Discuss: Are Studios Ruining Older Films on Blu-ray?
Filed under: Tech Stuff, DIY/Filmmaking, Newsstand, Home Entertainment
There's a very interesting discussion going on over on Hollywood Elsewhere today about whether studios re-releasing older movies on Blu-ray are going too far in tweaking the originals to make them look "better." At the center of the discussion is the Dirty Harry Blu-ray DVD. Glenn Erickson, writing for film.com, points out that the Patton Blu-ray DVD was "enhanced to minimize the natural grain," but that in that case, the altering makes it look more like the theatrical 70mm presentation, so he doesn't take issue with that one. The Dirty Harry Blu-ray, however, Erickson considers "more complicated." He notes:
"The Blu-ray disc shows heavy tweaking to minimize grain, sharpen contrast and brighten colors. Sunny exteriors haven't changed much but heavy processing has given most night shots an almost unnatural look -- detail and bright color in what were once dimly lit areas, with everything else falling into inky blackness. "
Jeff Wells doesn't have a problem with this -- if it makes Dirty Harry look better, who cares? But in the discussion thread on the post, folks are getting down into the nitty-gritty of the issue: studios doing digital remastering for Blu-ray transfers, sometimes without consulting the cinematographer as to why scenes where shot as they were. HE commenter TheVicuna links to an excellent interview at cameraguild.com, the website for the International Cinematographer's Guild, with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond; in part of the interview, he talks about the DVD transfer of Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye, for which he was not called in to supervise the transfer; the resulting transfer, Zsigmond says in the interview, was "terrible."
Zsigmond also notes during the interview that, "They didn't know that The Long Goodbye was flashed, so they took all the flashing out of the movie, and made it very contrasty and dark like some movies are today. I volunteered to supervise a new transfer. I must say the people involved did everything necessary to produce the best possible transfer. This is a very important issue for all of us."
This is an important issue as more older movies are transferred to DVD and, especially, Blu-ray. I've not yet invested in a Blu-ray player -- we don't have a spiffy, expensive home entertainment center yet, and it's seemed up to now to be an extravagance we don't need at the moment -- but I may get into it in the future. I'm not sure, though, how I feel about my favorite older movies being messed with; I want to see the vision of the director and cinematographer, not what a guy doing digital enhancing on his computer thinks a film should look like. No doubt, though, many of you folks have already gotten into Blu-ray, so I'd like to hear what you think about the issue.
If you've seen the Dirty Harry Blu-ray, what are your thoughts on how it's been enhanced? Do you like the original, grainy, sometimes-out-of-focus Harry, or the spiffy, shiny, digitally enhanced Harry? And just how much tweaking do you want studios to do for Blu-ray transfers, in the name of enhancing the movies you already know and love?
Sneak Peek: 'The Dark Knight' on Blu-ray and DVD_thumbnail.jpg)
2009 Sundance Film Fest Announces Competition Lineup!
Read This: The Story Behind Hollywood Studio Logos _thumbnail.jpg)
Watch This: Prop 8 -- The Musical
Kristen Stewart To Rock Out as Joan Jett
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg "Watchmen Storyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-03-2008 @ 7:00PM
MCW said...
I haven't seen a ton of older movies on Blu-ray, mostly stuck to new releases, but I think the short answer to the question (Are studios ruining older films?) is NO.
Case in point, watch the Blu-ray version of Blade Runner, and be prepared to be blown away.
I have not seen Dirty Harry, so I can't specifically comment on that disc.
One of the main "Problems" with the Blu-ray format is that in showing the highest definition picture possible, everything stands out more. That INCLUDES the original film grain from the movie. On DVD, the grain is blurred to compress the quality for the DVD disc. On Blu-ray, the extra space on the disc allows you better quality and definition.
This has presented a bit of a problem for older films, because the older they get, in addition to film scratches and grain, they just tend to show there age more. I'd be curious to see the recent release of the '60s Batman movie to see how it looked.
It's hard to say really, I guess it depends on who does the tuning up for the Blu-ray releases. I'd rather the home video be cleaned up of scratches and grainy picture than left untouched and ugly.
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 8:06PM
V.M.L. said...
How come I hear no complaints about the upcoming Blu-ray edition of SLEEPING BEAUTY? Disney is turning it into Internet Explorer!
