Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 06:46:02 PM
:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News
0 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
: Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News  ( 28009 )
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9943

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #15 : March 29, 2012, 06:39:00 AM »

The Comancheros (1961) looks superb on Blu.

Thanks!

I recently saw GBU on blu-ray; it's the first Leone movie I have ever seen on blu-ray. I thought the picture quality was absolutely stunning.
But I see some people here are upset that they completely got rid of all the grain.

What do you think about that?

To me, grain is never a good thing.  I guess that since people associate old movies with grain, maybe they feel that it doesn't have that 1960's feel without it? Kind of like, it would have been better if pictures never had grain, but once they did, it just feels out of place to come along 40 years later and remove the grain from a picture that had grain for 40 years?

I don't know, but the way I see it, the more beautiful and perfect the picture quality, the better; and therefore less grain the better, and zero grain is best.

Maybe it's just a generational difference, in that I don't remember the time when everything had grain, so to me, it's always better if grain can be eliminated; but for those who do remember that time, removing grain almost feels as heretical as colorizing  a black n' white movies?


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16775


The joy of loving is to live in a world of Mandom


« #16 : March 29, 2012, 09:17:51 AM »

My general rule-of-thumb: older titles should look as film-like as possible. I want to experience a film close to the way it was presented theatrically. Of course, back in the day you could go to a showing and see a very battered print, so I'm happy to view images that may be substantially cleaner than the way they were shown once upon a time. I also like the option of being able to have augmented or "improved" sound with an older film (this can do some very nice things to film scores), but only if I'm still able to select something resembling the way the sound was originally heard. Grain should be present, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it shouldn't be softened in some cases. Certain film stocks didn't do well under low-light conditions, and if modern filtering techniques can improve clarity in those cases, I'm in favor of their use. These things have to be decided case-by-case, but generally I'd like to have films with a uniform layer of grain from shot to shot. I'm also against adding machine noise to films to simulate grain.



"McFilms are commodities and, as such, must be QA'd according to industry standards."
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9943

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #17 : March 29, 2012, 03:50:49 PM »

well from what I understand, they used noise reduction to eliminate grain from the GBU blu ray: once (the board member named once) told me that, though I have no clue what that means    ;)

btw, I just bought the original GBU dvd (with the 2:41 version, and the extra 16 minutes as a special feature in Italian with English subtitles) now; I have never yet seen anything other than the full 2:57, and I wanted to check out that 2:41 version which I know some long-time fans prefer.

Anyway, I just started watching the first few minutes, ie. the opening credits, and I noticed that at least during those few minutes, the quality of the tape is horrible. Looks like it is terribly damaged,  full of flickering white spots, etc. I don't know if the rest of the movie is like the 3 minutes of the opening credits, but at least for those 3 minutes it looks like the dvd was a straight transfer of an awful original tape with no attempt at re-mastering or whatever. MGM obviously did an amazing job with the quality of the Special edition re-release  O0
(though you can argue that they were wrong to include the Tuco-in-the-cave scene  as part of the movie rather than a deleted scene; apparently, it showed in the original screening in Rome but Leone himself removed it before the wide release in Italy. as Frayling said in the commentary on the blu ray, while that scene may make "completists" happy, it slows down the action and is really unnecessary.... I do agree with those of you here who have argued that none of the deleted scenes are essential, with the exception of the scene with Angel Eyes visiting the Confederate fort; I have no idea how the hell they ever left that out, and what y'all who saw the original thought, when Angel Eyes just happens to show up as the head of the POW camp that Bill Carson is at..... Oh, and I also saw some complaints about the changing of gunshots, which I think MGM felt was necessary cuz the old gunshots would not have fit with the new sound of the re-mastered movie; but that means nothing at all to a city slicker who never touched a gun and couldn't tell the difference between the sound of a derringer and that of a Winchester  ;) )


« : March 31, 2012, 06:01:18 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
moviesceleton
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3938


The glance that makes holes in the silver screen


« #18 : March 31, 2012, 01:48:16 PM »

Thanks!

I recently saw GBU on blu-ray; it's the first Leone movie I have ever seen on blu-ray. I thought the picture quality was absolutely stunning.
But I see some people here are upset that they completely got rid of all the grain.

What do you think about that?

To me, grain is never a good thing.  I guess that since people associate old movies with grain, maybe they feel that it doesn't have that 1960's feel without it? Kind of like, it would have been better if pictures never had grain, but once they did, it just feels out of place to come along 40 years later and remove the grain from a picture that had grain for 40 years?

I don't know, but the way I see it, the more beautiful and perfect the picture quality, the better; and therefore less grain the better, and zero grain is best.

