Discussione tecnica BD: restauri e trasferimenti da riferimento
- Autore discussione vincent89
- Data d'inizio
Siamo in una situazione paradossale, in quanto esiste a tutti gli effetti il materiale per produrre un BD allo stato dell'arte, ma o non viene usato o viene comunque maltrattato.
A questo punto bisognerebbe muoversi noi appassionati provando a chiedere spiegazioni alla Universal o alle case che continuano a propinare schifezze, visto che comunque le riedizioni in BD non sono più fantascienza come qualcuno pensava all'inizio.
A questo punto bisognerebbe muoversi noi appassionati provando a chiedere spiegazioni alla Universal o alle case che continuano a propinare schifezze, visto che comunque le riedizioni in BD non sono più fantascienza come qualcuno pensava all'inizio.
ghiltanas
New member
scusate, nn pensate che tutta la trilogia del dollaro andrebbe messa in prima? la versione nostrana, che se nn erro ha "subito" un trattamento e un restauro unico (curato da La cineteca di Bologna e l'mmagine ritrovata)
infatti anche la reviewdi blu-ray.com:
"MGM's 1080p/AVC-encoded transfer of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is by no means perfect, and it pales in comparison to Mondo's Italian release of the film"
infatti anche la reviewdi blu-ray.com:
"MGM's 1080p/AVC-encoded transfer of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is by no means perfect, and it pales in comparison to Mondo's Italian release of the film"
vincent89
New member
Non intendevo denigrare il lavoro. Anzi 
Solo non capisco una cosa: per il restauro del "il buono il brutto e il cattivo" hanno fatto uno scan 2k del negativo, l'hanno restaurato, poi hanno stampato un nuovo negativo che hanno usato come master del BD. Ma non era meglio usare direttamente il file del restauro digitale?
Se non erro i restauri MPI hanno una logica diversa: prendono i materiali originali, controllano e riparano fisicamente la pellicola (come ad esempio le perforazioni) per evitare che si strappi durante lo scan, fanno uno scan a 4/6/8k e lavorano poi sempre nel dominio digitale. Da un lato apprezzo di più questa metodica. E i risultati non gli danno torto
Solo non capisco una cosa: per il restauro del "il buono il brutto e il cattivo" hanno fatto uno scan 2k del negativo, l'hanno restaurato, poi hanno stampato un nuovo negativo che hanno usato come master del BD. Ma non era meglio usare direttamente il file del restauro digitale?
Se non erro i restauri MPI hanno una logica diversa: prendono i materiali originali, controllano e riparano fisicamente la pellicola (come ad esempio le perforazioni) per evitare che si strappi durante lo scan, fanno uno scan a 4/6/8k e lavorano poi sempre nel dominio digitale. Da un lato apprezzo di più questa metodica. E i risultati non gli danno torto
giovanni_servetti
New member
non ho idea da chi sia stato restaurato.. ma il BD de Il Grande Dittatore, per ora disponibile solo in UK e Germania, è davvero fatto bene... mi è arrivato ieri e l'ho visionato per intero.
gli screen non rendono giustizia ma già un'idea..
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/greatdictator.htm
gli screen non rendono giustizia ma già un'idea..
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/greatdictator.htm
ghiltanas
New member
giovanni_servetti ha detto:
la pellicola originale com'era?
ps ora che mi viene in mente, ho scoperto di avere un proiettore 8mm in casa (mi pare che sia 8mm), per curiosià mi piacerebbe metterci una pellicola e proiettare
edit: visto il particolare aspect ratio, dovrebbe essere una 16mm la pellicola originale
vincent89
New member
Comunque il tanto criticato BD di Ghostbuster secondo Robert Harris è fedele all'originale:
"The HD video master of Ivan Reitman's 1984 Ghostbusters had the input of cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs, and as such must be considered incontestable as far as a Blu-ray is concerned.
Those who saw the film theatrically 25 years ago, may or may not recall that the look varied from sequence to sequence. While some interiors seemed to have a pushed, grainy look, fully exposed exteriors appeared to have far less apparent grain. Some of the film is sharp, some parts lesser so.
Created from an archival 35mm interpositive, what has been delivered via Blu-ray is Ghostbusters as it originally looked, and I couldn't be happier.
I'm certain that there will be some who will find the grain too course, to evident, too brown, too angular, not pretty enough, or in one of my favorite phrases, simply about one would expect from an old (read: antique) film from a bygone era.
