calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Ya la tengo en casa.
Última edición:
The Godfather Trilogy - Ultra HD Blu-ray 50th Anniversary Collector's Edition
- Autor Archibald Alexander Leach
- Fecha de inicio
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Esta entrevista a James Mockoski de Zoetrope y Andrea Kalas de Paramount sobre la nueva restauración de la película puede resultar interesante, sobre todo por lo que se refiere al grano y DNR, que es otro de los temas un tanto controvertidos entorno a la nueva edición.
uproxx.com
‘The Godfather’ Restoration Team On Making The Trilogy Look Gorgeous
We spoke to the team who restored ‘The Godfather’ movies for the new 4K release and, as they tell us, it was an enormous challenge.
uproxx.com
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Bueno, y Harris ya se ha quitado la careta.
Leer a partir de aquí de ese post todo lo que dice no tiene desperdicio:
As noted previously, many people who don’t speak “film” will be thrilled with these new editions, as with the exception of the first shot in GF 1, nothing (in 1 & 2) looks like any sort of actual color film.
The final products are fully digital representations of the originals, with all film grain removed and replaced by a (not unattractive) black noise pattern, ie. not a bit of original granular color to be had, and will be considered pretty by many people.
This separates those who understand and desire the look of film in the digital world from those who either aren’t troubled by the change, or are accepting of it and like it, from those who pray at the shrine of cinema.
The story, direction, acting, editing and audio hold this product together because those attributes are that good.
There is nothing wrong with liking the final product, but as it is accepted by the majority, it may well be tolling the death knell of any further or continuous movement to properly represent the true look of cinema, as opposed to digital productions - which are totally different - although some fully digital productions go 180 degrees, adding the attributes of film grain.
The ability to replicate the look of film was supposed to be a major advantage of Blu-ray and HD - marketed as the look and sound of cinema, and made further possible via 4k UHD, which can absolutely create the look and textures of film in the digital world - but with a release of this importance taking on fully digital attributes, one must wonder where the industry will move next.
One thing for certain, it seems that Paramount (and Disney) will be the leaders in this change of art forms, and those executives who proffer the new look will rise in their fields, as it is far less expensive to produce a product of this type than to follow a path that properly replicates film as film. As this movement toward a new look gathers strength, small things in the recent (and not so recent) past, such as the new digital look for Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief, can be more fully understood, as The Godfather(s) take those basic attributes and not only raises them to appear far more like film, but moves toward if not perfection, but a pleasant homogenized appearance, and makes them very acceptable.
Go back a bit further, and one can find earlier experiments with releases such as Patton, In Harm’s Way, Gangs of New York, and Amadeus, as early exponents in the removal of film grain, but with nothing added to cover one’s tracks. We’ve come far beyond that point, and reached a plateau where grain removal and re-purposing are no longer extremely problematic, aside from some odd ”grain” patterns, and occasionally waxy faces.
It will be interesting to follow this and see where it goes. But at least now, there’s an absolute known by studio people who can use the “restore” word.
The public is fine with this as a final product.
And it’s extremely difficult taking a position arguing against that."
www.hometheaterforum.com
Ahora sí que opina el Sr. Robert A Harris, ahora sí. Antes parecía que su cuñao le había suplantado la identidad.
Leer a partir de aquí de ese post todo lo que dice no tiene desperdicio:
As noted previously, many people who don’t speak “film” will be thrilled with these new editions, as with the exception of the first shot in GF 1, nothing (in 1 & 2) looks like any sort of actual color film.
The final products are fully digital representations of the originals, with all film grain removed and replaced by a (not unattractive) black noise pattern, ie. not a bit of original granular color to be had, and will be considered pretty by many people.
This separates those who understand and desire the look of film in the digital world from those who either aren’t troubled by the change, or are accepting of it and like it, from those who pray at the shrine of cinema.
The story, direction, acting, editing and audio hold this product together because those attributes are that good.
There is nothing wrong with liking the final product, but as it is accepted by the majority, it may well be tolling the death knell of any further or continuous movement to properly represent the true look of cinema, as opposed to digital productions - which are totally different - although some fully digital productions go 180 degrees, adding the attributes of film grain.
The ability to replicate the look of film was supposed to be a major advantage of Blu-ray and HD - marketed as the look and sound of cinema, and made further possible via 4k UHD, which can absolutely create the look and textures of film in the digital world - but with a release of this importance taking on fully digital attributes, one must wonder where the industry will move next.
