Movie blurays

[THRILLHO]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Did you just call me an extremist because I don't prefer film grain?

Go create a thread where you post your home theater calibration (if you're old enough to actually own a home theater, which I'm guessing is no). All of your settings are probably at ten.



Sounds like a great idea for a modern rebranding of the Superbit or Criterion collections....... One of the best releases akin to what you are getting at would still be Blade Runner's HD was release. The 4k transfer of the film is nice and not overly grainy -ahem-, but you can't beat the content in that 1080p release....

no i called you an extremist based on your assumptions about me based on one snarky comment i made, that was vitriol in your definition apparently.

i'd post my home theater info and age but hey, you already know all about me so that's redundant right?

[Ninjinister]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Sounds like a great idea for a modern rebranding of the Superbit or Criterion collections....... One of the best releases akin to what you are getting at would still be Blade Runner's HD was release. The 4k transfer of the film is nice and not overly grainy -ahem-, but you can't beat the content in that 1080p release....

Yeah Criterion was what I had in mind. I mean it'd be a long shot to see one specifically for TMNT, since it's ultra-niche and not even film nerd niche. I mean we still don't even have a Director's Cut in most countries.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Ninjinister

long shot to see one specifically for TMNT, since it's ultra-niche and not even film nerd niche.

It shouldn't be this way either. For example, if people allegedly have all sorts of strange film respect for The Dark Crystal - an uncompelling morbid puppet show of strangeness - then the original TMNT flick should have some clout for the at-the-time cutting edge puppetry and pretty solid urban narrative & cinematography.

But then again, I suppose if that happened then film snobs would sort of have to acknowledge Garbage Pail Kids by proxy and we know that isn't going to happen, soooo......

[Ninjinister]

Originally Posted by IMJ

It shouldn't be this way either. For example, if people allegedly have all sorts of strange film respect for The Dark Crystal - an uncompelling morbid puppet show of strangeness - then the original TMNT flick should have some clout for the at-the-time cutting edge puppetry and pretty solid urban narrative & cinematography.

But then again, I suppose if that happened then film snobs would sort of have to acknowledge Garbage Pail Kids by proxy and we know that isn't going to happen, soooo......

If I remember right, it was also the highest-grossing indie film of all time up to that point.

I do think I personally would argue it has historical and artistic merit, but Turtles is always considered small fish even in contexts where it dominated.

[d_osborn]

There's precedent for non-art house releases by Criterion. Hell, there's a Criterion DVD for The Rock!

And they wouldn't get rid of the grain!

[IMJ]

LOL!

I don't mind film grain as much as was perceived by that other dufus. But my point was take a movie like 300, where film grain was introduced to the film as an artistic measure and then greatly exacerbated by high-def.

I just don't like it to overwhelm the image because it reduces verisimilitude and takes you out of the immersion of the story.

[d_osborn]

To each their own!

From what I understand, the film is so grainy in parts due to Golden Harvest pushing the film exposure because they thought it was too dark. "Pushing" is the process of leaving it in the chemical bath longer, making the image brighter AND grainy.

Whoever our hero publisher is, I hope they hire Isaac and the Definitive Film "TURTLE POWER" guys to produce the supplemental content.

[sgtfbomb]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

There's precedent for non-art house releases by Criterion. Hell, there's a Criterion DVD for The Rock!

And they wouldn't get rid of the grain!

It's been a while since I've seen Criterion handle films like The Rock and Armageddon.

I'd imagine, if anyone, it would Shout Factory. They're currently licensing titles from WB and have a history of doing of like-titles, such as Power Rangers and Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation. They've also delivered long-requested alternate cuts, like Nightbreed and Exorcist III.

Plus, they'd most likely handle all 3 films.

Then again, Warner Archives has been stepping up a little. About a year or so ago, they released the 3-hour cut of Superman and recently they released the international cut of Mr. Nice Guy, which is a Golden Harvest title.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

To each their own!

From what I understand, the film is so grainy in parts due to Golden Harvest pushing the film exposure because they thought it was too dark.