Love it or hate, this is Ghostbusters as created and released in 1984. Still a fun film and perennial home video favorite, it holds up well after a quarter century. It's appearance on Blu-ray also makes it one of those legacy titles that has made its way through every home video format, inclusive of CED, arriving after the end of production of CED hardware.
Those who remember the film from its theatrical release will be thrilled with the new Blu-ray. Those who have only seen it on inferior home video formats will find themselves in for a treat. And those few who are new to Ghostbusters are in for a fun ride into the ancient past of filmmaking, when special effects were special effects without the aid of computers. And it all works beautifully.
A terrific Blu-ray release that holds true to the Sony / Columbia ethic of making their films on Blu-ray continue to look like film.
Like Dr. Strangelove, Ghostbusters is encoded for all three regions.
Recommended."
Inoltre:
"To me, it looks much like the film that I first saw in 1984. Way back then there was occasional image softness, a good healthy dose of heavy grain in interiors, and effects that look very much like pre-CGI effects.
My take is that "it is what it is" -- which is what it was. This isn't about the transfer, but rather the original elements.
RAH "
"The HD video master of Ivan Reitman's 1984 Ghostbusters had the input of cinematographer Laszlo Kovacs, and as such must be considered incontestable as far as a Blu-ray is concerned.
Those who saw the film theatrically 25 years ago, may or may not recall that the look varied from sequence to sequence. While some interiors seemed to have a pushed, grainy look, fully exposed exteriors appeared to have far less apparent grain. Some of the film is sharp, some parts lesser so.
Created from an archival 35mm interpositive, what has been delivered via Blu-ray is Ghostbusters as it originally looked, and I couldn't be happier.
I'm certain that there will be some who will find the grain too course, to evident, too brown, too angular, not pretty enough, or in one of my favorite phrases, simply about one would expect from an old (read: antique) film from a bygone era.
Love it or hate, this is Ghostbusters as created and released in 1984. Still a fun film and perennial home video favorite, it holds up well after a quarter century. It's appearance on Blu-ray also makes it one of those legacy titles that has made its way through every home video format, inclusive of CED, arriving after the end of production of CED hardware.
Those who remember the film from its theatrical release will be thrilled with the new Blu-ray. Those who have only seen it on inferior home video formats will find themselves in for a treat. And those few who are new to Ghostbusters are in for a fun ride into the ancient past of filmmaking, when special effects were special effects without the aid of computers. And it all works beautifully.
A terrific Blu-ray release that holds true to the Sony / Columbia ethic of making their films on Blu-ray continue to look like film.
Like Dr. Strangelove, Ghostbusters is encoded for all three regions.
Recommended."
Inoltre:
"To me, it looks much like the film that I first saw in 1984. Way back then there was occasional image softness, a good healthy dose of heavy grain in interiors, and effects that look very much like pre-CGI effects.
My take is that "it is what it is" -- which is what it was. This isn't about the transfer, but rather the original elements.
RAH "
Ultima modifica:
vincent89
New member
E questo dovrebbe togliere tutti i dubbi:
Editor's Note: I've confirmed with Sony's head of mastering that cinematographer László Kovács personally supervised and approved the new Blu-ray transfer and color timing before his death last year. The transfer was also approved by director Ivan Reitman. Note that Kovács was NOT involved in the transfers for the previous DVD releases, including the original 1999 DVD.
from TheDigitalBits
Editor's Note: I've confirmed with Sony's head of mastering that cinematographer László Kovács personally supervised and approved the new Blu-ray transfer and color timing before his death last year. The transfer was also approved by director Ivan Reitman. Note that Kovács was NOT involved in the transfers for the previous DVD releases, including the original 1999 DVD.
from TheDigitalBits
vincent89
New member
Robert Harris dice la sua sul trasferimento di "Dottor Zivago":
"If you want to find the cinematic roots of David Lean's Dr. Zhivago, you're best to visit Criterion's DVD of his 1946 Great Expectations, still one of the finest representations of Dickens on film. Once you've viewed it, you'll see where I'm coming from.
Sir David's Dr. Zhivago was, bar none, his most successful production, both from a financial perspective as well as in overall popularity and accessibility.
The Zhivago that we see today is not the same Zhivago that was released in December of 1965. In order to qualify for Academy Awards, there was an agreement between DL and M-G-M's Bob O'Brien that after a cut was delivered for release in December, that DL could go in for a re-cut and re-dub. That is precisely what occurred. During the first few months of 1966, while the film was in limited 70mm (blow-up) release, it went through a fine cut, with new 70mm reels being delivered to the affected theatres weekly.
