade Runner, a world that begs to be experienced in hi-def. Would you rather see it in murky, soft, and less colourful low-def?
I think you should come watch the new Star Wars release in on my system, and acknowledge the fact it's like a totally new film experience, in fact like watching it for the very first time. Which it really is.
sdtom wrote
Have any of you seen what Blue Ray does to b&w.
Raging Bull is pretty fantastic looking on blu."considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
DreamTheater wrote
Martijn wrote
Odd? I find BlueRay to be a horrible, headache-inducing medium, that highlights each detail to such a level that it detracts from the story. And contrary to Bob, I find it does a thorough disservice to old films.
I'll stick to DVD as long as I can.
The highlighting of each detail, I see it as an enhancement to the film, because that's how the director shot it, and how he had it in his head. How can something like that detract from the story, to see the film in all its originally intended glory? Case in point: Blade Runner, a world that begs to be experienced in hi-def. Would you rather see it in murky, soft, and less colourful low-def?
But these were never *shot* in high definition, so surely it could never have been the director's intention?
I think you should come watch the new Star Wars release in on my system, and acknowledge the fact it's like a totally new film experience, in fact like watching it for the very first time. Which it really is.
Case in point! It was never *shot* or meant that way back in '77!
I don't *want* to be distracted by suddenly seeing the zits on Hamill's face! I'm with D. on this: it's like films suddenly look like documentaries. The sheer abundance of extreme detail is -to me- highly distracting. I can't think of one single recent example where either director, photography director or sfx team was capable of enough restraint to not fall into that trap.
sdtom wrote
Have any of you seen what Blue Ray does to b&w.
Yeah...not impressed. Grainy, extreme contrasts. It's almost like all technical deficiencies have been augmented and high-lighted!'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
Martijn wrote
But these were never *shot* in high definition, so surely it could never have been the director's intention?
I'm very confused by this and am not sure whether you're joking or not. They were shot on film! They were displayed in higher definition in cinemas than any tv/Blu-Ray player could display. Blah blah. -
- CommentAuthorErik Woods
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2011
Southall wrote
Martijn wrote
But these were never *shot* in high definition, so surely it could never have been the director's intention?
I'm very confused by this and am not sure whether you're joking or not. They were shot on film! They were displayed in higher definition in cinemas than any tv/Blu-Ray player could display. Blah blah.
Yup!
-Erik-host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS! -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011 edited
Oops! My bad!
Not having the best of days, so wasn't thinking straight.
Can't believe I just compared an analogue recording to a digital one.
'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorDreamTheater
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
Indeed, they were shot in ultra high-def, for huge screen presentation. But right now, with blu-ray and HDTV we're beginning to see a picture at home which comes quite close in terms of detail and sharpness with what we're seeing in the theatre. Which is why I prefer to watch my movies at home, because for me personally, with this new technology it's an experience that can't be beaten."considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011 edited
So my beef really only is with more modern directors who like their new toys too much (something quite common, of course...and unfortunate).
That said, already reems of 'fans' and dweebs are reporting hitherto considered slight or minute visual flaws being massively visible now on BluRay transfers, making -to keep with the example- the Star Wars trilogy really showing its age.
Also to be expected, I guess, but the fact of the matter may well be that older media are kinder to older films.
I can easily get over seventies hairdos....but it'll be a sad day indeed when I have to tell myself to actively ignore certain visual aspects to properly relive that suspension of disbelief.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorBobdH
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
DreamTheater wrote
I think you should come watch the new Star Wars release in on my system, and acknowledge the fact it's like a totally new film experience, in fact like watching it for the very first time. Which it really is.
You could make some pretty horrible George Lucas related jokes on that
-
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011 edited
Southall wrote
Martijn wrote
But these were never *shot* in high definition, so surely it could never have been the director's intention?
I'm very confused by this and am not sure whether you're joking or not. They were shot on film! They were displayed in higher definition in cinemas than any tv/Blu-Ray player could display. Blah blah.
The films are shot indeed in film, which - although analogue, in resolution terms is roughly translated to either 2k (very generally speaking twice 1080p), 4k (4xfull hd) or 8k (8xfullhd).
Where's Martijn's right though is that there were no monitors with today's standards which could actually show such detail to the director from a close to distance (as with leds plasmas and lcds today or pc monitors) plus we all know that traditional cinema as we have it today, doesn't show all those crispy details on the silver screen.Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
Cool! Even when I'm mistaken I'm right.
'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorDreamTheater
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2011
I'm reading everywhere that the older SW trilogy is better looking than the cgi-filled prequels (except ROTS). I've only watched episode I which is the most problematic.