This was an interesting factoid I hadn't heard before. -thumb's up-

[sgtfbomb]

Even with the exposure push, the 1990 film has arguably the best cinematography of the series. With its use of shadows and natural lighting in the farm scenes, it gives the film a sense of rawness (the extreme graininess is straight up punk rock-ish at times, flashbacks especially) and compliments the creature designs in a way its successors never did. To me, it's still the only film where it genuinely feels like the Turtles are in the real world.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

Even with the exposure push, the 1990 film has arguably the best cinematography of the series. With its use of shadows and natural lighting in the farm scenes, it gives the film a sense of rawness (the extreme graininess is straight up punk rock-ish at times, flashbacks especially) and compliments the creature designs in a way its predecessors never did. To me, it's still the only film where it genuinely feels like the Turtles are in the real world.

110%. The DP and Barron did a lot of testing to give it that exact feel, too. It's a shame they didn't stick with the look for SOTO.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by THRILLHO

Predator and T2 are huge examples of this. so bad that they were redone by the studios.

They didn't even get it right with T2. The whole thing has been drenched in a vat of teal! The horror...why does every film have to be filtered in teal today?

Originally Posted by IMJ

LOL!I don't mind film grain as much as was perceived by that other dufus. But my point was take a movie like 300, where film grain was introduced to the film as an artistic measure and then greatly exacerbated by high-def.

But wasn't 300 shot digitally? I mean I'm pretty sure it would have no grain if it wasn't shot on film.

Originally Posted by d_osborn

From what I understand, the film is so grainy in parts due to Golden Harvest pushing the film exposure because they thought it was too dark. "Pushing" is the process of leaving it in the chemical bath longer, making the image brighter AND grainy.

From what I understand the first movie is very grainy because that film was shot with Golden Harvest's standard film stock. It ended up looking unsurprisingly like one of their martial arts movies. When the first movie took off they then had the money to use better film stock for the sequels.

Originally Posted by Ninjinister

Yeah Criterion was what I had in mind. I mean it'd be a long shot to see one specifically for TMNT, since it's ultra-niche and not even film nerd niche. I mean we still don't even have a Director's Cut in most countries.

If you look at the stuff Shout Factory in the US release or Arrow in the UK release a lot of that stuff makes the 90s TMNT famous as hell. If that really obscure stuff can get a 4K or 2K scan with tons of extras these movies can as well as they're more well known.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by pferreira

But wasn't 300 shot digitally? I mean I'm pretty sure it would have no grain if it wasn't shot on film.

That's why I said verbatim that it was introduced to the film as an artistic measure. That one in particular looked fine and carried the vibe in the theater, but under HD it's completely over saturated.

[sgtfbomb]

Originally Posted by pferreira

They didn't even get it right with T2. The whole thing has been drenched in a vat of teal! The horror...why does every film have to be filtered in teal today?

It is awful and even worse when you view the other cuts of the film, which intercut the new transfer with the old.

I love 4K and HDR, but the need to check off the later by giving it those ugly teal/orange gradings is a real turn off.

[pferreira]

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

It is awful and even worse when you view the other cuts of the film, which intercut the new transfer with the old.

I love 4K and HDR, but the need to check off the later by giving it those ugly teal/orange gradings is a real turn off.

I held off buying it. I will wait for Cameron or another studio to do the film justice.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by pferreira

From what I understand the first movie is very grainy because that film was shot with Golden Harvest's standard film stock. It ended up looking unsurprisingly like one of their martial arts movies. When the first movie took off they then had the money to use better film stock for the sequels.

Barron discussed Golden Harvest pushing the exposure on an old podcast-- I believe I have the file. I have no doubt that a cheap film stock was used. Other than the creature FX, TMNT 90 was low budget.

SOTO looks wildly different for a variety of reasons-- different director, different DP, larger budget (better stock), producer notes/direction/demands, etc.

Originally Posted by IMJ

That one in particular looked fine and carried the vibe in the theater, but under HD it's completely over saturated.

Is your TV calibrated?

[Slap-Happy]

Originally Posted by bwwd

Heavy grain on origin story was because Steve used 16mm film on it as stylistic choice to make it old but producers werent that happy about it and it almost didnt made it to the film.Normally its shot on 35mm.
First movie is dark because comics were and its was great choice.

