comment #1

mutinyco says ...

The 2001 version was a grain storm. Because the remastering was created by Kubrick, by reshooting each individual frame of the film with a Nikon from an existing print.

I saw the new remaster at Film Forum. Looked gorgeous. And I think the 1.66 looks better than the so-called alternating version -- because when Kubrick did his remastering in the '90s, he shot it all using the full negative, so the 1.66 sections, which are easily half the movie, aren't cropped properly, and the matting looks terrible like it's a camera matte box caught in the frame.

If the Blu-ray is the same as the FF print, I'd be down with it.

comment #2

Joe Gillis says ...

"Pay attention to me! The website needs hits! Pay attention to me!"

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Gillis: Would it hurt your feelings if I called you a reprehensible asshole? Because I wouldn't want to do that.

comment #4

maxfm says ...

Not that it has anything to do with Strangelove grain, but David Carradine. R.I.P.

comment #5

NotImpressed1Yet says ...

Thanks Jeff! This has just become an official day one purchase for me! This monk is very happy.

And yeah, R.I.P. David Carradine. Can someone post a link to Well's recent piece on David Carradine playing guitar at a screening of one of his old movies?

comment #6

jamesO.incandenza says ...

Wow Gillis, what the fuck was that? Is Grover Crisp your father or something? Take issue with Wells' position here all you want, but to suggest that this post is an attempt to create controversy for the sake of traffic is absurd. The man has a giant, long-standing and oft repeated beef with the Blu-Ray grain purists as well as a near-obsession with Strangelove's proper aspect ratio. Again, I have no problem with you completely disagreeing with each and every opinion expressed in this post, but your response shows you to be completely uniformed and/or, yes, a reprehensible asshole. I'd guess both.

comment #7

tommysunshine says ...

Strangelove is on at MOMA later this month as part of the Yanks in London season.

Sorry Jeff but Gillis is part of an expanding army of cyber-parasites who have been infecting your food chain. They don't know anything about Hollywood and need to go elsewhere. But the internet being a democracy, they're here to stay. You'd think the likes of deaf, trash brown punk and clancy would mix it up by having an original observation now and then but it seems otherwise

comment #8

George Prager says ...

Beware of Strangelove 4D Hologram!

The forthcoming 75th anniversary Dr. Strangelove 4D Hologram (Sony Home Video, 6.16) is more than a visual disappointment -- it's a flat-out burn. I paid $225 bills for it yesterday afternoon and I'm seething. It's hands down the worst grainstorm experience since Criterion's Year One...

Posted by Jett Wells on June 4, 2039 at 5:09 AM

comment #9

rr3333 says ...

IMHO: I think bluray is only worth it for new films with all the bells and whistles.

Seems like many old films look much worse on bluray because it enhances its flaws.

Regardless, i dont have a bluray player. too many dvds in the house already and who wants to spend more money?

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

Prager, it's good to see the return of Futurama Hollywood Elsewhere. I'd missed it (along with Hollywood Elsewhence).

comment #11

dunk says ...

Taking a photograph of a television screen isn't a good idea when presenting an article about technical problems with a dvd/bluray. It makes it look even worse.

comment #12

GKLondon says ...

I'd agree that usually the most impressive Blu Ray are the new titles (Jesus, I own the fucking POTC sequels for crying out loud! In my defense, I'm often an idiot, and my wife worked on them) but there are some old titles that do really impress in HD. I've the (lamentably deceased) HD DVD of The Thing and initially was worried that Rob Bottin's effects would not stand up to more scrutiny, but was pleasantly surprised to find that they looked better than ever, mainly due to the fact that they are fantastic pieces of sculpture. The cadaver autopsies in particular are a highlight. I'm sure the Blu Ray is minted from the same source and has is comparable impressive.

Zodiac and Wall E are the two most stunning transfers I've personally seen.

comment #13

chasieb says ...

The Bluray version of South Pacific is beautiful. Remastered from the origional Todd-AO elements. Should be a reference disc for anyone wanting to show off their system

comment #14

cinefan says ...

The Thing does look terrific on Blu-Ray (the special effects really hold up well even in hi-def). I also love how great Halloween looks on Blu-Ray (another film with superb Dean Cundey cinematography).

comment #15

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

$35 is a lot of fucking money for a DVD.

comment #16

mutinyco says ...

GKLondon --

Think about why Zodiac and Wall-E look so good on video. Both movies were created digitally. There's no film translation.

comment #17

GKLondon says ...

mutinyco, I know why they look so good, I was just saying that they do. I am an post production supervisor and editor, I know the digital post process from many, many sleepless nights.

It kills me that Criterion are Region A encoded, but that still didn't stop my dumb ass buying Benjamin Button Criterion on Blu. I'm sure it's of the same calibre as Zodiac.

On the digital tip, Kung Fu Panda also looks the nuts. Of the non-entirely digitally processed films, I think I The Prestige is one of my favourite encodes. Fucking terrific movie too. The Dark Knight unsurprisingly is great, though there is a bit of aliasing in one or two of the IMAX shots.

