DVD Talk review of 'Young Frankenstein' (Blu-ray)
#1
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DVD Talk review of 'Young Frankenstein' (Blu-ray)
I bought this Blu Ray just a couple of weeks ago and was terribly disappointed by the level of grain. It was nothing short of hideous, and it's unacceptable for Blu Ray. I saw this film about six times in the theater, back in the 70s, and it was beautiful. It was not as other critics have stated elsewhere, that the grain is an intentional effect to emulate the look of old horror movies. The grain levels were normal for a black & white film. Here's what I think they've done. They've tried to sharpen the movie through some artificial means, similar to the sharpen-image tool in photoshop software, and overzealous application of it exaggerated the grain presence. In closeups, the squiggling grain isn't as noticable, because relative to the size of the image the noise was small. But in long shots, all the gradations and details are lost. There were a couple of instances that were obvious in the theater presentation in which the texture of the film changed, in which the grain was truly pronounced. These occurred as the result of magnification in a stilled image for a zoom (when Frederich sees Igor for the first time; that zoom was accomplished in editing). It wasn't accomplished in camera, but later. The grain became magnified, too, along with the original image. But that shift in grain was completely lost by the accidental level of grain in this Blu Ray.
What I think happened is, I don't think they referred back to the original print. Instead, I think they took the digital material available from the SD DVD and used it. I looked all over the package, and I've watched the interviews with Brooks, and no such claim is made, that it was a transfer from the original negative. This edition has the look of something that's been upconverted, primarily in its loss of gradations in the contrast. Yes, all of those nice goodies are fun to watch, but the main thing is the film itself. And it was terrible. What it needed was a simple 24-frames-per-second transfer from the original print. Our equipment would have taken care of the clarity, without having to resort to sharpening with software.
What I think happened is, I don't think they referred back to the original print. Instead, I think they took the digital material available from the SD DVD and used it. I looked all over the package, and I've watched the interviews with Brooks, and no such claim is made, that it was a transfer from the original negative. This edition has the look of something that's been upconverted, primarily in its loss of gradations in the contrast. Yes, all of those nice goodies are fun to watch, but the main thing is the film itself. And it was terrible. What it needed was a simple 24-frames-per-second transfer from the original print. Our equipment would have taken care of the clarity, without having to resort to sharpening with software.
Last edited by alric1212192; 10-22-08 at 07:34 AM. Reason: Incorrect user name.
#2
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
The Blu-ray transfer may be sourced from the same master as the previous DVD, but there is no way that it is digitally upconverted from the DVD transfer. No studio does that and it would be extremely obvious.
#3
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is tough to believe. If you'd like, I'll post some links that compares still images from the SD DVD and the Blu-ray edition. You can clearly see that detail was lost. I'm disappointed, because it means we're going to have to be vigilant, that we can't assume that the studios have customer satisfaction in mind; and instead see us as rubes who'll buy the same thing if they sell an inferior product but in an improved format. The studios will re-release older films under the Blu-ray logo, and will allow us to assume that a sincere effort went into the reproduction of the film; that their goal is to share the art in their vaults with a sophisticated and discriminating audience. Not so. They're looking to sell discs, and what better way to make a profit other than to sell something old as something new. This was a lesson for me, that it's caveat emptor, and all of that. Blu-ray was used as a gimmick. I had planned on replacing my favorite DVDs with Blu-ray editions. But in light of this, I'll have to be more cautious. I'll have to reign in my enthusiasm when I consider purchasing the Blu-ray edition of The Day the Earth Stood Still, which is due out in a month or two.
As to my immediate reaction, I've contacted Fox Home Video and informed them of my displeasure, and that my intention was to return it to the retailer. I then contacted Amazon.com and asked if I can return it. I explained why. They're accepting the return. That's the best way to handle this. If this happens enough, it'll make a difference in the future.
Last edited by alric1212192; 10-23-08 at 07:04 AM. Reason: posted before completed
#4
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,821
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
What size display are you using? On the 60" I use, the difference between standard definition and HD is enormous even in the weakest Blu-ray discs, and there's a level of detail in Young Frankenstein that an upconvert couldn't ever hope to match. The larger the display, the greater those differences will be. It's not a knockout, but I'd have a really hard time believing this is anything but a proper HD presentation. The comparison shots at http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...ankenstein.htm seem to make this very clear as well.
