DVD Reviews and Recommendations Read, Post and Request DVD Reviews.

DVD Talk review of 'Body Heat' (Blu-ray)

Old 10-27-08, 11:55 AM
  #1  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
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.

Last edited by alric1212192; 10-27-08 at 01:15 PM. Reason: corrected formatting error
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-27-08, 12:08 PM
  #2  
JMK
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 149
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.
JMK is offline  
Old 10-27-08, 01:07 PM
  #3  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by JMK View Post
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.
Sounds good to me. Your statements suggest a thorough review. You see, I'm worried a bit about this. Here's why.

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.

Last edited by alric1212192; 10-27-08 at 01:17 PM.
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-27-08, 05:14 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,153
Originally Posted by alric1212192 View Post
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?
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.

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.

Last edited by Josh Z; 10-27-08 at 05:17 PM.
Josh Z is offline  
Old 10-28-08, 02:10 PM
  #5  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
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.
You don't know that for sure. You're just assuming the best, but I'm skeptical about what studios do. Perhaps the original film is badly damaged due to neglect, and the best copy was a video tape used for TV broadcasts of the film. You just don't know that for sure what's going on behind the scenes anymore than I do.

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.
It's amazing how you just put that right out there about Thief, as if you have direct knowledge of it. Your posture of confidence aside, you can't know that.

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.
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. I bought A Clockwork Orange on DVD twice, the second time for the 5.1 Wendy Carlos soundtrack and the remastered transfer. I was able to see the difference even on my SDTV. This proves that not all films got this HD transfer originally, even popular titles. Some films are getting this remastered treatment, some are not. For now, I know upconversion when I see it. The grain levels in Young Frankenstein are exaggerated and unnatural, an argument I made with cogent logic, with a specific example, in the other thread. That logic was never acknowledged by a single one of you. Until it is, I can say with confidence equaling your own that you don't know what you're talking about, and I can say it with the same condescending attitude you take with me. I've been as polite as I can be, but enough is enough. Acknowledge what I've said, address the points I've made, and we can talk. Your insistence that the same processes are used across the board without variation is something you can not know. You do not know for a fact the quality of the master for Young Frankenstein, Thief, or this one, Body Heat. You don't know for a fact what the complete process used for Young Frankenstein. You're making a lot of assumptions based on some fantasy about the ultimate process. Studios sometimes cut corners. Their main objective is to sell things. To go back and remaster the original print is a time-consuming and cost-inefficient process. The fact that so many critics have hawked it as the ultimate edition demonstrates that further expenditure would have been unnecessary. There will be too few of us gainsayers to make an impact on the market.

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.
Man, this condescending attitude is wearing a bit thin. I don't believe it's upconverted and sharpened just because I don't like the look of it. I believe it's upconverted and sharpened because it bears the look of an image that's been upconverted and sharpened. It's a way for the studio to make a quick buck. Once word gets around, if there's a market for it, they'll remaster it for HD.

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.

Last edited by alric1212192; 10-28-08 at 02:47 PM.
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-28-08, 07:34 PM
  #6  
Cool New Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by alric1212192 View Post
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.
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.
Ian Whitcombe is offline  
Old 10-28-08, 10:28 PM
  #7  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Ian Whitcombe View Post
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.
What's absurd is thinking I'd base my opinion on just that, in light of everything else I wrote. That's absurd. Worse, even.
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-28-08, 11:37 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,522
Originally Posted by alric1212192 View Post
What's absurd is thinking I'd base my opinion on just that, in light of everything else I wrote.
Of course, Ian wrote nothing of the sort. But you do tend to read what you want to read.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 10-29-08, 08:20 AM
  #9  
Defunct Account
 
John Sinnott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 5,920
Originally Posted by alric1212192 View Post
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.
Speaking as a reviewer, yes I definitely would mention the grain if it was evident, even if it was at natural levels. Many other reviewers feel the same way.