Maybe it's just a generational difference, in that I don't remember the time when everything had grain, so to me, it's always better if grain can be eliminated; but for those who do remember that time, removing grain almost feels as heretical as colorizing  a black n' white movies?
Some films I just can't imagine without grain. On the Waterfront without grain, anyone?

IMO, DVDs and BluRays should resemble the original film copies as closely as possible (in pristine conditions).


"Once Upon a Time in America gets ten-minute ovation at Cannes"
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9943

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #19 : March 31, 2012, 06:10:22 PM »

well from what I understand, color movies in the 50's and 60's were of a much poorer quality than we see those movies in today on dvd, right?

sometimes I will be watching a dvd of a color movie from eg. the 50's, and the picture looks beautiful. And in the special features, they show the original trailer, and the picture quality of that looks terrible. So obviously they re-mastered the picture for the dvd, but felt it was unnecessary to re-master the trailer, and just showed it as is, in the special features.

Now, I have a question for you: Is that much poorer picture quality a result of the film eroding over the years, or is that how the film actually looked in the 50's? Perhaps it's some combination of both, but my point is that picture quality of color movies in the 50's wasn't anything close to how sharp it is when we see the movie on dvd now, after it has all been re-mastered. So if you want picture to be as close as possible to its original theatrical showing, why don't you have a problem with re-mastering? i can't believe that you really want the picture quality to be as bad as it was sin the 50's. On the other hand, you want some authenticity, so you want some grain.

So my question is, where do you draw the line? Till what point do you insist on authenticity, and at what point do you say, let's use all available technology to make this picture the sharpest it can possibly be (which the filmmakers themselves would have done when the movie was released, had the technology been available; I don't think any of them WANTED grain in their pictures, if they had the ability to remove it)


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9943

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #20 : March 31, 2012, 06:25:54 PM »

so I just saw The French Connection for the first time, on blu ray.

There is an introduction with the director, he says (paraphrasing) that the blu ray version represents the best possible picture the way he wanted it and he loves it and considers it the best version.

But i was reading on wikipedia that apparently the blu ray version changes a lot from the original picture, and this was controversial, and the cinematographer hates it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_French_Connection_%28film%29#Home_video

Has anyone seen both versions? What can you tell me about the comparison? Is the blu ray really that bad? (If I get the urge to see the movie again, should I watch it on dvd instead?)

p.s. I was delighted to discover that the famous car/train chase was filmed just a few blocks from my house;  I take that train all the time! (It's the elevated train originally known as the West End Line; it used to be the B Train; currently it's the D train. The interior of the subway cars look very different  than they did in 1971; now, they use R68 cars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R68_%28New_York_City_Subway_car%29 )

p.p.s. That SONY blu ray player was giving me serious problems, so I exchanged it for this SAMSUNG http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Samsung+-+Blu-ray+Player/2965171.p?id=1218368053173&skuId=2965171&st=blu%20ray%20player&cp=1&lp=14 so far, so good  :)

« : March 31, 2012, 06:27:17 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3590



« #21 : April 01, 2012, 04:10:43 AM »

well from what I understand, color movies in the 50's and 60's were of a much poorer quality than we see those movies in today on dvd, right?

sometimes I will be watching a dvd of a color movie from eg. the 50's, and the picture looks beautiful. And in the special features, they show the original trailer, and the picture quality of that looks terrible. So obviously they re-mastered the picture for the dvd, but felt it was unnecessary to re-master the trailer, and just showed it as is, in the special features.

Now, I have a question for you: Is that much poorer picture quality a result of the film eroding over the years, or is that how the film actually looked in the 50's?

A result of the film eroding. Every film starts to lose immediately after it was shot its quality. When David Fincher prepared Se7en for the first DVD release he said he was shocked how bad the original negative already looked after only a few years.

Quote
Perhaps it's some combination of both, but my point is that picture quality of color movies in the 50's wasn't anything close to how sharp it is when we see the movie on dvd now, after it has all been re-mastered. So if you want picture to be as close as possible to its original theatrical showing, why don't you have a problem with re-mastering? i can't believe that you really want the picture quality to be as bad as it was sin the 50's. On the other hand, you want some authenticity, so you want some grain.

So my question is, where do you draw the line? Till what point do you insist on authenticity, and at what point do you say, let's use all available technology to make this picture the sharpest it can possibly be (which the filmmakers themselves would have done when the movie was released, had the technology been available; I don't think any of them WANTED grain in their pictures, if they had the ability to remove it)

The picture quality of 35 mm film isn't now much better than it was in the 50s (as far as I know). Grain is on every 35 mm film, be it from the silent days, be it from nowadays, a natural part of the picture. If you can see it is only a matter how big you watch it. If you sit in a theatre in the last row you won't notice the grain. (I always sit very near to the screen)
Many say without the grain the images look less lively. I'm pretty sure if you ask directors and photographers if they want grain on their film or not, they opt for the grain on the DVDs and Blus. The grain gives the film a volitional structure.