Everything the studios do has been mastered in high definition for many years now. Transfers aren't done specifically for Blu-ray -- they oversample at high resolutions and downscale for DVD.
Last edited by Adam Tyner; 10-23-08 at 07:16 AM.
#5
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd stake my life that it's not. The same master...? Sure, that's pretty standard practice. Upscaled/upconverted from a DVD...? No chance.
What size display are you using? On the 60" I use, the difference between standard definition and HD is enormous even in the weakest Blu-ray discs, and there's a level of detail in Young Frankenstein that an upconvert couldn't ever hope to match. The larger the display, the greater those differences will be. It's not a knockout, but I'd have a really hard time believing this is anything but a proper HD presentation. The comparison shots at dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare8/youngfrankenstein.htm seem to make this very clear as well.
What size display are you using? On the 60" I use, the difference between standard definition and HD is enormous even in the weakest Blu-ray discs, and there's a level of detail in Young Frankenstein that an upconvert couldn't ever hope to match. The larger the display, the greater those differences will be. It's not a knockout, but I'd have a really hard time believing this is anything but a proper HD presentation. The comparison shots at dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare8/youngfrankenstein.htm seem to make this very clear as well.
Now let's get to your links. Let's go straight to the first still from the film, the one of Dr. Frankenstein in the classroom. There is a difference between the top and second image, and there's a greater presence of fine grain in the Blu-ray image, but there is not a significant difference in sharpness. The Blu-ray image merely looks darker. The contrast was increased while tamping the highlights. But if you look at the object in the upper right of the background in the picture, the same object has more detail in the SD DVD. How is that possible? If the grain is not exaggerated in the Blu-ray version, how did the details get lost in the background? That's because the grain is an error added to the image, making it less clear because it's not part of the original image. Think about this: If the grain had been that present in the original, even though you wouldn't be able to see it because of technical limitations, the image would not have more detail. The image would merely display the same level of murkiness, sans the pronounced grain. But in the SD DVD, more details are present in the background. You can see this more obviously in the next picture, of Victor and Elizabeth at the train station. Look at the passenger car behind them, the screws in the metal work. Again, they're more detailed. Not only that, but look at the sharpness along the molding. All I can honestly see is a difference between the the two images, but not an improvement in the Blu-ray.
"Everything the studios do has been mastered in high definition for many years now. Transfers aren't done specifically for Blu-ray -- they oversample at high resolutions and downscale for DVD."
And how much do I love this movie? This makes the third time I've bought Young Frankenstein. I bought it twice before in DVD. But I'm returning my Blu-ray to Amazon to get my money back. I want a true HD version of this and I won't settle for anything less. I hope everyone else who's unhappy with it does the same.
#6
DVD Talk Legend
I mean they used the digital material, whatever that is, that's transferred to the DVD disc. At some point, the HD material had to be converted to a format that would be compatable with a DVD, so it would be playable on a DVD player. I'm saying they used that digital material, not the DVD itself. Then they merely upconverted it. This Blu-ray has the clearly visible refresh rate of a slower format.
I don't know what the hell you mean by "visible refresh rate of a slower format." That makes no sense.
Now let's get to your links. Let's go straight to the first still from the film, the one of Dr. Frankenstein in the classroom. There is a difference between the top and second image, and there's a greater presence of fine grain in the Blu-ray image, but there is not a significant difference in sharpness.
#7
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you fail to understand here is that, for years now, studios have been creating high-definition digital masters, then downconverting them for DVD, not creating standard-definition masters then upconverting for Blu-ray.
And I'm going to clarify what I said before, that I'm not saying that the studio upconverted a standard-definition master. I'm saying they upconverted the downcoverted digital material they used to manufacture of the SD DVD. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but that's what I said, perhaps poorly. At some point, the film is converted to the proper format. It's converted -- downconverted -- to meet the specifications for burning to a DVD. I'm saying this Blu-ray wasn't remastered from the hi-def master, but instead upconverted the same digital material used for the DVD. I hope I've cleared that up. In other words, the downconverted digital material is used as a master. There's no other explanation.