One thing for certain, it seems that Paramount (and Disney) will be the leaders in this change of art forms, and those executives who proffer the new look will rise in their fields, as it is far less expensive to produce a product of this type than to follow a path that properly replicates film as film. As this movement toward a new look gathers strength, small things in the recent (and not so recent) past, such as the new digital look for Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief, can be more fully understood, as The Godfather(s) take those basic attributes and not only raises them to appear far more like film, but moves toward if not perfection, but a pleasant homogenized appearance, and makes them very acceptable.
Go back a bit further, and one can find earlier experiments with releases such as Patton, In Harm’s Way, Gangs of New York, and Amadeus, as early exponents in the removal of film grain, but with nothing added to cover one’s tracks. We’ve come far beyond that point, and reached a plateau where grain removal and re-purposing are no longer extremely problematic, aside from some odd ”grain” patterns, and occasionally waxy faces.
It will be interesting to follow this and see where it goes. But at least now, there’s an absolute known by studio people who can use the “restore” word.
The public is fine with this as a final product.
And it’s extremely difficult taking a position arguing against that."
UHD Review - A Few Words About - A few words about...™ -The Godfather(s) 50th Anniversary Restoration -- in 4k UHD
Here is a good discussion on the movie with two longtime fans and one guy who saw it for the first time last night.
Ahora sí que opina el Sr. Robert A Harris, ahora sí. Antes parecía que su cuñao le había suplantado la identidad.
Última edición:
Hinomura Krycek
Bayofilo
Esto es como esos vídeos rodados con un iPhone a 4K en los que les metes el filtro de VHS para que parezcan de los 80.
Te quito el look de celuloide y luego para que no quede limpio y navideño te pongo un grano digital de pegote, y más o menos cuela.
En fin...
Te quito el look de celuloide y luego para que no quede limpio y navideño te pongo un grano digital de pegote, y más o menos cuela.
En fin...
¿Y los audios sabemos algo?
Boomer
Miembro habitual
La I y II traen el redoblaje.
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Otro comentario de Harris ya definitivo:
So that readers understand, the 2022 re-imagining is in no way except for continuity, based upon our 2007 DCP.
It is totally different.
The DCP is correct to the 1972 original.
The 2022 is not.
Pretty, but not in any way authentic.
Después de esa afirmación, le preguntan: ¿Y los Blu-ray de 2008 difieren del DCP de 2007 en solo ese 1 punto de rojo?
Respuesta:
Or less
En definitiva: Quieres ver El Padrino: Bluray 2008
Y algo más de Harris de ese mismo dia:
A bit of detail regarding reference and color memory, as discussions are occurring on the inter-web.
Color memory is an extremely difficult thing to gauge. Mine is reasonably good, probably above average, but I'd never depend upon it for anything other than generalities.
For GF, we actually had two bona fide references - neither a used release print. Both in perfect condition.
The first was the final dye transfer answer print.
The second was a mute dye transfer density print, presumably struck just before the track was added.
Mr. Willis screened the answer print, and signed off with specific notes, along with Allen Daviau.
Nothing by memory.
Absolutely nothing
So that readers understand, the 2022 re-imagining is in no way except for continuity, based upon our 2007 DCP.
It is totally different.
The DCP is correct to the 1972 original.
The 2022 is not.
Pretty, but not in any way authentic.
Después de esa afirmación, le preguntan: ¿Y los Blu-ray de 2008 difieren del DCP de 2007 en solo ese 1 punto de rojo?
Respuesta:
Or less
En definitiva: Quieres ver El Padrino: Bluray 2008
Y algo más de Harris de ese mismo dia:
A bit of detail regarding reference and color memory, as discussions are occurring on the inter-web.
Color memory is an extremely difficult thing to gauge. Mine is reasonably good, probably above average, but I'd never depend upon it for anything other than generalities.
For GF, we actually had two bona fide references - neither a used release print. Both in perfect condition.
The first was the final dye transfer answer print.
The second was a mute dye transfer density print, presumably struck just before the track was added.
Mr. Willis screened the answer print, and signed off with specific notes, along with Allen Daviau.
Nothing by memory.
Absolutely nothing
Última edición:
Hinomura Krycek
Bayofilo
A saber, igual todavía no la había visto...
