DVD Talk review of 'Body Heat' (Blu-ray)
RE: Jeffrey Kauffman's DVD review of Body Heat at dvdtalk.com/reviews.
This film is a modern classic, and I can't agree more with your review of the film itself. It's simply the best in modern noir. However, the way you mentioned the level of grain in this Blu-ray edition is nettlesome. I've just come out of a discussion elsewhere in your forums about the absurd level of grain in the Blu-ray release of Young Frankenstein, and I found the general acceptance of it very puzzling. Look: there has never been a film released with this exaggerated grain, unless it would benefit in some way from the style. Sure, some films use grain as an effect in spots, but the grain would not have been constant in a film like this, and it wouldn't have been something that buzzed on the screen to a glaring degree throughout. Cinematographers use different techniques to give a movie a distinct stamp, but none of them in a major film would intentionally suffuse their picture with grain. It just wasn't done. Grain is a side effect of the process, and when it becomes pronounced to a noticeable level, something is amiss. I had a difficult time over in the other discussion because it was tough to argue down this notion that Young Frankentein was throttled with grain because the intent was to make it resemble an old movie. No logical argument disabused them of this notion. But Body Heat was set in modern times (or "modern times" at the time it was filmed), and there would have been no reason to mottle it with grain. So clarify something for me. As you stated, the movie did originally have a soft ambiance to it. No doubt about it, and that's a very visually pleasing effect. Something about it gave the air a heavy feel that was perfect for the sultry theme. But the grain level was normal for films at the time. If the transfer is of the highest quality, it'll show up; and if you're the type of person used to only modern cinema, any grain at all might seem strange. Though grain was apparent in older films, it was never screamingly obvious to the point it would be mentioned; not to people with a lot of experience watching films. So what I'm asking is, are you mentioning the fact of grain for the sake of less experienced readers who're unfamiliar with the characteristics of older films, to warn them that what they'll see is normal? Or is the grain level so noticeable that it became a glaring artifact of the film, and therefore warranted an admission in your review? I was thinking of buying this one, because the SD DVD isn't much to talk about. It's an inferior transfer (as was Michael Mann's Thief). But with my experience with Young Frankenstein still fresh in my mind, I'm not so eager anymore to upgrade on reflex, to assume automatically that the studios had the best intentions in mind. Based on your review, I added Body Heat to my queue at Blockbuster Online: I'll have to see for myself exactly what you mean about all this grain before I spend any more money. And I'll get back with you. |
The BD is not overly "grainy," and I don't think I said that, but I'll have to go back and check. :) What I was saying is that the transfer accurately represents what the film looked like when it was released (I saw it several times in theaters), with a certain amount of softness and grain apparent.
|
Originally Posted by JMK
(Post 9031388)
The BD is not overly "grainy," and I don't think I said that, but I'll have to go back and check. :) What I was saying is that the transfer accurately represents what the film looked like when it was released (I saw it several times in theaters), with a certain amount of softness and grain apparent.
When I bought a DVD of Thief, it was apparent that it was transferred from VHS copy. It had those telltale signs of tracing that mark VHS, most noticeable over pans of high-contrast scenes that are mostly dark. Why would a studio do this? Well, they can market it for the new format and people will buy it because they like the movie. Because it's an older film and not particularly favored by a market dominated by younger people, it's not going to sell much anyway, but they'll make a few dollars with little or no effort. Purists are too few to impact the market. I was unaware of the SE Body Heat until I read your review. I have a previous SD DVD edition, and, let me tell you, it's an inferior product, not much better than Thief. The studio clearly didn't love it as much as I did. After I read your review, I tried to find information about the SE, to learn if it was digitally remastered from the original print or if it was the same digital copy with some extra features thrown in to give it an artsier appearance. And is this Blu-ray edition digitally remastered from the original print, or is it an upconverted and photoshopped edition of the last transfer? If the grain is exaggerated, it is. Like I said: I'll get back to you. Either way -- exaggerated grain or accurate transfer -- it'll be a lively discussion. |
Originally Posted by alric1212192
(Post 9031549)
When I bought a DVD of Thief, it was apparent that it was transferred from VHS copy.