I don't know what the hell you mean by "visible refresh rate of a slower format." That makes no sense.
The Blu-ray images certainly do exhibit greater sharpness in the link provided.
#8
DVD Talk Legend
This is from Roger Ebert's original review, dated Jan. 1st, 1974 (ephasis added):
So the idea that this movie tried to copy the look of old horror films is NOT revisionist history...the theatrical prints apparantly looked that way too. Remember, nothing clouds the truth so much as memory. I'll take Ebert's written documentation at the time over "memory" any day of the week.
Brooks's targets are JamesWhale's "Frankenstein" (1931) and "Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), the first the most influential and the second probably the best of the 1930s Hollywood horror movies. Brooks uses carefully controlled black-and-white photography that catches the feel of the earlier films.
#9
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,821
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
To me, the far more abundant detail in the Blu-ray release is obvious -- and it's actual detail, not artificial sharpening -- so it's pretty clear we're not going to agree on this.
#10
DVD Talk Hero
Young Frankenstein is supposed to look grainy, soft and murky. To quote someone on AVS:
Those SD caps look all wrong to me. Sharpness boosted (look at all the edges on the faces), blacks too black (on the stage you almost lose the buttons on the coat), this isn't a film noir, it's supposed to look "gray" and soft. I would argue that the added detail one perceives in the background is due to these "enhancements" and you're not supposed to see them. And I'd take grain over DNR anytime. Moreover, the grain is more apparent in still shots. The BD transfer is fine.
If there was ever a film where grain and ugliness was intentional, this is it. It was purposely shot two stops underexposed and push-processed to simulate the grainy low-contrast underexposed stock and uncoated lenses of the original Frankenstein films. Since they don't make uncoated lenses anymore, they couldn't quite recreate some of the look although they tried using lots of diffusion behind the lens (which was popular in the 70's anyhow). That's why it looks soft in some scenes.
Last edited by eXcentris; 10-24-08 at 01:38 PM.
#11
DVD Talk Legend
To me, they are.
I disagree. There's more detail in the skin and hair, and pretty much everything else. In the first example, of Dr. Frankenstein in the classroom, you can see individual eyelashes in the Blu-ray version. You can't in the DVD grabs.
Ooh, rivets!
As you said in your last post, you did not address it directly and plainly. In fact, you wrote the exact opposite.
The customers reviewing product at Amazon.com rarely know what they are talking about. Giving their opinion any weight in this matter is foolish.
So, why would a studio that already has an HD master choose to not use it, and instead upconvert an SD master?
In your opinion. Others do not share it.
The only thing with more detail in the Blu-ray edition is the grain itself
The nails in the metal work in the train car behind them is a perfect example. You should address that point so I'll know you're at least reading what I'm saying.
Yes, yes. I understood that the first time and I addressed that directly and plainly in my last post. It's almost as if you just skimmed what I wrote while not thinking about it at all.
Look, already on Amazon, customer reviews and comments are addressing the issue of this exaggerated grain.
And I'm going to clarify what I said before, that I'm not saying that the studio upconverted a standard-definition master. I'm saying they upconverted the downcoverted digital material they used to manufacture of the SD DVD.
That fact that we're having this discussion means it's not "greater" by any real measure. They look different from one another, but the Blu-ray is not improved.
#12
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the idea that this movie tried to copy the look of old horror films is NOT revisionist history...the theatrical prints apparantly looked that way too. Remember, nothing clouds the truth so much as memory. I'll take Ebert's written documentation at the time over "memory" any day of the week.
Last edited by alric1212192; 10-24-08 at 06:42 PM. Reason: Not accurate enough
#13
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was cute. I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but it was cute. It at least has that going for it.
Not any more foolish than giving anyone else's opinion of it any weight. Why would their opinion be less authoritative than yours? You didn't see this movie in the theater, and in this instance, it's a serious limitation. Think about what I said about the grain intensity changing as a special effect, and how that shift in grain intensity is lost on this Blu-ray. That you can't follow that simple line of reasoning indicates something. I'm not sure what that is at this point. But coupled with the fact that you think "Ooh, rivets!" is an appropriate response to a logical argument suggests you might be mistaking glibness for cleverness. It's a common error, and committed far too often on the internet.