While I don't have a count of 70mm prints struck in 1965 - 66 at hand, the number was not insignificant. Each print was struck from the original 35mm A & B rolls. Taking into account both the original as well as the re-cut, the OCNs of many reels had twice the runs on them. The original negative, as it now exists, is in far less than stellar condition. Over the past couple of decades there have been abortive rescue attempts at best. But finally Warner Bros. has seen fit to properly digitally restore the film, bringing together the best of the surviving pieces of film.
What all of this means to the Blu-ray is that virtually everything that could be done to promote a high quality final result, has been done. MPI colorist Janet Walker has use a unique original print as a source of color and density, and has created a final product that appears dead on.
The image has been cleaned, and now appears much as it did in 1965.
The final result is gorgeous.
For transparency, I'll note a couple of minor points on the downside.
For whatever reason, the main title sequence is out of focus in the center. There is a bit of occasional awkward dialogue that verges on unintelligible, and there are occasional phasing problems with the audio. None of this is going to take the normal viewer out of the experience.
To my mind, David Lean's film of Dr. Zhivago is one of the greats.
Warner Bros. has done their job in restoring and preserving his work, and the resultant Blu-ray disc is nothing less than gorgeous. DL never forgot the fact that the film had been shot in 35, as opposed to 65mm, and wished that it had been otherwise. But even in 35mm, Zhivago, as photographed by the incomparable Freddie Young with some equally gorgeous sequences by Nicolas Roeg (inclusive of funeral early in the film), was shot fully exposed. Consequently, blow-ups to 70mm, projected on huge screens, held up beautifully. The same can be said of the Blu-ray.
Zhivago will be one of the most important classic releases on Blu-ray in 2010, and should be a part of any serious library.
Very Highly Recommended.
RAH"
"If you want to find the cinematic roots of David Lean's Dr. Zhivago, you're best to visit Criterion's DVD of his 1946 Great Expectations, still one of the finest representations of Dickens on film. Once you've viewed it, you'll see where I'm coming from.
Sir David's Dr. Zhivago was, bar none, his most successful production, both from a financial perspective as well as in overall popularity and accessibility.
The Zhivago that we see today is not the same Zhivago that was released in December of 1965. In order to qualify for Academy Awards, there was an agreement between DL and M-G-M's Bob O'Brien that after a cut was delivered for release in December, that DL could go in for a re-cut and re-dub. That is precisely what occurred. During the first few months of 1966, while the film was in limited 70mm (blow-up) release, it went through a fine cut, with new 70mm reels being delivered to the affected theatres weekly.
While I don't have a count of 70mm prints struck in 1965 - 66 at hand, the number was not insignificant. Each print was struck from the original 35mm A & B rolls. Taking into account both the original as well as the re-cut, the OCNs of many reels had twice the runs on them. The original negative, as it now exists, is in far less than stellar condition. Over the past couple of decades there have been abortive rescue attempts at best. But finally Warner Bros. has seen fit to properly digitally restore the film, bringing together the best of the surviving pieces of film.
What all of this means to the Blu-ray is that virtually everything that could be done to promote a high quality final result, has been done. MPI colorist Janet Walker has use a unique original print as a source of color and density, and has created a final product that appears dead on.
The image has been cleaned, and now appears much as it did in 1965.
The final result is gorgeous.
For transparency, I'll note a couple of minor points on the downside.
For whatever reason, the main title sequence is out of focus in the center. There is a bit of occasional awkward dialogue that verges on unintelligible, and there are occasional phasing problems with the audio. None of this is going to take the normal viewer out of the experience.
To my mind, David Lean's film of Dr. Zhivago is one of the greats.
Warner Bros. has done their job in restoring and preserving his work, and the resultant Blu-ray disc is nothing less than gorgeous. DL never forgot the fact that the film had been shot in 35, as opposed to 65mm, and wished that it had been otherwise. But even in 35mm, Zhivago, as photographed by the incomparable Freddie Young with some equally gorgeous sequences by Nicolas Roeg (inclusive of funeral early in the film), was shot fully exposed. Consequently, blow-ups to 70mm, projected on huge screens, held up beautifully. The same can be said of the Blu-ray.
Zhivago will be one of the most important classic releases on Blu-ray in 2010, and should be a part of any serious library.
Very Highly Recommended.
RAH"