Jim Emerson on Blu-Ray

Sarge 2.0

Fire Walk With Me
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
15,764
Reaction score
1
Points
31
And I totally agree with him.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/04/blu-ray_high_fidelity_to_what.html#more

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.
Most movies aren't really met to be released in pristine, eye popping clarity. 35 mm>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>digital.

Cue the rabid Blu-Ray loving techno-geeks flipping out in 3, 2, 1...
 
I don't have blu-ray so I can't really tell the difference. But I'm still recording ESPN on VHS.
 
i really think that Blu-Ray will stay a niche market, especially now in this economy. Tech geeks are optimstic, but look at bit torrent: People do it, but not outside of a certain demographic.

It's like how not everyone has a great sound system, or a 60 '' television. Blu-Ray is great if you have that stuff. But that costs money. I'm not putting blu-ray down, but I think it's just bad timing with the economy, hence the slow start. And honestly, the longer it takes to become mainstream, the worst it'll get for it's fate.

One thing Sony needs to do is...to discount the PS3. Then I think it'll grow like hardcore.
 
Sony is trying really really hard to push Blu Ray into the mainstream though....people are getting quite snobbish about it lately
 
i think of blu-ray in how I think of Tivo and Direct TV. People have it, but it's not a necessity. Well not yet.
 
Blu-Ray continues to gain the market share, and I think eventually will be a common format in households. DVDs won't fade as quick as VHS, because Blu-Ray players can play DVDs, so adopters don't have to trash their collection. I personally haven't bought a movie on DVD in a year and a half.
 
Blu-Ray is...er...NICE to look at. It's very clear and much better than DVD...BUT the price just isn't justified to me. Especially in today's economy. It's just too much. Even though I have a blu-ray player...I still buy dvd's. I started to buy Blu-Ray and just stopped due to the price. I dont' watch the extras...I just want the movie.

Heck..i'm the ONLY person in my entire office who even has a blu-ray player. LOL
 
Blu-Ray is...er...NICE to look at. It's very clear and much better than DVD...BUT the price just isn't justified to me. Especially in today's economy. It's just too much. Even though I have a blu-ray player...I still buy dvd's. I started to buy Blu-Ray and just stopped due to the price. I dont' watch the extras...I just want the movie.

Heck..i'm the ONLY person in my entire office who even has a blu-ray player. LOL

Regarding the price, just always keep your eye on amazon.com. They often have sales for movies below $20 a piece, and new releases are rather competitive to their DVD counterpart.
 
The point is that many great movies simply aren't meant for Blu-Ray, since eye popping clarity is the antithesis of what they were trying to achieve visually.
 
That's true to a point. If a studio uses too much DNR for example or alters a film so it no longer looks as the director intended, that's a problem. However, when I see films such as the Godfather Trilogy in HD, I am so thankful for Blu-Ray
 
That's true to a point. If a studio uses too much DNR for example or alters a film so it no longer looks as the director intended, that's a problem. However, when I see films such as the Godfather Trilogy in HD, I am so thankful for Blu-Ray

Those movies are good on TV, VHS, DVD, or any other format....eye popping clarity doesn't make those great films
 
No film needs to be in 1080p Hi-Def, but if you've got the money for the upgrade, it's pretty damn cool.

Do most films warrant an upgrade? Not really. I have Blu-Ray but I'm not planning on replacing my entire collection (like I did from VHS). I was even hesitant about buying something like Texas Chainsaw on standard dvd, because the old graininess of the vhs is part of the charm.

But stuff like Speed Racer, Wall-E (hell, most animated movies), etc - I wouldn't want to watch in standard def after having the BRs. For me, it's the vibrancy of the colors more than the sharpness of detail. That kinda stuff looks extraordinary in HD.
 
Those movies are good on TV, VHS, DVD, or any other format....eye popping clarity doesn't make those great films

of course not, but I love seeing them now in eye popping clarity. Makes me feel like I'm in the theatre and it's 1972.
 
Most people don't see the need to jump and if something replaces blu ray that will be very frustrating.

I'm happy with my Blu Rays though and don't buy dvd's anymore unless it's a television series.
 
One thing Sony needs to do is...to discount the PS3. Then I think it'll grow like hardcore.

Sure, it'd help blu-ray out. But they're losing money on every ps3 made/sold as is, so it doesn't make much business sense.
 
When we moved to a new house, I wanted a new TV. Nothing huge (40") for movies since I don't watch a lot of television. The Blu-ray we have came at a discount of $100 with the television of the same brand so I didn't have a reason to not get it. But we only buy big event movies like TDK, Wall-E, and The Incredible Hulk. I got No Country for Old Men for free from a friend, otherwise it would have been a DVD as would anything else that doesn't benefit as much from the "eye-popping" clarity. Sometimes the eye-popping clarity is distracting from the movie. I Am Legend springs to mind as the clarity of that film made the seams from the special effects glaringly apparent. I saw that at a friend's house on a 52" TV, and that had me second guessing whether or not I really wanted a Blu-ray, but then he put Cars in and that looked beautiful. I was sold.(although I have yet to buy Cars)

As far as older movies, I wouldn't care if the transfer was clear as long as it was the director's intention for it to be clear. The music from then certainly sounds nostalgic with the pops and scratches of the LP, as do the films with their dust and scratches. But that is simply the nostalgia of watching it on substandard equipment and not necessarily the way it was intended to be watched or the music heard. I want to hear it or see it the way the musician or director meant for it to be, faults or no faults.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"