The idea of the remastering is to make older films look like they looked back in the days they were made. That they look like they were intended to look. But even if the people who made them are still alive and are working on the remastering there is always a certain range for interpretation how they actually looked back then.

« : April 02, 2012, 05:20:07 AM stanton »

cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14230


easy come easy go


« #22 : April 01, 2012, 05:36:45 AM »

One other factor that even today on the rare times I go to a theater is that the film on the screen in the theater isn't any way as bright as on a TV screen, I've gotten spoiled, but it could be the theaters not projecting with the right intensity of light.


"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16775


The joy of loving is to live in a world of Mandom


« #23 : April 01, 2012, 05:18:06 PM »

so I just saw The French Connection for the first time, on blu ray.

There is an introduction with the director, he says (paraphrasing) that the blu ray version represents the best possible picture the way he wanted it and he loves it and considers it the best version.

But i was reading on wikipedia that apparently the blu ray version changes a lot from the original picture, and this was controversial, and the cinematographer hates it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_French_Connection_%28film%29#Home_video

Has anyone seen both versions? What can you tell me about the comparison? Is the blu ray really that bad? (If I get the urge to see the movie again, should I watch it on dvd instead?)
Dude, you need to watch it on the new and improved Blu-ray that just came out 2 weeks ago and is currently a Best Buy exclusive. This new one is director AND cinematographer approved. It looks a whole lot better than the old version and is worth the cost and effort to obtain.



"McFilms are commodities and, as such, must be QA'd according to industry standards."
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9943

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #24 : April 11, 2012, 06:07:13 PM »

So, I finally did it! I upgraded my view -- I just bought this 32" inch LG HDTV http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-32LV2400-led-tv
It's a beauty!

One thing that is ridiculous about the tv --  the speakers are in back of the monitor, so all the sound floats away through the back and is awful. I had to keep it at nearly max volume in order to hear anything. But I just connected it to my Bose speakers 9which I originally bought for my laptop) and now, the sound is just as beautiful as the picture  :)


UPDATE: The sound was so bad I was thinking of returning the tv -- until my friend told me to use speakers (previously, I'd only connected speakers to my laptop, but never to a tv). I connected the speakers and all is beautiful  :)

« : November 26, 2013, 01:02:11 PM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9943

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #25 : April 11, 2012, 07:09:35 PM »

NOTE: This topic used to be called "I Need Help Deciding About a Blu-Ray Player:-)," cuz I initially started this thread cuz I needed advice about a Blu Ray Player. But it has evolved into a much more broad discussion about things like disc quality, whether old movies should have grain, tv's, etc., and I figure that this thread can serve a continuing purpose: Any time anyone needs any sort of  "device advice," or wants to discuss any other technical/electronic-related issue, here is the place.

Therefore, I am changing the name of the thread now to "Electronics/Technical Discussion/Device Advice/Gadget News"

« : December 11, 2013, 05:58:13 AM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9943

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #26 : July 25, 2012, 02:45:51 AM »

Is there any risk of a DVD/BR Disc getting scratched if it's left in the player for an extended period of time either on Pause; on Stop; or when the player is powered Off?


There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3590



« #27 : July 25, 2012, 04:30:04 AM »

No


drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9943

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


« #28 : July 25, 2012, 04:36:45 AM »

No

Thanks, so I can pause it for an hour no problem?

the reason I ask is cuz sometimes with music cd's, you see circular  lines around the disc that were obviously made by the laser as the disc spun around. I always wondered what those lines were caused by -- was it from extended pausing? Are they scratches or harmful in any way?

(I once accidentally left my friend's copy of Metallica's cd "Kill 'em All" -- that's the one with the song "Seek and Destroy"  ;) -- in my cd player on pause, and then left my house to go to the park and play football, and came back 8 hours later, and it was still spinning on pause! I told him to let me know if he had any problems; but Thank God he never did :)

« : July 25, 2012, 04:38:26 AM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
moviesceleton
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3938


The glance that makes holes in the silver screen


« #29 : July 25, 2012, 11:05:43 AM »

I've never noticed that those circular lines were made by extended pausing, but (for some odd reason) some CDs have lines in between of songs, in the same style as on vinyl records.


"Once Upon a Time in America gets ten-minute ovation at Cannes"
: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  
« previous next »
:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
0.057160