And is this Blu-ray edition digitally remastered from the original print, or is it an upconverted and photoshopped edition of the last transfer? Here's how it really works: The movie is run through a telecine machine for the film-to-video transfer. This results in an archive master. In years past, those masters may have been made in Standard Definition (which is what happened with Thief), however all modern video masters are High Definition resolution. That HD master is then downconverted to DVD or ported to Blu-ray. Blu-rays are not encoded from upconverted Standard Definition masters. If the studio wanted to make a Blu-ray edition of Thief today, they'd have to run it through a new film-to-video telecine and create a new HD master for it. They would not upconvert the old Standard Definition master. Now, the fact that the archive master is HD resolution doesn't mean that it's a good transfer. All that means is that it's HD resolution. The transfer may have other flaws that prevent it from looking its best. But just because you don't like the look of a transfer doesn't automatically mean that it's been upconverted from DVD or VHS. |
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 9032200)
Alric, you are still woefully misinformed about how video transfers are made. The Thief DVD is not a very good transfer, but it is certainly not sourced from VHS. And no studios "upconvert" a DVD and slap it onto a Blu-ray.
Here's how it really works: The movie is run through a telecine machine for the film-to-video transfer. This results in an archive master. In years past, those masters may have been made in Standard Definition (which is what happened with Thief), however all modern video masters are High Definition resolution. As for the rest -- about how the transfer is accomplished -- that's pretty much how I thought it worked, sans the terms for the equipment actually used. I've seen documentaries on SEs of DVDs that demonstrated this technology, which isn't limited to producing digital copies to transfer to DVDs. It's used for processing the final cut. That said, I don't think you know specifically which titles got what sort of treatment. How can you? And since you're remarking on my previous comments from our Young Frankenstein discussion, I'll reiterate: I never said they used a DVD as the source. Now follow this, one more time. When the HD master is downconverted, a new digital file is produced, which is then burned to a DVD, which is then mass produced. You can apply a sharpening tool to this digital file. The simple movie-making software on my computer has that capability, so I know how this is accomplished. Let's go back again to Young Frankenstein. It's an older film, and I think it's an older transfer, therefore the master is in SD. The Blu-ray edition is not digitally remastered and no such claim is made anywhere on the package. I believe firmly that it's upconverted from the SD master, which was artificially sharpened. I say this because I know what that looks like. And it was a lesson learned. Body Heat is another favorite of mine, but it was a disappointment on DVD. As an older movie, it probably has an SD master. For the review of this Blu-ray, the author here mentioned the grain. He reiterated in response to my post that it wasn't exaggerated, but we've heard this before, haven't we. The fact that he mentioned it gives me pause. You simply wouldn't mention that feature in a release for which the grain is normal. Suspicious of the quality of this Blu-ray, I added it to my Blockbuster Online queue as a rental. It was mailed out this morning. I'll have personal knowledge of it in a day or two, and I'll be able to comment on it with authority. That HD master is then downconverted to DVD or ported to Blu-ray. Blu-rays are not encoded from upconverted Standard Definition masters. If the studio wanted to make a Blu-ray edition of Thief today, they'd have to run it through a new film-to-video telecine and create a new HD master for it. They would not upconvert the old Standard Definition master. Now, the fact that the archive master is HD resolution doesn't mean that it's a good transfer. All that means is that it's HD resolution. The transfer may have other flaws that prevent it from looking its best. But just because you don't like the look of a transfer doesn't automatically mean that it's been upconverted from DVD or VHS. By the way, you can get Body Heat from Amazon for a few pennies cheaper than you can get the older SD SE. Interesting. That makes me even more suspicious. |
Originally Posted by alric1212192
(Post 9034201)
By the way, you can get Body Heat from Amazon for a few pennies cheaper than you can get the older SD SE. Interesting. That makes me even more suspicious.
|
Originally Posted by Ian Whitcombe
(Post 9034932)
Disregarding the fact that, yes, Blu-ray releases can indeed be cheaper than DVD releases due to several factors... you're using a monetary difference of mere pennies from a list price at Amazon.com to justify your conclusions? That's absurd.
|
Originally Posted by alric1212192
(Post 9035220)
What's absurd is thinking I'd base my opinion on just that, in light of everything else I wrote.
|
Originally Posted by alric1212192
(Post 9034201)
For the review of this Blu-ray, the author here mentioned the grain. He reiterated in response to my post that it wasn't exaggerated, but we've heard this before, haven't we. The fact that he mentioned it gives me pause. You simply wouldn't mention that feature in a release for which the grain is normal.