The major disappointment for me so far has been Master and Commander, a great film with some truly muddy encoding work.

comment #18

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

I find it quite interesting reading these kinds of threads.

I'd say if you could rate someone's expertise on film out of 5, I'd be about a 3 to 3.5. Whereas a lot of people on here would be 4.5 to 5.

I have always been a film fan, and I minored in film at college, but sometimes discussions like this go way over my head. But it's interesting to read the real experts on stuff like transition and grain and all that. I mean, I can easily see the difference between an HD Blu-Ray disc and a cruddy old VHS, but sometimes the talk of the quality of the blacks and colours and whatnot on the image is somewhat beyond my experience.

But further down the chain you get people whose expertise would literally be like a 1.5 or less, who really don't have a clue about pan-and-scan and anything to do with cinematography, etc. They're the ones who resisted widescreen DVDs for so long because they thought they were losing some of the picture because it "chopped the top and bottom of the screen off".

So yeah, no real point to these ramblings except I'm bored at work. But it's quite interesting seeing the level that people really know and appreciate film.

Yours in Christ,
Bosh
xoxo

comment #19

Cadavra says ...

Mutiny, that story about Kubrick photographing a print frame by frame was long ago proven to be an urban myth.

comment #20

RMBurnett says ...

Folks,

The real story which remains unreported, is how many studios are KNOWINGLY releasing inferior Blu Ray catalogue product just to see what they can get away with in terms of consumer acceptance.

The recently released TRUE ROMANCE disc is a DISASTER. It's so dark you can barely see the image.

How did this happen?

comment #21

Colin says ...

I'm curious why Wells keeps shelling out cash for these Blu-Rays when he has no idea what they'll look like. Its hard to take your outrage seriously when you keep finding out they're grainy and then go out and buy another one.

comment #22

Drew McW says ...

Jeff...

"Strangelove" is a gorgeous reproduction of a FILM PRINT. This is what the film actually looks like. If you want a comparison of what a truly awful transfer on BluRay looks like, pick up the new "Ghostbusters," and then check out "Strangelove" again.

Reproducing the actual photochemical process that happens is not a bad thing. Grain is not the devil. Right now, I honestly think you should stop buying BluRay altogether if "Strangelove" bothered you, because I think you're simply not going to be happy with accurate reproductions of the original print. You want DNR. You want the flattened out creamy homogenized home video look. You do NOT want an accurate record of what the director made.

And that's fine. But it's not about being a "monk purist." It's about understanding the difference between the limitations of home video up till now and the technical accuracy of HD prints.

comment #23

mutinyco says ...

Cadavra, that's news to me. I've read quotes from people who said they saw him doing it. He'd do a little bit at a time. And that also accounts for the reason the 1.33 version that was on video for so long didn't look right in the 1.66 sections.

Then again, you've worked with Sally, so perhaps you have knowledge I don't...

comment #24

Caliban_Man says ...

Here's the deal - Grains complaint is valid if the arguement is to be made about how much of that grain that the viewer can perceive at a given viewing distance on their respective screens.

In a cinema screen, on an average print in an average theater at an average distance to screen the perceivable amount of resolution you actually get is somewhere in the region of about 720 vertical lines. The ACTUAL resolution on an individual print is probably much more, but viewing conditions mean that you simply can't see it.

When Jeff is sitting a few metres away from his 43 inch screen, that is playing with 1080 vertical lines of resolution, He is SEEING much more than he would have seen in the theatre, thus seeing artifacts (film grain) that in it's original presentation the film makers didn't intead the audience to visually perceive, but may have liked the subconscious effect it had on the audience, the overall motion look of the film.

Basically, either Jeff should: Move further away from the TV, or get a smaller TV, or buy say a 720P digital projector on which to watch all the films he owns that he feels has too much grain.

And there in lies the problem for those encoding the Blu Rays or any other project, getting it right for the viewing conditions of each individual is impossible - so you are left with a choice - mess with what was originally there using your best judgement, or get it as close to the original as intent as possible and let the viewer sort out their viewing conditions.

comment #25

Caliban_Man says ...

Gah, Jeff's complaint, not Grains.

comment #26

lrfilmfest says ...

I remember your review of The Third Man and it saddened me as I love Criterion so much.
Try this product:
http://www.revisionfx.com/products/denoise/

comment #27

ZayTonday says ...

Hey Wells, since you hate it so much I would be more than happy to take your copy off your hands.

comment #28

Travis Crabtree says ...

Fuck you, Prager, you made me laugh.

Seriously. And I don't laugh much.

Prick.

comment #29

Rich S. says ...

That's a great perspective, Caliban. It reminds me of the discussion Jeffrey had not long ago about removing wires in remastered 50s films, specifically War of the Worlds and North by Northwest. In their original theater incarnations, you wouldn't have been able to see the wires. But with modern remastering techniques, they stick out like a sore thumb. Your explanation of the perception of theatrical prints explains why nicely.

comment #30

TheJeff says ...