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.
John Sinnott is offline  
Old 10-29-08, 10:21 AM
  #10  
JMK
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 149
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.
JMK is offline  
Old 10-29-08, 05:07 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,153
Originally Posted by alric1212192 View Post
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 age of the movie has nothing to do with whether the master is in SD or HD. Older movies are remastered all the time. Also, all of the major studios have been archiving HD masters for all of their video transfers since at least the mid-90s.

The Blu-ray edition is not digitally remastered and no such claim is made anywhere on the package.
The fact that it isn't mentioned on the package doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

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.
In your opinion that's what it looks like. In the opinions of every other knowledgable person who has seen the disc, that isn't the case at all.

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.
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?

Skepticism is one thing, but your complaints fall way off the deep end of rationality.

For now, I know upconversion when I see it.
Clearly, you don't.
Josh Z is offline  
Old 10-29-08, 05:38 PM
  #12  
JMK
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Portland
Posts: 149
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
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?
Gort, they are on to us. Time to am-scray.
JMK is offline  
Old 10-30-08, 04:25 AM
  #13  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty View Post
Of course, Ian wrote nothing of the sort. But you do tend to read what you want to read.
That's funny. His entire post was quoted. It's exactly what he said.
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-30-08, 05:25 AM
  #14  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Clearly, you don't.
Actually, clearly you don't. If grain is exaggerated, something's wrong. Some part of the process in getting it to Blu-ray has been fouled, by somebody at some point. You're almost like a religious fanatic, falling upon the infallibility of scripture in the face of contrary facts. You don't like what I'm saying, so you continue to cite your rote lesson about how things are done according to your very limited experience. Never mind the facts, that the grain level in Young Frankenstein are so high, the subtleties of the natural grain shifts are missing. Never mind that. You've got a process you believe it. That you're ignorant of that grain shift limits your ability to assess this situation with any real intelligence. Something is terribly amiss. That's the fact, hotshot. And all you're doing now is looking like a complete bozo by trying to stare me down about it. The grain level is unnatural, and I laid the argument out. What I said in proving that the grain level density is too high -- even if you didn't see the movie in the theater yourself -- makes so much sense, even a smarmy geek should easily comprehend it. Just because it contradicts what you believe goes on, or what you wish goes on, you want to stomp your feet and insist on a superior knowledge you clearly don't have. But in reality, you're like me, an outsider looking in. You can make all the cute smart-ass comments about what you can't prove about space aliens -- as if that's even a remotely clever analogy -- but the fact is, there's at least one thing you don't know that I do: Young Frankenstein has an unacceptable grain level that interferes with the actual picture underneath. Now, what you need to do is start there, and see if you can find an explanation for it somewhere in your inerrant belief system. So far, nothing you say explains it away. At least I'm addressing the issue. You're claiming there isn't one, which makes you a fatuous know-it-all.

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.

Last edited by alric1212192; 10-30-08 at 05:33 AM.
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-30-08, 10:55 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,153
Originally Posted by alric1212192 View Post
Actually, clearly you don't. If grain is exaggerated, something's wrong.
Here's the fundamental problem with your line of reasoning. For sake of argument, let's say that you're right about the grain being exaggerated. Exaggerated grain in no way proves that the disc is upconverted from a Standard Definition master. There are many other reasons why the Blu-ray may have exaggerated grain. Perhaps the studio transferred the movie from film elements that were a few generations removed from the master. That could easily result in exaggerated grain. But it doesn't mean that the master is SD. It just means that the transfer is sub-optimal for other reasons.

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.
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 we've been psychologically conditioned to expect grain as part of the theatrical experience. Therefore, the viewer tunes it out. On the other hand, when the same movie comes to home video, that same grain suddenly stands out more, because television traditionally has not had the ability to resolve film grain in detail. We expect to see grain in a theater, but we don't expect to see it on a television. A cognitive dissonance sets in, and the movie which looked perfectly fine to us in the theater now looks "wrong" to us on the TV screen.