There are a couple of reasons for this. 1) Many people incorrectly think that all grain is a defect. As you've mentioned before, it's a natural part of filming a movie. 2) Some of the first Blu-ray discs had an abnormal amount of grain. Mentioning the level of grain is therefore something that is not uncommon in reviews. |
The reason I mentioned both the softness and the grain in this particular review is because younger viewers especially seem to expect digital perfection, even of older movies. Those of us of a certain age ;) know that in the 70s and 80s especially, grain and softness were the norm.
|
Originally Posted by alric1212192
(Post 9034201)
Let's go back again to Young Frankenstein. It's an older film, and I think it's an older transfer, therefore the master is in SD.
The Blu-ray edition is not digitally remastered and no such claim is made anywhere on the package. The Blu-ray may not have been freshly remastered specifically for that disc. It may recycle the master prepared for the last DVD release. However, just because the master is a few years old doesn't mean it's SD. As I said, the studios have been preparing HD masters for at least the past decade. I believe firmly that it's upconverted from the SD master, which was artificially sharpened. I say this because I know what that looks like. And I'll say it again: You can not know that. Period. They do not have to do anything, as there is no law that stipulates what studios have to do. Skepticism is one thing, but your complaints fall way off the deep end of rationality. For now, I know upconversion when I see it. |
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 9037031)
You know what else I cannot know? I cannot know if space aliens mastered this Blu-ray disc with the help of Osama Bin Laden and the ghost of Adolf Hitler in a diabolical plot to subvert American freedom by destroying the quality of our home entertainment merchandise. Sure, it seems unlikely, but I can't know that it didn't happen that way, right? :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
(Post 9035349)
Of course, Ian wrote nothing of the sort. But you do tend to read what you want to read.
|
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 9037031)
Clearly, you don't. What that release did for me was bring the realization that studios aren't committed to putting out the best product. They'll produce what the market will bear, and for the most profit. That means the cheaper the production costs, the higher the profit. Because of this new awareness, my previous knee-jerk reaction to purchase a superior format is no longer part of my consumer profile. When I read this review of Body Heat, the mention of grain gave me pause. Now, in fairness to me, I did ask if he was mentioning it to give lesser enlightened people the heads up, that as an older film, it contains visible grain, but that it was natural to that era of cinematography. I asked that. But I went to lots of movies in those days, and I'll tell you that nobody was making movies with a screen buzzing with grain for the entire feature. On a 50' screen, it would have been a horrendous sight. Softness was a very real effect, but not any heavy grain. Cameras and emulsions were pretty sophisticated by 1980. Body Heat is pretty much a modern film. If the grain is exaggerated again, we're going to have to examine this process they're using, and to see what the problem is. That said, I did get the Blu-ray of Body Heat from Blockbuster Online, and I'll know by tomorrow night for sure the real score. If it's the warm natural grain of a good film, I'll buy it. If not, I'll be back here, and we can do this all over again. |
Originally Posted by alric1212192
(Post 9038059)
Actually, clearly you don't. If grain is exaggerated, something's wrong.