Just to set the record straight, the first film was not shot on 16mm, it is still 35 albeit occasionally very grainy. There is a depth to the images of most shots that simply isn’t there with 16mm.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

Barron discussed Golden Harvest pushing the exposure on an old podcast-- I believe I have the file. I have no doubt that a cheap film stock was used. Other than the creature FX, TMNT 90 was low budget.

SOTO looks wildly different for a variety of reasons-- different director, different DP, larger budget (better stock), producer notes/direction/demands, etc.


Is your TV calibrated?

It is indeed calibrated. I use a THX HD optimizer (can be found on several discs) as a base calibration, then Sony line resolution tools (can be found on select discs) along with a more recent Spears and Munsil (you'd have to buy that, but you knew that, right?) deep color HD gradient to match modern color delivery. I have a photometer and laser measure for distances and ambient room lighting, but I barely break those out anymore after the initial use both at home and for a few friends and some family as well. Home theater is a past time of mine, my friend. I've come {this} close to adding a wing under my LLC to start an installation and calibration business, but I'm too busy with my store efforts and properties.

Is your TV calibrated?

Because if you really are knowledgeable about home theater, then it would make more sense to be discussing the HD transfer of 300 just as we have discussed the production of TMNT '90 (the only tangible examples I've cited) before asking me about whether or not my entire TV was calibrated. And even then after hammering out the HD transfers of 300, you should be asking me about how I attenuate sharpness instead of whether or not the entire TV is calibrated. I mean, we are talking about film grain. Not refresh rate, or fine line quality or verisimilitude of shadowing. But film grain.

Originally Posted by Slap-Happy

Just to set the record straight, the first film was not shot on 16mm, it is still 35 albeit occasionally very grainy. There is a depth to the images of most shots that simply isn’t there with 16mm.

Factoid #2 that I didn't know about TMNT '90. Very cool stuff, when the conversation is normalized.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by IMJ

It is indeed calibrated. I use a THX HD optimizer (can be found on several discs) as a base calibration, then Sony line resolution tools (can be found on select discs) along with a more recent Spears and Munsil (you'd have to buy that, but you knew that, right?) deep color HD gradient to match modern color delivery. I have a photometer and laser measure for distances and ambient room lighting, but I barely break those out anymore after the initial use, and having done calibration for a few friends and some family as well. Home theater is a past time of mine, my friend. I've come {this} close to adding a wing under my LLC to start an installation and calibration business, but I'm too busy with my store efforts and properties.

Is your TV calibrated?

Because if you really are knowledgeable about home theater, then it would make more sense to be discussing the HD transfer of 300 just as we have discussed the production of TMNT '90 (the only tangible examples I've cited) before asking me about whether or not my entire TV was calibrated. And even then after hammering out the HD transfers of 300, you should be asking me about how I attenuate sharpness instead of whether or not the entire TV is calibrated. I mean, we are talking about film grain. Not refresh rate, or fine line quality or verisimilitude of shadowing. But film grain.

Easy killer! If you really are knowledgeable about home theater, then you would know a large bulk of people complaining about over-saturation simply didn’t calibrate.

I haven’t seen 300 in a LONG time (and don’t really have a desire to), so I have no skin in the game there. I actually gave up the home theater hobby, as well, about ten years ago. I was getting too deep into technical details rather than simply enjoying movies. I was looking at weak points in my setup rather than admiring gorgeous cinematography.

I save my technical richard-waving for cameras and lenses and grip gear, oh my. Even that’s starting to get a bit blasé. The DP at my production company handles my screen calibration.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of store do you run?

Originally Posted by Slap-Happy

Just to set the record straight, the first film was not shot on 16mm, it is still 35 albeit occasionally very grainy. There is a depth to the images of most shots that simply isn’t there with 16mm.

From what I understand, Barron had Brian Henson shoot the second unit flashback sequences on 16mm.

[sgtfbomb]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

From what I understand, Barron had Brian Henson shoot the second unit flashback sequences on 16mm.

Which I think is a great choice. The extra grain from the blow up from 16 to 35 plus the minimalist look of the scene really cranks up that "urban punk" vibe the film carries. I can't imagine it without the grain. The film would look too basic, too clean.