That is indeed a mystery. Maybe they don't have one. I don't know what the reason is. Let me ask you this. Have you seen the DVD release of Michael Mann's Thief? They obviously used a video tape copy of the movie to make the transfer. I think they'll reason it's an old movie, and by keeping the transfer is cheap as possible, they'll make a profit if they sell a few units. And it is definitely an inferior transfer. You can see traces and trails in some of the high-contrast segments, and the colors are murky. Why didn't they use this HD master you're talking about, then downcovert it for a DVD? Beats me. And from what I've recently read, I hear Body Heat has been given the Blu-ray upgrade, and early reports are not good. And again the critic posited the notion that some inferiority in the image was actually an intended effect. Sorry. Not true. The DVD was a disappointment, too, so I'm going to avoid the upgrade on this one. The studios don't think there's much of a market for this sort of stuff, so they're just going to toss them out there without much quality, with a few gimmicks thrown in to make it seem worth the money, and they'll sell enough units to enthusiasts to clear a profit.
(What follows next is what you said about my thinking the disc was a mess.)
Some don't share it. I notice a lot of people who'd never seen it in a theater and know what it's supposed to look like don't share it. But let me remind you, there are even some critics who acknowledge the high grain intensity, but don't know what to think of it. Your opinion is not a consensus. The problem is, these critics are baffled by the mess, and end up making excuses: it's such a mess, they're thinking there has to be a reason for it, so they're excusing it as part of some visual style. It's not, sadly.
And before you think I wasn't really paying attention back when I saw it in theaters, and that my memory is skewed, in those days, photography was my hobby, and I worked as a photographer in the Navy. I experimented with different film speeds and so on, and was very aware of cinematography. Believe me, I understand grain. And I appreciate the look of films in general. And I have since I was about sixteen years old. All that stuff someone else posted about how the cinematographer intentionally created the look of an old horror movie is all true. But it didn't produce intense grain as a result. It provided enough very smooth detail, and was more than clear enough to observe a shift in grain intensity. Those are the facts.
You keep your ear to the ground. I'll be proven right eventually.
The customers reviewing product at Amazon.com rarely know what they are talking about. Giving their opinion any weight in this matter is foolish.
So, why would a studio that already has an HD master choose to not use it, and instead upconvert an SD master?
(What follows next is what you said about my thinking the disc was a mess.)
In your opinion. Others do not share it.
And before you think I wasn't really paying attention back when I saw it in theaters, and that my memory is skewed, in those days, photography was my hobby, and I worked as a photographer in the Navy. I experimented with different film speeds and so on, and was very aware of cinematography. Believe me, I understand grain. And I appreciate the look of films in general. And I have since I was about sixteen years old. All that stuff someone else posted about how the cinematographer intentionally created the look of an old horror movie is all true. But it didn't produce intense grain as a result. It provided enough very smooth detail, and was more than clear enough to observe a shift in grain intensity. Those are the facts.
You keep your ear to the ground. I'll be proven right eventually.
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Not any more foolish than giving anyone else's opinion of it any weight. Why would their opinion be less authoritative than yours?
You didn't see this movie in the theater, and in this instance, it's a serious limitation.
Any other conclusions you'd like to jump to?
#15
Defunct Account
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 5,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as you would accept a doctor's opinion as over a guy in the street when it comes to medical matters (at least I hope you would!) I'll take what Adam says over some guy on Amazon when you don't even know what his set up is like. Are they watching on a poorly calibrated 720p cathode ray RPTV with a Blu-ray player hooked up via S-Video? You just don't know. (The equipment Adam uses is public knowledge, and is listed on his bio page which can be accessed from any of his reviews.)
#16
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 28,821
Received 1,881 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
I definitely appreciate the vote of confidence, but Ryan Keefer wrote the review. I agree with the gist of what he wrote, though. It's not an astonishing transfer, but to my eyes, it's a definite step up over anything DVD could ever hope to belt out. I can't claim to have caught Young Frankenstein theatrically during its original run, but the impression I got when watching this Blu-ray disc is that it seemed faithful to the intent I pictured. With all of the vintage iris effects and everything, I don't think it's too much of a leap to think that Mel Brooks and company would want the texture and contrast to more closely resemble one of the classic Universal monster movies as well.