You accuse me of acting "like a religious fanatic, falling upon the infallibility of scripture in the face of contrary facts." However, here you are, arguing with dogmatic certainty that any problem you find with the transfer automatically proves that the disc is an upconverted SD master. Never mind that the disc has way more visible detail than the actual SD edition (which you brush off by pretending that it doesn't exist). You have your belief, and you're sticking to it no matter what. But I went to lots of movies in those days, and I'll tell you that nobody was making movies with a screen buzzing with grain for the entire feature. On a 50' screen, it would have been a horrendous sight. |
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 9038458)
You put far too much faith in your memory of how movies looked in a theater 20-30 years ago. You will not want to acknowledge this, but film grain actually tends to be less noticeable on a theater screen to most audiences, because the we've been psychologically conditioned to expect grain as part of the theatrical experience. Therefore, the viewer tunes it out. I can't imagine how big of a pompous ass you'd have to be to speak for the experience of so many filmgoers in such a general way. The more you write, the dumber you look. There's natural grain and there's erroneous grain. You sound like you're on the verge of admitting that the grain is unnatural, so you've shifted the topic to whether or not I'm wrong about why there's so much grain. I'm only looking for an explanation, and I'm taking an educated guess. I believe studios use sharpening tools. Why not? They use other techniques to scrub out grain. Why would they say using DNR is okay, but a sharpening tool is not? Get back to me when you decide to be consistent. |
Originally Posted by JMK
(Post 9035963)
The reason I mentioned both the softness and the grain in this particular review is because younger viewers especially seem to expect digital perfection, even of older movies. Those of us of a certain age ;) know that in the 70s and 80s especially, grain and softness were the norm.
And I've never seen any of the principals discussing this film before, and it was interesting to hear -- as usual -- how all of this came together and all of the creative touches that lent to its perfection. At the time of its release, the general reaction was one of indifference, and we didn't have all of these outlets for discussion. I loved it right away, and looking back, I think it was probably the very first time I'd ever reacted deeply to noir. I can remember watching Spartacus as a child and crying; I remember watching The Days of Wine and Roses and feeling despair. But I don't recall watching a movie of that type and being so intrigued. And it didn't hurt that it was smoldering nearly constantly during Turner's screen time. |
Originally Posted by alric1212192
(Post 9040072)
I can't imagine how big of a pompous ass you'd have to be to speak for the experience of so many filmgoers in such a general way. The more you write, the dumber you look.
I believe studios use sharpening tools. Why not? They use other techniques to scrub out grain. |
Originally Posted by Josh Z
(Post 9040967)
Yes, sharpening tools can increase the visibility of grain. So can poor digital compression, which tends to make the grain particles look larger and blocky. Neither of those things in any way supports your assertion that the studio must be using an upconverted SD master, which is the main part of your complaint that I take issue with.
|
Originally Posted by alric1212192
(Post 9042587)
I'm sure if you look at i again, you'll see I'm right.
Not a single one of you stopped to look at exactly what I was saying. |
alric1212192,
I've watched Body Heat on Blu and I'm a little confused with your statements. I've read over your posts and most of it is theory on your part. No specifics on where you observed the issues you mention. If you can be more specific, I'll certainly lend an ear to you. Though grain was apparent in older films, it was never screamingly obvious to the point it would be mentioned; not to people with a lot of experience watching films It's only with the addition of HDTVs with large screens to the consumer market that we are able to see films as they were actually filmed. I remember watching Body Heat on my grandfather's 27" CRT back in the mid-80's (my parents were rather religious and I couldn't watch any "R" movies...so during the summer I would get my "R" fix at my grandparents' house :D ). I don't specifically remember "grain" per se, but at the time, films were not presented in such a high resolution where grain would be observed. Televisions available to the consumer just were not capable of displaying such a type of grain. And most of the time, if there was grain present to be observed, there was the issue of broadcast noise/interference and VHS grain which occurs naturally due to the way the magnetic tape interfaces with the head on the VCR. I've taken a closer look at Body Heat myself. I took several screenshots of the film and zoomed in on those screenshots in PS CS2. You can see artifacts present from the VC-1 encode. However, this is common with any digital transfer and I have yet to see no artifacts from a digital source--it's just the nature of digital encoding. However, the further you zoom in order to notice the artifacts, is indicative of how good the digital transfer is...at least in my opinion. So, maybe I'm misinterpreting your comments, but grain is often a part of the transfer because it is part of the original filming method. Some directors add it to the picture, and most of us can differentiate between the artifically-added grain, and the natural grain which was present on many films due to the type of equipments used. It is because of the latest technology of large-sized televisions with much more resolution capabilities than our consumer-inferior CRTs of the past, that we were unable to notice much of this "grain". I am curious to see other Kasdan titles, such as The Big Chill in HD. Possibly, the more films we see from Kasdan, the more we might understand Body Heat's transfer. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.