Last edited by Josh Z; 10-31-08 at 09:56 AM. Reason: Typo.
Josh Z is offline  
Old 10-30-08, 08:46 PM
  #16  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

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.
What a lot of hogwash that is. I guess it would depend on the viewer, and what their mindset is at the time of the experience, how sophisticated their aesthetics about movies themselves. In my own experience, I took great notice of things like grain. And as I've mentioned before, the scene of Igor's first closeup was suddenly awash in noticable grain, which is now gone from the Blu-ray disc. I noticed the grain density increased in scenes of The Exorcist, in which it was used in a dream sequence. I noticed the nearly constant shift in film stock in Oliver Stone's U Turn, and how without it the movie wasn't that interesting in SD. I noticed the change more recently in Casino Royale. You did notice that, didn't you, that the pre-credit sequence was in a very grainy black-&-white? As an adult, I've been very much aware of these things, because photography was my hobby, from the age of sixteen. I wasn't an expert, but I had a keen eye for the work of others. That's how I can depend on my memory. I remember my reactions, and I remember specific things that more than prove my point. Anyone with a modicum of critical skills can follow my reasoning with no effort.

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.
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-31-08, 07:30 AM
  #17  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by JMK View Post
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.
I watched about twenty minutes of Body Heat last night, and I was very impressed with the look and the sound. The grain was natural, and in fact, I think the only reason I noticed it at all is because I was watching to gauge its presence. This is a very good transfer, and I'll definitely be adding it to my collection.

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.
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-31-08, 09:53 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 11,153
Originally Posted by alric1212192 View Post
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.
This is a moderated forum, and personal attacks like these are a violation of the forum rules. Please try to tone down your arguments before a moderator has to step in.

I believe studios use sharpening tools. Why not? They use other techniques to scrub out grain.
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.
Josh Z is offline  
Old 10-31-08, 11:09 PM
  #19  
Cool New Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Biloxi, Mississippi
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
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.
I stand by what I said. You're simply not far enough on the inside of this industry to dispute my contention with any authority. If both of these things -- sharpening tools and poor compression -- can cause the grain, you still can't say for certain which one caused it, can you? I say it's upconverted, because of a certain type of graininess. Now, I can't be one-hundred percent certain of it, but neither can you that it's not. I know the look you're describing when an image has a poor compression rate -- the blockiness -- and this isn't that sort of graininess. I'm sure if you look at i again, you'll see I'm right. And if you're not going to look at it again, don't comment on it. Right now, you're just adding a new angle into the argument for no real reason. You're just decided to take a stand against what I said, because a reviewer at this site said that Young Frankenstein's grain was how it was intended to look. And now that we've gone this far, you're refusing to back down, regardless of how convincing my argument is. You'll contradict anything I say, regardless of what I say, because it's not that I'm wrong: it's that I contradicted a reviewer from this site. Not a single one of you stopped to look at exactly what I was saying. You're enamored with your own idea of your expertise, and you're going to preserve it at all costs. So the idea is to make me seem just totally wrong about everything, even to the point of questioning my ability to recall things. That's because, if I'm right about what I remember, all of this "expertise" is suddenly rendered meaningless. The truth is, you missed it, the reviewer missed it, and whoever else was on the opposite side of this argument from me missed. Instead of taking the stance you took, you should have thanked me for pointing it the details, because I brought something to the discussion none of you knew. My whole point was that the movie was a mess; that was the main thing. I don't really care how it got to be a mess. What I believe caused it is only an aside. I believe I'm right about what caused it, but that's not the important thing to me. The problem I had was critics saying it was an intentional effect. That's just wrong.

Last edited by alric1212192; 10-31-08 at 11:22 PM.
alric1212192 is offline  
Old 10-31-08, 11:57 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,522
Originally Posted by alric1212192 View Post
I'm sure if you look at i again, you'll see I'm right.
Alric, please get over yourself.

Not a single one of you stopped to look at exactly what I was saying.
Yes we did. Most of what you've posted here, though eloquently written, has been either conjecture on your part or outright factually wrong.
Mr. Salty is offline  
Old 11-15-08, 08:25 AM
  #21  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,503
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 ).

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.

Last edited by DVD Polizei; 11-15-08 at 08:28 AM.
DVD Polizei is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.