Reply
7-03-2008 @ 11:50PM
Mike said...
Um, you guys are slow and actually, a bit lame. Robert Harris already discussed this at length in a column on the 24th of June at The Digital Bits. http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris062408.html It's funny how he brings up this issue in a professional medium first, yet there is no mention of it in your entry or film.com's entry. You guys need to do your research and don't make the same mistake Slate did and jump the gun. Give credit where it's due.
Reply
7-04-2008 @ 4:52AM
Mark said...
I'm reading this thread with interest because I recently (a month ago) purchased a new Full HD LCD TV with Samsung BD player.
While my post isn't directly concerning the transfer of a movie to Blu-Ray, I'd like to add that my slight issue with the format is that while the dedicated Blu-Ray films are amazing, and in the most part the upscaling facility on standard DVD's really enhances them, some movies just look wrong.
Case in point is Saving Private Ryan on standard DVD but on a Blu-Ray player. The grainy nature of the film stock has (I think anyway) confused the upscale technology to the extent it just feels strange, almost like a jpeg which has been over-sharpened in Photoshop. Other movies look amazing though, such as the digitally remastered Star Wars (episodes 4/5/6).
Sorry if this is the wrong thread to mention this, but it seemed kind of relevant to me as the main subject was the end result of how a movie looks on Blu-Ray...
Reply
7-04-2008 @ 5:35AM
Jordan M. said...
wait so does this mean altman's films are coming to bluray? YAY. if they screw up the transfer on the long goodbye and get rid of that awesome hazy look, i will kill.
oh wait i read it wrong. well..uh...either way they should release his flicks on bluray.
Reply
7-05-2008 @ 2:48AM
PST said...
This is a problem on DVD and not just on Blu-Ray. We've come to associate a 'good transfer' with a clean, bright image, and so most DVD transfers are exceptionally clean and bright - just like most music is mastered to be very loud and without dynamics, because high volume has been singled out by casual listeners as 'good production.' A good transfer should respect the qualities of the original image rather than the demands of a modern audience - and there are many that do (look at the Criterion Collection). But the danger is that, with the ability to make each film as bright and clear as possible and the demand for such a thing, older - and plenty of newer - films will be done a disservice in being made as glossy as something by Michael Bay.
We don't have to screw up the image in order to transfer to Blu-Ray (or DVD), but for some reason, lately, digital transfers have given in to this trend, apparently not seeing it for what it is: this generation's colorization. I'm assuming that there must be a way to utilize Blu-Ray to give us the image as it's meant to be, rather than soap-scrubbed, but I wonder if there's any interest in finding that way, or if we'll just make every film look like it was shot in HD.
Reply
7-07-2008 @ 1:05PM
James said...
Hmmm... HD format that displays in HD?
While *SOME* movies do gain from the less-than-pristine PQ of a lesser film stock, not all do.
Some movies that are shot on cheap film would look way better if they had used better film.
As for digital capturing of a movie THEN adding in the didital noise and grain... they seriously need to back off!
Most people buy into HD and HDTV.Blu-ray expecting a perfect picture.
When they see some bad transfer, or a good transfer of a purposely grainy/artifacted movie, they feel like they got burned.
The Film enthusiasts need to do what they do, but to try and tell people that "That is the way it was intended so that's that" need to move into the 21st century.
Film will be around for years to come, but digital is making massive strides.
Some of you are going to be disappointed on many new movies.
I welcome a perfect picture.
Its what HD was meant for.
9-02-2008 @ 7:02PM
Michael said...
@Mike:
"Robert Harris already discussed this at length in a column on the 24th of June at The Digital Bits. http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris062408.html"
Well, maybe he did, but he apparently doesn't stand by whatever he said because the text of his article has apparently been removed at his request.
Instead of insulting people for not referring to an article retracted by its original author, how about paraphrasing what he was saying (assuming you actually got to read it.)
Personally, I am very much in favour of restoring the material to its original intended condition - removing accidental dirt, sparkle, hairs and scratches and video dropouts and correcting colours that have faded (ideally using reference material like photographs or the original cinematographer). I'm also in favour of fixing wipes and cuts, especially those which may have had nasty frame sync issues (video) or damaged frames at the splice point (film). And fixing audio sync problems even. But that's probably about as far as they should go without the active involvement of the creators.
Michael
Reply