Or how old-school effects and films from another age can really shine in HD. Alien and Aliens, 2001: A space Odyssey, Blade Runner. They all look fantastic. And Ben-Hur is supposed to be mindbogglingly glorious as well."considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G. -
- CommentAuthorFalkirkBairn
- CommentTimeOct 4th 2011
FalkirkBairn wrote
sdtom wrote
Colossus of New York (1958)
I watched this again because of the release of the music which I'll be curious to listen to away from the movie. A lot of 12 tone piano.
Tom
Looking forward to hearing this one. But my package is coming from SAE and includes a recent Kritzerland release and so it will be a while in coming.
Listening to The Colossus of New York now. It is an interesting listen but I am disappointed to hear quite a bit of hiss as well as some bleed-through of dialogue in some of the cues. A bit like a bootleg when someone has tried to get the music and dampened down the dialogue. I don't remember reading anything about the audio issues in the publicity. But I can read all about it at my leisure from the booklet.The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeOct 4th 2011
Terra Nova
Quite enjoyed this, despite some very ropey effects. Will keep watching. Even liked Brian Tyler's synthy music. -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
Erik Woods wrote
Southall wrote
Martijn wrote
But these were never *shot* in high definition, so surely it could never have been the director's intention?
I'm very confused by this and am not sure whether you're joking or not. They were shot on film! They were displayed in higher definition in cinemas than any tv/Blu-Ray player could display. Blah blah.
Yup!
-Erik-
Indeed.
And here's the dark truth.
Black and white IS GRAINY.Hi-definition just reveals what is actually there.
It was then. It still is. E.g. (although this has been compressed to 720p)
http://www.vimeo.com/22262257A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorsdtom
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
Saw the 6 hour special Prohibition done by noted historian Ken Burns.
Tomlisten to more classical music! -
- CommentAuthorSouthall
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
Star Trek: Voyager
I noticed that this is being shown again from the start over here so was interested to watch the first episode again. My tolerance of televised Star Trek is considerably lower than in my vaguely obsessive youth and in fact this seemed awful. What surprised me was how appalling some of the acting is (hard to believe some of them are professional actors) and I have to say Jay Chattaway's score for the pilot is interminably bad. On the other hand - Jerry Goldsmith's main theme is, I think, the finest Star Trek theme since his Motion Picture one. Absurd plot with a dreadful "villain" and some of our characters (none of whom we care about since none is particularly sympathetic) in very badly-realised peril, just waiting for that deus ex machina, and the horrific resolution where the Starfleet and rebel crews decide to live happily ever after in Starfleet uniforms together which ruins the whole point of the series, which was surely that they would be in conflict while trying to get back. Appalling. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
franz_conrad wrote
And here's the dark truth.
Black and white IS GRAINY.Hi-definition just reveals what is actually there.
It was then. It still is. E.g. (although this has been compressed to 720p)
http://www.vimeo.com/22262257
Yes? Indeed?
Not sure what the point is you are making?'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
Southall wrote
Star Trek: Voyager
very badly-realised peril, just waiting for that deus ex machina
That's pretty much what turned me off the series during the original run, so I never saw anything beyond the pilot.
I gather it does rather pick up in later series?'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorDreamTheater
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
Martijn wrote
franz_conrad wrote
And here's the dark truth.
Black and white IS GRAINY.Hi-definition just reveals what is actually there.
It was then. It still is. E.g. (although this has been compressed to 720p)
http://www.vimeo.com/22262257
Yes? Indeed?
Not sure what the point is you are making?
I assume he wants to say that blu-ray just makes the film look like its original source, grain and all. DVD and standard definition and even lower (VHS and the like) have always managed to hide what the film really looks like.
I prefer the original intended look myself."considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
Hmmmmm...actually in two minds here. Grain I would argue -especially in really old films (mind that I watch a lot of films from 1930 and before!- was never intentional, of course, but simply due to the crude technology employed.
To have actual flaws or technical fallibilities being softened or erased by not shining the merciless spotlight of BluRay on it, is a kindness, I would think. Heck, I far preferred watching Nosferatu on DVD than I did at the cinema!'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
Why don't we just replace all the soundtracks and colourise the odd detail or two while we're at it.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
Odd reaction.
That the very properties of the medium solely manage to make a film look better than it did when it came out of course has nothing to do with active tampering with the source material.