De hecho en el hilo de hometheaterforum, cuando al principio "defiende" la edición (creyendo que se verá como el DCP) ya dice que no la ha visto porque no le han enviado ninguna copia, creando cierta confusión porque según él habían corregido el sutil viraje rojizo del Blu-ray. Por eso parecía un poco gagá. No he seguido el hilo desde entonces, pero entiendo que la habrá visto posteriormente y a raíz de ello es cuando cambia radicalmente de opinión denostando con razón la nueva tonalidad en la colorimetría.
calibrador
Borinot sense trellat
Pues ahí tenéis la última de RAH.
Parece que algo más cabreado de lo habitual, se ve que al final le han tocao los cataplines.
I keep getting pulled back in.
I’ve been receiving messages regarding confused posts over at other sites, that should to be addressed and clarified.
Here we go.
1. The 2022 release appears more highly resolved for a single reason. Viewers are comparing the 2008 Blu-ray to the 2022 UHD.
If the 2007 restoration were released in 4k (it is a full 4k restoration) it would be equally resolved, and possibly more so, based upon the amount of de-graining and filtration used to finalize the 2022.
2. We were blessed to work with a superb colorist, who was able to not only entertain our needs, but bring them to the screen to perfection. We lacked no tools in 2007 that would have benefitted our work, beyond some digital clean-up algorithms. We worked more manually to an almost equal final result. The 2022 was able to detect and remove a bit more negative dirt - a positive. And the clean-up was performed beautifully. Although some new tools exist, they may have made our work easier, but with no change to the final result.
3. There seem to be continuous rumors that Mr. Willis was somehow removed from the proceedings because he was not in the color room for six months.
This is totally false.
Even though he was not in Burbank during the restoration, he screened our reference print, confirmed its propriety, and gave copious notes.
Fellow cinematographer, Allen Daviau was at his side, and at ours on an almost daily basis.
We spoke with Mr. Willis at least several times a week, along with emails.
Mr. Willis, where appropriate, was sent data files for viewing on an on-going basis.
Mr. Willis and Mr. Daviau screened the final 35mm prints derived from the recorded negatives, and approved with comments based upn the different printing stocks available at the time.
Mr. Willis had not gone feeble-minded during the restoration. Nor had Mr. Daviau, nor yours truly.
4. Some additional footage - possibly a minute’s worth was located during the 2022 work, which began in late 2019, just pre-Covid, and not 2017, that footage makes some of the work look slightly better, and a shot or two problematic. I’m pleased that the additional shots were located.
5. Our reference print for GF1 was neither faded nor damaged in any way, and was a perfect reference to which our team worked slavishly to properly reproduce within the 4k digital realm.
6. We spent two months working with and testing the varying types of elements (OCN, Technicolor 3-strip, seps, CRI, IP) used in the restoration to make them transparent on a shot by shot basis.
7. We produced frame-accurate continuities, tracking and correcting problems due to the re-cutting of the negatives c. 1997, which included the removal of virtually all handles needed to create printer functions of the proper length, and created work-arounds for each problem, also used in the 2022 version.
8. At no time were we technically restricted or unable to properly reproduce the precise looks, densities, shadings, black or white levels and grain structures as demanded by Mr. Willis, and as seen in the original reference print - even when working with second generation elements.
At no time did we expose densities contained in the elements not designed to be seen on screen. Nor did we restrain or massage what have been discussed on-line and in the new documentary, as “blown-out” highlights, especially in the wedding sequence.
There seems to be a feeling that something is somehow wrong with these shots, and that Mr. Willis may have exposed his negative improperly.
His negative (except for night two of the Italian restaurant sequence, which was improperly processed) was perfectly exposed to achieve his desires by design, and meant to be printed precisely. Changes made in the 2022 work do not represent his intentions, and from comments in the documentary, seem to be a re-visualization by the colorist, and possibly not the direction that Paramount intended - due to Covid.
9. Many reviewers and comments in threads have discussed the beautiful “organic grain” seen in the 2022 variant.
Aside from possibly the first shot in the film, I’m able to find no “organic grain,” only monochromatic digital noise, which affects the original look in very negative ways, especially in GF II.
10. Have digital anomalies been added?
Yes. But nothing that will damage the viewing experience from a proper seating distance.
