[Stuart Wright]

AVForums Home Cinema Podcast : 18th July 2009

We discuss the latest home cinema news and discuss the question, 'How can old films look good in HD?'

(you may need to right-click and save).

Time: 55:26 Size: 63.4mb

The Guardian article discussed in the podcast can be found here.

Please reply to this thread with your feedback.

Send any questions or subjects you would like covered in future podcasts to 'podcast @ avforums.com'

[cas398]

Cheers, will give this a listen and post back.

The only podcast I listen to.

[cas398]

Pretty good, no complaints.

Glad one of you guys finally explained that expo thing because I didn't know what it was.

[Nelviticus]

Thanks for another entertaining podcast.

You don't want to be too harsh on poor old Peter Bradshaw, he's a film critic not an AV pundit. Yes he's wrong but his biggest mistake is being wrong in public.

It's a common misconception about analogue to digital; on the DVD recorders forum I tried to explain to someone that if you're recording VHS to DVD you want to use the highest quality setting you can. He wouldn't have it and got quite upset despite me trying to be polite and helpful.

So from that point of view it's good that Peter's gaffe is getting some publicity!

[David Mackenzie]

Yes, Peter Bradshaw isn't a techie so it's understandable that he's confused, but he should stick to what he's good at, especially given that there's the chance of people reading his technical musings and taking them seriously.

I had to put up with Peter Bradshaws while I was studying Film at University. There were lots of people who had absolutely no understanding (and no care of understanding) the technicalities, but still commented on these things which they didn't understand.

On one occasion someone was making insightful comments about a film and how the strong blue tint and defocused effect present throughout the first half represented the director's cold view of the harsh realities of communist Poland. I didn't want to be a smart-ass and normally I'd let this sort of thing slip, but on this occasion I'd had enough.

They were most non-plussed when I said that the blue tint and defocused look (which varied from reel to reel) were almost certainly not the director's intentions and that they more likely came from the fact that the copy of the film they'd seen had been transferred horribly on one of those old CRT-based telecines (probably in the 1970s or something).

My point being that a little bit of technical understanding of what goes on can benefit film critics.

[PioRow]

Where I think Peter Bradshaw and many other film fans go wrong is mistaking how they have experienced a film to how the director intended.
Most old films have been seen by film fans on a CRT TV and if they are lucky in a medium grade cinema from a reel of film that is of average quality. The DP and the director didnt intend for this film to be seen like this.
If these film fans went to hollywood, went to a high class screening room or the personal cinemas of some of the big film execs they would be able to experience films how the director intended. Original reels of film on quality projection equipment on quality screens. Thats how the film was intended to be seen. Same goes for sound. Just because you have got used to a average 5.1 system doesnt mean thats how the director intended you experience the audio of the film, again a reference system in a screening room.

I think people lik Bradshaw dont see a place for old films in the high def age and they are wrong. 1080p and 2k and even 4k are allowing us to see film how it was supposed to be seen. Just becuse you associate films like Casablanca with a certain look and feel (grainy, soft focus etc) doesnt mean thats ho the director intended it to be seen.

With regards to the laptop on a projector I dont think you can really classify yourself as a film fan if thats how you enjoy movies. Its a cheap and cheerfull way of getting a big screen picture but at least invest in a fold away screen and some sort of sound system!

[cas398]

So what is he saying exatly that when the film is transferred to Blu it loses it's original feel (grain for example) which he believes the director intended, and that is how it is viewed in SD?

So it's a case of not knowing exactly what the film should look like, being used to DVD or not accepting the fact Blu is a true representation of how the film should look

I don't really get the point of being a sceptic on this subject, but he is a critic I suppose. I thought the point was to enjoy the film in better PQ than the standard def version.


I see you guys got a mention;

" The experts from the AVForums podcast have discussed this blog article in their latest Podcast (from 39 and a half minutes onwards).

they were laughing so much they could barely quote the article - I understand the feeling... :-)"

[Pecker]

Thanks for the podcast guys. It's great to see a few myths dispelled, but I think perhaps you could have been just a tiny bit more generous to PB, and maybe a part of his point was not as was painted. Nonetheless, important to dispel the myth. Note my regular requests for a sticky/locky every time this is raised at the Blu-ray Disc forum (around once a month).

RE:

Originally Posted by David Mackenzie

I had to put up with Peter Bradshaws while I was studying Film at University. There were lots of people who had absolutely no understanding (and no care of understanding) the technicalities, but still commented on these things which they didn't understand.

On one occasion someone was making insightful comments about a film and how the strong blue tint and defocused effect present throughout the first half represented the director's cold view of the harsh realities of communist Poland. I didn't want to be a smart-ass and normally I'd let this sort of thing slip, but on this occasion I'd had enough.

They were most non-plussed when I said that the blue tint and defocused look (which varied from reel to reel) were almost certainly not the director's intentions and that they more likely came from the fact that the copy of the film they'd seen had been transferred horribly on one of those old CRT-based telecines (probably in the 1970s or something).

My point being that a little bit of technical understanding of what goes on can benefit film critics.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and risk being completely wrong, but my guess is that you were watching Krzysztof Kieslowski's Krótki Film O Zabijaniu (A Short Film About Killing), or possibly Trois Couleurs: Bleu (Three Colours: Blue).

If that was the case, then I'm afraid you probably let yourself down a little, David. I've seen interviews with Kieslowski where he explained how he worked with DoP Slawomir Idziak on A Short Film..., and used mainly green, but also a few blue filters to express the cold, harsh world of the killer, as exemplified by the city in which he lived. Indeed, he had to have many of the filters handmade.