Last edited by Adam Tyner; 10-24-08 at 08:57 PM.
#17
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I give more weight to opinions written by people who have exhibited some knowledge of film history or technical expertise. Amazon reviewers, while well-meaning, are often not the kind of enthusiasts you find at DVD or movie sites. They will frequently, for example, advocate full-screen over wide-screen.
As is the case with much of what you have written, you are making incorrect assumptions. I have, in fact, seen "Young Frankenstein" in theaters. Five times to be exact, including three times on its initial run in 1974.
Any other conclusions you'd like to jump to?
Any other conclusions you'd like to jump to?
Then again, maybe you were too young to appreciate that kind of detail -- grain shifts -- back then, so you don't have that vivid recollection to refer to. I saw it as an adult, and by that time, I had already developed a taste for cinematography. Do you remember the movie as being as grainy as this edition? If you don't remember the shift in grain denisty, how can you remember how grainy it was overall? Because I know for a fact it was not at all like this disc. At this point, the current grain level is so exaggerated, there are now no visible shifts in density left to see. They're masked behind the general noise of the pronounced grain.
#18
DVD Talk Reviewer/Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Formerly known as L. Ron zyzzle - On a cloud of Judgement
Posts: 14,475
Received 1,832 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
mmmm .... visible grain ....
#19
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Your opinion of the Young Frankenstein transfer is interesting and should be noted, but you really need to read more reviews at Amazon before you say such things as the above.
#20
DVD Talk Legend
You don't see these comments for other older movies, do you? No, you don't.
For instance, I'm the only one here who seems to understand the significance in the grain density shifts that were present in the theatrical presentation of Young Frankenstein, and what it means that they're missing from this edition. So I've clearly demonstrated an eye for this, and you're steadily talked down to me, while refusing to follow my reasoning or even comment on the very reasonable point.
Then again, maybe you were too young to appreciate that kind of detail -- grain shifts -- back then, so you don't have that vivid recollection to refer to. I saw it as an adult, and by that time, I had already developed a taste for cinematography.
Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye on this, so I'm not going to continue the discussion.
Last edited by Mr. Salty; 10-25-08 at 04:04 PM.
#21
DVD Talk Legend
Alric, you write very eloquently and passionately. It is therefore truly astounding to me that every single thing you've written is so wildly inccorrect. Not just a little bit, but completely and totally the opposite of the true facts of the case. It's as if you made a list of things that were right, and then set about writing the opposite. I find it very puzzling.
#22
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Region Free
Posts: 1,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#23
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, I loved Citizen Kane.
In other words, I can trust Amazon reviewers to represent all different types of people. And when an Amazon reviewer says his experience with this new edition of Young Frankenstein is absurdly grainy, I, of course, know this is a man who's capable of seeing what's there.
#24
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alric, you write very eloquently and passionately. It is therefore truly astounding to me that every single thing you've written is so wildly incorrect. Not just a little bit, but completely and totally the opposite of the true facts of the case. It's as if you made a list of things that were right, and then set about writing the opposite. I find it very puzzling.
And while I'm on the subject again, I think you all might need to look at the image quality of another segment, a very short one. Again, it's a zoom on a still image, executed just as the other one, and it's on the portrait of Frederick's grandfather, the one by his door. In that instance, the image is very murky, watery looking. Something's not right. I never mentioned this before, because I was already having a difficult time with my first point. I just can't fight the war on two fronts.
You know, the people here seem to have given this thing the once-over, a sort of sideways glance. You never brought to the task an eye for detail. Oh, you were thorough about all the gee-whiz extra stuff, but not about the central point of interest, the film itself. It's puzzling, indeed.
#25
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw it as an adult, too, and was a professional photographer at the time and understood a thing or two about grain. I remember the movie being grainy.
Clearly we're not going to see eye to eye on this, so I'm not going to continue the discussion.
And I want to say, to the credit of the moderator and writers of this site, you have not abused the power to kick me off and erase my contribution just because I strongly disagree with you and have shown the ability to give tit for tat.
Last edited by alric1212192; 10-26-08 at 07:48 AM. Reason: an error