Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by ognirats, Oct 19, 2021.
Grain or not, watching them work Let it Be into a song is quite startling!
There's nothing debatable in that article.
Yes there is. Your response only makes my point.
Filmed on a miles worse film stock, and scanned in 4K, it still looks better than Get Back.
There are screen-caps from Monterey Pop Criterion bluray
Other than what the author states are opinions, there isn't. You're wrong.
does this look better to anyone in here? more lifelike they said
In which Doris gets her oats?
You continue to make my point.
What you're seeing there is not film grain, it's digitally simulated film grain. The old bluray, with its gorgeous chroma grain retained, is superior in every way, expect compression.
I don't agree at all. And they did not use "simulated" film grain as far as I know: they a variety of techniques to grain manage every shot in the film. Colorist Jan Yarbrough at WB MPI was interviewed about the process about 18 months ago, and I was surprised to learn that it was as complicated as it was. He said they took two versions of the film -- one heavily noise-reduced, and one not noise-reduced at all -- and mixed between them together and used whichever image looked best. Sometimes it was a split screen; sometimes it was a composite; sometimes it was 33% of one and the rest the other; sometimes it was vice-versa. Sometimes they composited first from the lightest parts of the image (which would have the most grain) and leave the rest alone. As I say, it was a complex, painstaking process.
As far as I know, the 4K Godfather Dolby Vision remasters have gotten rave reviews everywhere -- I have yet to read a bad one. Do you have a link for criticism? To me, it held up pretty damned well.
Ya know, speaking of grain...
I got into it with Murray Lerner at the premier of a restored version of Festival over this topic.
Billy: Mur, the grainy quality of the footage is a really nice touch. Was that an intended effect or a product of the film's age?
He was visibly taken aback and responded:
Murray: Actually, I don't think it's grainy at all. In fact, I believe all things considered it's remarkably clear.
Billy: (sitting down) Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Then some guy who looked and sounded like a cross between Truman Capote and Andy Warhol practically leapt out of his seat to ask the next question.
Truman: Come clean with me, Murray! The camera wasn't the only thing in love with Mary Travers! What was going on between the two of you?
Lerner was visibly shaken and abruptly ended the Q&A. Make of that what you will.
Yeah the fact that this got mostly positive reviews is incredibly sad and also a threat to film preservation if it means this is the look the restoration them at Paramount will aim at for all their work, and archive back to 35mm for posterity. The new GF restorations is on of the most audacious abuse of digital restorations tools I've ever seen, couldn't decide if I was to laugh or cry at the mess.
I suppose it depends on what kind of "look" one appreciates.
New restoration: Looks like it was shot with digital cameras with a modern color grade and artificial looped clean and sterile grain structure (look closely and you can sometimes see when the digital grain loop resets and start over lol) which moves with the characters. Ugly!
Old 4k restoration: Looks like film, save for compression issues. Gorgeous!
I believe you're mistaken, at least about Godfather.
Get Back Blu-ray just arrived in the mail and I'll report back when I dig myself out from under a lotta work that started this week.
Seen the Godfather 4K Blu-ray screencap from blu-ray.com
I don't like what they did to grain, however it doesn't seem to damage the viewing experience when watching the film on a TV screen.
I think the best way to talk about restoration quality is to ask yourself "what would criterion do?". When it comes to restoration, they are one of the most professional lads in the world. And remember, Peter Jackson did not give us the version with grain. It's not like the white albums and Sgt pepper where you can choose between like 4 different mixes
The idea is to preserve art, not to compromise its integrity. The art was complete. Jackson but had to curate it.
Film 101: The detail is in the grain.
If not, we can take every famous photo shot on celluloid from 1835 to the present, degrain every one, and replace it with the degrained version.
Will people still say, "Magnifique! We have improved the image?"
Film is just work parts. The two movies as released are the art, like it or not.
The art, itself, was originally captured on 16mm celluloid. Without the images there is no whole. The direction and photography was already done for Jackson. His job was to act in an editorial capacity. Sure, he is a director, but there was nothing for him to direct. Instead, he compromised the art, itself, by eschewing its filmic integrity at its source.
Certainly, the Get Back film is a new work of art; however, one can construct a building, a ship, a home, or whatever, with shoddy materials, but the end product will always reflect that, which it has. This is why film students study the art of film, from the director, to the cinematographer, to the camera operators, etc., because really, although we watch the finished product, we are also watching the many hands on the wheels, behind the scenes. The ball can be dropped by any one person, which proves that we are only as strong as our weakest link(s). In the case of Get Back, the ball was dropped post-production (or maybe before).