Glenn Kenny sets the record straight:

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/06/grainstorm-my-ass-or-black-and-white-monk-time.html#comments

comment #31

Bob Violence says ...

The recently released TRUE ROMANCE disc is a DISASTER. It's so dark you can barely see the image.

Looks fine on my setup. The previous releases were too bright if anything -- the SE DVD was a complete mess, they pretty much destroyed any detail in the highlights. It's not reference quality, but it has plenty of detail and looks something like film, instead of a garish contrast-boosted nightmare.

comment #32

Bob Violence says ...

Ah fuck, fixed formatting

The recently released TRUE ROMANCE disc is a DISASTER. It's so dark you can barely see the image.

Looks fine on my setup. The previous releases were too bright if anything -- the SE DVD was a complete mess, they pretty much destroyed any detail in the highlights. It's not reference quality, but it has plenty of detail and looks something like film, instead of a garish contrast-boosted nightmare.

comment #33

esl88 says ...

post...

comment #34

esl88 says ...

So, I guess I can post here; I had problems in the past. Strange. Anyway, Jeff, you really need to take it down a notch with the whole anti-grain thing. The image looks terrific. It's possible that you just don't have your display calibrated properly or something. What type is it?

comment #35

esl88 says ...

If it isn't too late, I'd like to put in my two cents here: Dr. Strangelove looks fantastic. The image is crisp, with sharp details and no visible print damage to speak of. Grain is not nearly as much of an issue as Jeff implies; it is never intrusive and simply adds a film-like appearance to the image. This wonderful release is not only a faithful adaptation of Kubrick's masterpiece, but looks terrific even by today's standards. Though some fans may have been dissuaded by Wells' negative review, I strongly recommend this title. I too have a properly calibrated 42-inch screen (it's a plasma), and was blown away by it. And I'm a pretty discerning viewer.

comment #36

esl88 says ...

"This wonderful release is not only a faithful adaptation of Kubrick's masterpiece, but looks terrific even by today's standards."

I meant "representation," not "adaptation." Sorry.

comment #37

Randolph Jordan says ...

We finally have a format capable of rendering film grain without the compression nightmares we all saw in the age of DVD, yet so many people are complaining about it! Wells is obviously an educated and discerning viewer, but his stance on the presence of grain in Dr. Strangelove is exemplary of a major problem we're currently facing in the world of film preservation.

Wells makes two very telling statements in the above review. First, he complains that the transfer "retain[s] every last shard of grain in the original film elements." Note that Wells acknowledges that this visible grain is present in the original film elements. Second, he suggests that with less grain (as in the 2001 DVD release) "you'll be seeing more of what Stanley Kubrick originally shot." So the question is this: do we want to see more of what Kubrick shot? Or more of the film that he made?

If you want to see "more of what Stanley Kubrick originally shot," then you could easily argue that Dr. Strangelove should be colorized. Presumably the world that Kubrick shot was in color. So why did he choose to shoot in black and white? The same reason he chose filmstock, lenses and lighting strategies that resulted in a thick grain: THIS IS WHAT HE WANTED US TO SEE. Kubrick had as good a technical handle on the medium of film as any filmmaker who ever lived. He knew what he was dealing with, and exploited that to the utmost degree.

Wells' argument suggests that Kubrick would have preferred to be working in the age of HD, to banish that irritating grain from his films once and for all so that we could better see what it is that he was shooting. However, one need only read the American Cinematographer piece on Eyes Wide Shut to see the extent that Kubrick went to in order make that film look as grainy as possible in an age when such thick grain was no longer a staple of 35 mm film. Kubrick LIKED grain. A lot. Why should it be removed from his films? Should we also provide a version where Sellers' moustache is removed so we can better see his upper lip?

Blu-ray offers us the chance to get closer to the FILMs that we love. This is different from trying to get closer to the things that were actually filmed. Film grain is an important part of the medium and to try and banish it is to attempt to impose present-day aesthetic standards on another era, a situation that will be sorely lamented in the future once our tastes have changed. The best thing that any video release can do is to try and preserve exactly what is there in the original film elements. Otherwise every transfer will be subject to the whims of god only knows who, and that simply cannot fly.

comment #38

free online games says ...

I'm seriously cheerful to find this great site. I would like to say thanks for this brilliant read. If you're able to add Digg button to your internet site, it will benefit you to reach extra people on the net. Regards

comment #39

dd says ...

The forthcoming 75th anniversary Dr. Strangelove 4D Hologram (Sony Home Video, 6.16) is more than a visual disappointment -- it's a flat-out burn. I paid $225 bills for it yesterday afternoon and I'm seething. It's hands down the worst grainstorm experience since Criterion's Year One...

Designer Handbags

comment #40

dieran says ...

Visiting this site is fun, because I can get new information to add knowledge ... thanks for the owner and the author of this site ....

information ,technology, business,autos, entertainment

comment #41

jbrn says ...

The best thing that any video release can do is to try and preserve exactly what is there in the original film elements. Otherwise every transfer will be subject to the whims of god only knows who, and that simply cannot fly.buy itunes gift card code online