Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: I have bought Gran Torino

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » I have bought Gran Torino (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: I have bought Gran Torino

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-12-2009 08:46 PM

Claude,

Yes, All the other disks I own look great!! The way this disk looks is why I made the original post. I'd appreciate it if you could post a few pics off GT off your screen. I may have to print out the pictures and show them to the store when I return it.

As for bleach bypass and other effects... Clint is way more likely to deal with effects of this nature at the camera or negative stage than anywhere else in the chain... Don't forget he is old school.

Thanks!
Mark

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-13-2009 01:53 AM

I finally watched Gran Torino on Blu-ray earlier this evening. One of my close friends bought a copy of it and we watched it on his Samsung Series 750 52" HDTV, played from a Playstation 3.

I really liked the movie. The ending was different from what I had expected, but it seemed very realistic and even clever.

The video quality on this BD seemed better than I had expected based on previous complaints, but it's still not "reference quality." Small object detail such as fine fabric weave on clothing was well defined. The biggest issue in video quality I noticed was a good amount of crush and noise in the shadows during some of the darker scenes.

The style choice of overly drained color, to me at least, seems like a very common occurrence of many recently released movies. Kill the color or even throw a green cast across it so the show can look more like The Matrix.

And speaking of The Matrix HBO is now showing Speed Racer, directed by the Wachowski brothers. Damn, that movie has some GARISH color in it. Too bad the movie looks sort of crap-tastic when compressed within the bounds of satellite TV. The Blu-ray version may look a bit better, but then it is only a single layer 25GB disc.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-13-2009 02:09 AM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I'd appreciate it if you could post a few pics off GT off your screen. I may have to print out the pictures and show them to the store when I return it.

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that there are TWO different transfers released on blu-ray? Or are you suggesting that your particular blu-ray disc somehow is defective in the picture quality...yet it plays, thus proving that the disc is defective? (Remember, its digital and every copy is identical.)

I'm not buying either of those.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-13-2009 12:05 PM

Maybe there is some sort of image post processing stuff at work somewhere in the playback chain. The Playstation 3 console and many Blu-ray players have filters to sharpen the image, reduce noise and other stuff. The same thing goes for a lot of HDTV sets. I turn off all that crap. Seeing film grain in the image does not bother me the least little bit.

Gran Torino had a very slightly visible layer of film grain in the image. But I still suspect a good amount of DNR was used to reduce the appearance of grain and more importantly allow the video bit rate to be reduced to a more manageable level.

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 06-13-2009 01:36 PM

Mark,

Instead of the screen captures you want me to send, here are two links to reviews of the Blu-Ray edition of GRAN TORINO with screen captures.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=4910&show=review
http://www.collider.com/2009/0527/gran-torino-blu-ray-review

Brad is right about every digital copy should be exactly alike but we are not talking about the possibility of two seperate pressings of GRAN TORINO. There was only one pressing and it appears you purchased a copy that was not pressed correctly. This kind of thing has happened many times such as American postage stamps and currency to the delight of rare stamp & coin collectors that were printed/pressed in error and went into circulation. You have a legitimate reason to return the disc for another copy and you should not have any problem.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-13-2009 03:08 PM

Ummmmm NO. We are talking about a digital optical disc. Either it plays or it doesn't. There is no way they can "press it wrong".

I'll just dumb this down for everyone. There is something about Mark's setup that is making this particular movie look bad. His disc would look identical to Claude's disc if it was played in Claude's player.

[Roll Eyes]

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 06-13-2009 04:18 PM

Here's a link to another BR review with screen caps:
DVD Beaver GRAN TORINO

It looks like it's a very dark and low contrast movie. I only saw it on a bootleg DVD from a screener and it had the washed out look of Mark Gulbrandsen's screen caps. The caps on the reviews seem to have much lower contrast and/or gamma levels. No blooming in the bright areas but it almost looks like day-for-night shooting.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-13-2009 04:41 PM

Well...I can say for sure that the picture looked a lot brighter on our screen at the theatre than those screen caps!

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-13-2009 04:45 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Maybe there is some sort of image post processing stuff at work somewhere in the playback chain. The Playstation 3 console and many Blu-ray players have filters to sharpen the image, reduce noise and other stuff. The same thing goes for a lot of HDTV sets. I turn off all that crap. Seeing film grain in the image does not bother me the least little bit.

Ditto here...

quote: Bobby Henderson
I noticed was a good amount of crush and noise in the shadows during some of the darker scenes.