One example right up front. Mr. Brando’s formal shirt is crawling with what appears to be odd replacement grain in the shot of him seated at his desk with the cat. Not a clue how that was managed.
11. I will agree that the 2022 is very pretty, and is easily digestible, even while making use of technologies unnecessary (HDR and grain reduction) to the proper reproduction of the film.
12. What makes the 2022 release work is the underlying film, the greatness of which can be compromised by technology, but can still come away greatness intact.
All of that noted, those who enjoy the new 4k, and either like or are unaware of the digital changes are fortunate, as in the final analysis - and I’ve said this before - unless one is seeking the near-absolute reproduction of the 1972 and 1974 films as they appeared on-screen at that time, none of this truly matters.
Those who purchase the 2022 UHD discs can luxuriate in a beautiful product.
My overriding concern is that this not become industry practice, and that the original intent of cinematographers’ visions remain unchanged in the digital world, as there is zero reason why they should not.
RAH
www.hometheaterforum.com
Parece que algo más cabreado de lo habitual, se ve que al final le han tocao los cataplines.
I keep getting pulled back in.
I’ve been receiving messages regarding confused posts over at other sites, that should to be addressed and clarified.
Here we go.
1. The 2022 release appears more highly resolved for a single reason. Viewers are comparing the 2008 Blu-ray to the 2022 UHD.
If the 2007 restoration were released in 4k (it is a full 4k restoration) it would be equally resolved, and possibly more so, based upon the amount of de-graining and filtration used to finalize the 2022.
2. We were blessed to work with a superb colorist, who was able to not only entertain our needs, but bring them to the screen to perfection. We lacked no tools in 2007 that would have benefitted our work, beyond some digital clean-up algorithms. We worked more manually to an almost equal final result. The 2022 was able to detect and remove a bit more negative dirt - a positive. And the clean-up was performed beautifully. Although some new tools exist, they may have made our work easier, but with no change to the final result.
3. There seem to be continuous rumors that Mr. Willis was somehow removed from the proceedings because he was not in the color room for six months.
This is totally false.
Even though he was not in Burbank during the restoration, he screened our reference print, confirmed its propriety, and gave copious notes.
Fellow cinematographer, Allen Daviau was at his side, and at ours on an almost daily basis.
We spoke with Mr. Willis at least several times a week, along with emails.
Mr. Willis, where appropriate, was sent data files for viewing on an on-going basis.
Mr. Willis and Mr. Daviau screened the final 35mm prints derived from the recorded negatives, and approved with comments based upn the different printing stocks available at the time.
Mr. Willis had not gone feeble-minded during the restoration. Nor had Mr. Daviau, nor yours truly.
4. Some additional footage - possibly a minute’s worth was located during the 2022 work, which began in late 2019, just pre-Covid, and not 2017, that footage makes some of the work look slightly better, and a shot or two problematic. I’m pleased that the additional shots were located.
5. Our reference print for GF1 was neither faded nor damaged in any way, and was a perfect reference to which our team worked slavishly to properly reproduce within the 4k digital realm.
6. We spent two months working with and testing the varying types of elements (OCN, Technicolor 3-strip, seps, CRI, IP) used in the restoration to make them transparent on a shot by shot basis.
7. We produced frame-accurate continuities, tracking and correcting problems due to the re-cutting of the negatives c. 1997, which included the removal of virtually all handles needed to create printer functions of the proper length, and created work-arounds for each problem, also used in the 2022 version.
8. At no time were we technically restricted or unable to properly reproduce the precise looks, densities, shadings, black or white levels and grain structures as demanded by Mr. Willis, and as seen in the original reference print - even when working with second generation elements.
At no time did we expose densities contained in the elements not designed to be seen on screen. Nor did we restrain or massage what have been discussed on-line and in the new documentary, as “blown-out” highlights, especially in the wedding sequence.
There seems to be a feeling that something is somehow wrong with these shots, and that Mr. Willis may have exposed his negative improperly.
His negative (except for night two of the Italian restaurant sequence, which was improperly processed) was perfectly exposed to achieve his desires by design, and meant to be printed precisely. Changes made in the 2022 work do not represent his intentions, and from comments in the documentary, seem to be a re-visualization by the colorist, and possibly not the direction that Paramount intended - due to Covid.