But I get it, if one doesn't care about film, Get Back is probably aces. Is ignorance bliss? Perhaps. If one believes in consumer reports, it's only fitting that Get Back has received every bad review that it deserves, from people who review PQ, day in and day out.
I'm not saying that it's "wrong" or "bad" for somebody to enjoy the PQ of Get Back; I'm merely stating that the "new work of art" is an affront to film preservation/integrity, especially if we consider the many rigors that film foundations go through to preserve film, often at the expense of private donors.
On the flip, first world problems, right?
I don't agree with what Jackson did regarding the grain reduction/removal, among other things, but saying "The art was complete" isn't true. Raw footage isn't a finished film, it's...raw footage. Admittedly the definitions of "director" and "editor" get a bit blurred in a situation like this, but like it or not, Get Back is Peter Jackson's film, not Lindsay-Hogg's.
Now, if Apple releases a restoration of Let It Be overseen by Jackson with similar grain removal, that's a different story. That's a finished film.
I in no way said that the "art was complete." I never wrote that anywhere. Follow the bouncing ball, as I mentioned only the tip of the iceberg of what goes into making a film, and how each part is concurrent, or predicated upon, another part.
Whether we realize it or not, while watching a film, we aren't just watching the movie, the plot, the sound and/or the PQ. We're watching a hierarchical process of stacking artforms, one atop the other, which fundementaly starts with direction and principle photography. Without that, your film is nothing.
The artform in capturing the raw footage is one of the most important, if not the most important aspect of gathering quality material to build that boat, a house, or a film. We're seeing every bit of that when we watch, too. If you were gifted an original 16mm still from the session, I'm sure most of us would be happy to have it, with many framing it and sporting it in a prominent place. Because that piece of art was finished within the abovementioned hierarchy.
It is the integrity of the principle photography that should not be compromised, any more than any other aspect of a film, especially one actually shot on celluloid, as it is the lifeblood of the image, which includes the detail within the grain. I'll continue to call my blood, "blood," but once you've taken out the white blood cells, it's still blood, only bad blood. A bad movie.
The preservation of film respects all aspects of what went into the original capture.
It's actually exactly what you said:
All of my other comments stand as written.
Oh, I wasn't even looking at my first post. I thought that it was clear after my second post, when I clarified that the art of principle photography and directing was complete, once Jackson got his hands on it.
On the other hand, I know that I'm only writing an extremely cursory overview of filmmaking, but I don't see why it's so difficult to envision the dovetailing of several isolated and/or integrated, artforms into one larger artform that we call a movie.
Thats the way it works. Facts. No one artform within a greater work should be compromised, lest the whole thing be compromised, from a preservation perceptive.
Is this actually a point of disagreement?
Jackson is the director. He decided he wanted the film to look that way. Really no different than Steven Soderbergh deciding he wanted very specific, very noticeable (and unnatural) color timing for Traffic. Or Alexander Payne filming Nebraska in color but deciding it should be presented in black and white. Or any number of other examples. "Preservation" has nothing to do with it.
I can vehemently disagree with Jackson's decision to use his denoising techniques with Get Back, but that is different than, say, taking issue with the transfer of Citizen Kane that scrubbed away the rain through the window.
Today I'd put the Warner Archive at the top of the hill - their record with Blu-rays is nearly spotless.
Criterion effs things up at times.
Preservation has everything to do with it, because it's archive footage. The examples you cited are directorial decisions exacted in some phase of original production, not taking footage from a vault and maintaining its integrity for consumer release.
Evidently, we're discussing two different things.
The preservation and restoration of film (as the two go hand in hand) is the optic by which I'm viewing Get Back, by breaking down its artistic components into its basic constituents. More often than not, restoration is a means of preservation, as wise heads have dedicated their lives to preserving film as close as possible to the original celluloid. They set for themselves rigorous standards, and egregious use of DNR is not a part of those standards.
In sum, screwing with the whole is not respecting the parts, which are artforms in themselves. I feel it's a kick in the dick to the original photographers, as well as the media the images were captured on. Get Back does not even respect the period and the technology of 1969, let alone the artistic endeavors that went into capturing the footage.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a bunch of Matthew Brady photographs to wipe the grain from and post them all over the internet.
My griping does nothing anyway.
Separate names with a comma.