I agree it looks like the blacks are crushed but I don't see noise... I do see grain at times but not in dark areas. My image doesn't look anything like those screen shots from those web sites as you've seen but I suppose those reviewers have 5000 dollar sets and mine was a mere 1800 bucks. I tend to agree with Brad that every copy SHOULD be the same but they are obviously not. Also, no adjustment of any control on my set clears up the excessive contrast you see in my images. I think I'll rent a copy and see what that looks like. If it looks better I'll go to the store and show them the differences get my money back and buy the disk some place else. Also, as I mentioned the regular DVD that I bought to send to my dad doesn't look as contrasty as the BR does.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-13-2009 05:36 PM

Mark - why not just take your blu-ray to a local video store and ask them to compare it against one of their rental copies on their store player?

Looking at your screenshots, I can definitely see why you would complain, but there is no possible way you have a defective disc. All of the blu-rays would've been pressed from the same master unless if by some chance there were 2 manufacturing plants pressing them and somehow the master video file that went to one of them was completely fucked.

Regardless, if the blu-ray review sites grabbed shots direct from the discs (which I am sure they did as opposed to Mark photographing his tv image), there is no way I will purchase that on blu-ray. I do remember the annoying green tint to the movie on 35mm that Warner seems to like so much, but that is one of the worst looking transfers I've ever seen. I'll bet the pirated bootlegs looked better! [puke]

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-13-2009 06:02 PM

Geez, Even the regular DVD looks better!!!

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-13-2009 06:22 PM

You see, this just proves we don't need 4K. If a lower resolution DVD can look better than a blu-ray, the 2K can look better than 4K. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-13-2009 06:53 PM

quote: Joe Tommassello
It looks like it's a very dark and low contrast movie. I only saw it on a bootleg DVD from a screener and it had the washed out look of Mark Gulbrandsen's screen caps. The caps on the reviews seem to have much lower contrast and/or gamma levels. No blooming in the bright areas but it almost looks like day-for-night shooting.

Few problems:

The DVD format doesn't have the color fidelity and level of contrast that HD video on Blu-ray can show. So it's hardly valid as any sort of measuring tool.

There is no very good way to rip accurate screen shots from a Blu-ray disc due to the copy protection measures built into the format. Even the best attempts still have flaws. And there is the issue of inter-frame compression in both VC1 and AVC formats which also degrades the quality of any frame grab.

It's very difficult to take a decent photograph of a HDTV screen showing the movie paused. Most photos look pretty terrible, even if the movie on Blu-ray has great video quality.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 06-13-2009 08:01 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I still suspect a good amount of DNR was used to reduce the appearance of grain and more importantly allow the video bit rate to be reduced to a more manageable level.

Why, is the movie on a single layer BD with craploads of extras? If not, then the bitrate shouldn't be much of an issue. DNR is more likely to be used because people bitch and moan about grain since they do not understand it. I've heard people say that old movies like Ghostbusters, etc weren't in high definition because of all that grain and therefore cannot benefit from watching in HD vs the DVD. When these people bitch, some studios apparently listen. Stupid is as stupid does.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I tend to agree with Brad that every copy SHOULD be the same but they are obviously not.

And what evidence do you have to prove this? The only proof I will accept is if you can find another copy of Gran Turino on BD sold in the same region that looks different. So far you have not presented an example. If there was a bad master that some discs were pressed from, then that would mean that master would have to have been compressed and authored separately from the good master. Compression takes time and time is money (even though you can't pay your bills with time... I've tried). Also, you'd see a crapload of people bitching about the horrible image quality and so far there hasn't been much bitching other than to say that the picture quality ranges from good to mediocre, certainly nothing along the lines of what you are seeing.

quote: Bobby Henderson
And there is the issue of inter-frame compression in both VC1 and AVC formats which also degrades the quality of any frame grab.

Nope. If you grab an i-frame you'll be OK.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-13-2009 09:14 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
Why, is the movie on a single layer BD with craploads of extras? If not, then the bitrate shouldn't be much of an issue. DNR is more likely to be used because people bitch and moan about grain since they do not understand it. I've heard people say that old movies like Ghostbusters, etc weren't in high definition because of all that grain and therefore cannot benefit from watching in HD vs the DVD. When these people bitch, some studios apparently listen. Stupid is as stupid does.

Actually, Gran Torino is on a 50GB BD; however, the disc only has 33GB of data and the movie is only 29GB in size. I think Warner Home Video may have a philosophy in place to squeeze down file sizes whenever possible -even when there is ample space on the disc for the video stream to stretch its legs.

I agree a lot of people don't understand film grain and the idea that keeping the grain is a good thing. When the grain is smoothed out of the source image a lot of subtle details are thrown out as well. Most customers don't know this.

Most customers have only seen older movies like Ghostbusters on VHS or possibly on DVD. They're used to watching a low resolution video image with little if any visible grain in it. Ghostbusters will be released on Blu-ray in a few days and I'm sure a lot of the "unwashed" will be whining about all the grain just like they whined about Close Encounters or The Godfather.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.