9. Many reviewers and comments in threads have discussed the beautiful “organic grain” seen in the 2022 variant.
Aside from possibly the first shot in the film, I’m able to find no “organic grain,” only monochromatic digital noise, which affects the original look in very negative ways, especially in GF II.
10. Have digital anomalies been added?
Yes. But nothing that will damage the viewing experience from a proper seating distance.
One example right up front. Mr. Brando’s formal shirt is crawling with what appears to be odd replacement grain in the shot of him seated at his desk with the cat. Not a clue how that was managed.
11. I will agree that the 2022 is very pretty, and is easily digestible, even while making use of technologies unnecessary (HDR and grain reduction) to the proper reproduction of the film.
12. What makes the 2022 release work is the underlying film, the greatness of which can be compromised by technology, but can still come away greatness intact.
All of that noted, those who enjoy the new 4k, and either like or are unaware of the digital changes are fortunate, as in the final analysis - and I’ve said this before - unless one is seeking the near-absolute reproduction of the 1972 and 1974 films as they appeared on-screen at that time, none of this truly matters.
Those who purchase the 2022 UHD discs can luxuriate in a beautiful product.
My overriding concern is that this not become industry practice, and that the original intent of cinematographers’ visions remain unchanged in the digital world, as there is zero reason why they should not.
RAH
UHD Review - A Few Words About - A few words about...™ -The Godfather(s) 50th Anniversary Restoration -- in 4k UHD
I get it, but that shot just looked weird to me. Given SDR cannot capture the entire range of 35mm, I wondered. But case closed there. There are no problems with SDR.
Así sí, Mr. Harris. Cristalino.
He visto las dos primeras películas en 4K (pero sin HDR) y en general, me ha gustado mucho cómo se ven. Claro que yo no era fan (ni mucho menos) del trabajo de Harris y compañía para los Blu-ray: a mí siempre me pareció que la trilogía tenía unos tonos cálidos muy forzados que no estaban en las versiones que yo había visto previamente. Claro, que yo nunca he visto estas películas en 35mm y a saber. En algunas ocasiones, noto cambios que quizá sean demasiado llamativos, e incluso variaciones de color (en el despacho del Don en las primeras escenas del primer film). También, el epílogo de la Parte II se ve algo raro, como si el material viniera de una segunda copia o similar. Pero globalmente, sin haber visto capturas, comparativas, etc. me parece que los Blu-ray 4K están muy bien, con largos, larguísimos segmentos de la Parte II que son una verdadera maravilla. Ya contaré que me parece la Parte III, que era la película más perjudicada por el trabajo de Harris, con marrones y rojos añadidos para asemejarse a las dos primeras películas, que siempre me parecieron fuera de lugar.
La PARTE III se ve aún mejor (fue rodada en Super 1.85, es decir, un negativo mayor, con lentes más modernas, nítidas y contrastadas, tanto que en mi opinión luce demasiado moderna) pero sobre todo porque esos artificiales tonos amarillentos que introdujeron en la restauración o edición anterior -para igualar algo más su aspecto al de las dos primeras películas- ha desaparecido en gran medida. Queda una película amarillenta o más bien marrón, pero como era por diseño y no por imposición (Harris confiesa por ahí que no tuvieron directrices para esta película, o al menos, directrices concretas). También han desaparecido los tonos rojos sobresaturados que estaban presentes en esa versión. Quizá lo que hayan hecho (no me he puesto a comparar) es oscurecerla un poco, o al menos, yo no recordaba ciertas cosas tan oscuras como en general se ve este film.
Lo que me genera ciertas sospechas es que el grano de la III es muy muy parecido al de las otras dos películas, siendo una emulsión diferente, tratada de diferente manera además. Tengo la sensación, que parece que Harris comparte, de que lo que han hecho es limpiar las tres películas y añadir un nuevo grano por encima. Les queda muy bien, si es que esto es así, pero no sé hasta qué punto es legítimo.
Lo que me genera ciertas sospechas es que el grano de la III es muy muy parecido al de las otras dos películas, siendo una emulsión diferente, tratada de diferente manera además. Tengo la sensación, que parece que Harris comparte, de que lo que han hecho es limpiar las tres películas y añadir un nuevo grano por encima. Les queda muy bien, si es que esto es así, pero no sé hasta qué punto es legítimo.
southernbitch
Miembro habitual
ahora mismo a 40 euros me está tentando...lo tengo en dvd...