...like 5.1-ing a straight stereo soundtrack because BluRay viewers expect 2011 technologie from a 1959 film.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
I have an issue with trying to 'cure the inherent properties of a film stock'. It's a curious thing to lock on to, but film afficianados tend to privellege the image over the sound, so it's not an uncommon attitude. Strangely enough I don't have a problem with say, Philip Glass noodling away all over the old DRACULA, provided the original creative decisions are accessible on the same release.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
I dunno...the inherent quality of film stock seems to me to be that it's inflammable, breakable, incredibly degrading over a very brief period of time, highly affected by light, humidity, dust, et cetera.
Isn't the focus on how it looks now (in its current, weathered state) not slightly akin to thinking Rembrandt's The Night Watch or Michelangelo's Sixtine Chapel Ceiling are supposed to look dark and murky simply because dirt and grime have accumulated over the centuries?
But again, in principle I agree: active tampering is something that requires the greatest discretion and reticence. If however the very properties of a medium (like DVD) in and of itself make a film look better than its actual state, where's the harm in that?'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
I don't know though... grain is a property of film. It doesn't come from decay of the print, like a scratch or a fold or dust. Grain comes in many ways, but in particular from under-exposing in faster negative film stocks. You could argue those guys back in 1949 (Third Man is my case in point) didn't have a creative choice the way we do about the level of grain in our images, so why not enable them to have what we have now.* But by the same token I could suggest ADR'ing all muffled mono dialogue from studio-recorded films of the time with talented voice actors using close-recording radio mikes with richer range. Because if they'd had a choice, that's probably what they would have used too.
* (For example, Kubrick obviously chose to have all that grain and noise in EYES WIDE SHUT -- in his controlled environment, he could have lit it differently and worked with a different film stock if he didn't want it. Same goes with Darren Aronofsky in BLACK SWAN.)
** Mind you, I'm still not sure users of B/W can avoid grain even today. I certainly can't in 16mm land. That's what the film looks like.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
I still don't buy it: the one is cleaning up an inherent deficiency of the medium, the other is replacing an element of the film by something completely different!
To me it's far more like the difference between cleaning up your room and deciding to paint it green because that's a fashionable colour.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorDreamTheater
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
I'd like your opinion on this Martijn: will you look at the screenshots from Tron, the new HD-release, and tell me if that doesn't look infinitely better than what you must have watched when it was released in '82, or on the VHS tapes after that.
I was blown out of my mind by how this dated looking flick looks absolutely stunning on blu-ray. It looks stunning because I acknowledge it is supposed to have this dated visual style, and how everything is crystal clear, including a very vivid colour palette. It's what gives the film its charm and how all the little details in the image do the medium justice. I know you know the film by heart and wanted to know if you think this HD-transfer improves the film, or if it just makes you turn your eyes away in disgust.
I've never watched Tron before 2010, but the first time was an okay looking DIVX, imagine my suprise when I watched the HD version. I think it looks just as great as its sequel in HD, I mean the way they cleaned up the original must've been a ton of work."considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G. -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
Nah, still looks like shit.Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011 edited
DreamTheater wrote
I'd like your opinion on this Martijn: will you look at the screenshots from Tron, the new HD-release, and tell me if that doesn't look infinitely better than what you must have watched when it was released in '82, or on the VHS tapes after that.
I like how you reference VHS.
Let's get this very clear: VHS was nice because for the first time in television history, we could retain what we saw. THAT'S IT! There was no further benefit than that. The quality was awful even back in the day, and I am *massively* grateful it's gone the way of the dodo.
As charming and quaint a medium as it may be referenced now, I have always hated the format, which was the very worst to go to market, even with the crude technology of the day.
So, I have looked at the photos, and I really think I should watch the film on that medium.
The photos to me just convey a sense of "hyper reality": things seem sharper than real life. All angles seem hard, unforgiving. Does that make sense?
I have to say though you have chosen probably the most difficult film to gauge, as of course the whole point of that film is an augmented/alternate reality that is binary in nature.
So I really have to reserve judgement.
But from what I see on the web site, it doesn't seem so enjoyable to me.
Honestly though I don't really know this film by heart at all.
I certainly have a soft spot for it, but I have only seen it four or five times over the last twenty years or so.
(I did very recently revisit it though, so I feel comfortable commenting).'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorDreamTheater
- CommentTimeOct 5th 2011
Christodoulides wrote
Nah, still looks like shit.
Yeah you're right, it's DA SHIT !!!
"considering I've seen an enormous debate here about The Amazing Spider-Man and the ones who love it, and the ones who hate it, I feel myself obliged to say: TASTE DIFFERS, DEAL WITH IT" - Thomas G.