The effect is well-documented, well-established, and much discussed by Kieslowski himself.

He used a similar technique in Trois Couleurs: Bleu (Three Colours: Blue).

If it was some other film than these two, then that's different, but I strongly suspect (knowing what I do about how film studies is taught and the classic exemplars used) that it was this film.

Steve W

[David Mackenzie]

Pecker: no, that wasn't the film (or director). What we actually watched was not a subtle cast; it was so blatantly wrong and the colours jumped around from reel to reel.

If it had been the film you mention, then the analysis would have had some merit, yeah.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by David Mackenzie

Pecker: no, that wasn't the film (or director). What we actually watched was not a subtle cast; it was so blatantly wrong and the colours jumped around from reel to reel.

If it had been the film you mention, then the analysis would have had some merit, yeah.

Cheers.

This podcast was another classic.

Steve W

[namuk]

I read this and listened to this Podcast ..
Peter Bradshaw needs to have a talk with Lucas if this will get that far ,one Question talking like that , how old is the Guy? everyone thinks Different but the key is in life is Educating your self,or use specsavers.. what is his main screen a bloody tomtom screen...

i am a late player to HD and not saying what is best, not going there

I no one thing there slacking on PQ since then,


THX

Good podcast i could of lasted longer bye far and this was the norm , but it is hard to to compress a discussion ..

[Pecker]

I was very interested in the discussionon 3-D.

I have my own thoughts about the process as a cinematic device, but it was interesting to hear comments about how well (or badly) you all felt it was working in practice.

Steve W

[cas398]

Originally Posted by Pecker

I as very interested in the discussionon 3-D.

I have my own thoughts about the process as a cinematic device, but it was interesting to hear comments about how well (or badly) you all felt it was working in practice.

Steve W

Now you mention it I would liked to have heard some examples of how 3D movies are improving.

I heard you guys say the techniques they use are getting better but I don't think I heard any examples, like how Coraline in 3D for example compares to older film.

It would have been interesting to hear considering it's been a long time since I've seen a 3D film.

[Pecker]

Interesting discussion on the Phillips 21:9 TV, too (it was a packed programme this month).

You note the poor PQ (especially for the money), which is what I expected. But you only touched on what 4:3 & 1.85:1/1.69 material might look like, which is of very great importance as this is a TV set, and most broadcasts are in 16:9, with a few in 4:3 and only a tiny amount in 'scope.

For the money you could buy a very good 60" plasma which would have far better PQ, a far bigger 4:3 picture, a far bigger 16:9 picture and, perhaps surprisingly, a slightly bigger 'scope picture.

Which would you rather spend your £4.5K on?

From some discussion at the forums it would appear that some people would happily sacrifice both size and PQ just for the CIH factor.

Steve W

[Phil Hinton]

Originally Posted by Pecker

Interesting discussion on the Phillips 21:9 TV, too (it was a packed programme this month).

You note the poor PQ (especially for the money), which is what I expected. But you only touched on what 4:3 & 1.85:1/1.69 material might look like, which is of very great importance as this is a TV set, and most broadcasts are in 16:9, with a few in 4:3 and only a tiny amount in 'scope.

For the money you could buy a very good 60" plasma which would have far better PQ, a far bigger 4:3 picture, a far bigger 16:9 picture and, perhaps surprisingly, a slightly bigger 'scope picture.

Which would you rather spend your £4.5K on?

From some discussion at the forums it would appear that some people would happily sacrifice both size and PQ just for the CIH factor.

Steve W

There will be a review when Philips finally send us a model. There is a long waiting list at the moment it would seem as everybody is interested in this new TV. Our discussion in the podcast is based on our look at the technology on a showfloor at CEDIA, never a good place to make any judgements on image quality as things are never set up correctly. David will be reviewing it when it's ready as he is best placed with his authoring and video processing knowledge from hsi film transfer work to evaluate Philips use of processing in this TV. He has instant access to test material or can make test patterns quickly to test these issues, which are clearly the biggest talking point.

Our reviews are based on Industry standards, so it doesn't matter what aspect ratio that display is, image quality to what is intended to be seen is paramount. I.e. correct greyscale and colour performance along with contrast.

The arguements about CIH seem to be based on two areas where the lines get blurred between intention of the mastered material and playback against a directors framing. As the mastered material is an accurate representation (in 8 bit video terms) of that framing, I don't think that arguement is valid. So the final arguement must be on playback. As always that should be to industry standards in our reviews for intended video level quality and playback. Where it gets complicated is when picture processing is introduced to scale the material to the Philips TV native resolution, this will be the main area of interest.

I think any arguements over image size are pretty pointless as, well 2.35:1 is wider than 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 and 1.33:1. The :1 is constantly the same height. On a TV the sidemasking will be black bars. On the Philips the 1.85:1 image is still a good size of approx 40" (not really done the exact sums) and 1.33:1 will be smaller again, but no smaller than an old 4:3 CRT TV. Obviously people may be concerned with side bars and if thats the case, then a 60" plasma that does CIW would probably suit better. But I don't see the bars as a problem. After all if the content you are watching is any good, the image quality of the display is accurate and there are no obvious flaws with the tranfer to pull you out of the movie, it will be immersive at any size (and ratio) as you forget where you are and watch the film etc.
Of course that is assuming that owners of this TV follow the aspect ratios and switch the screen to suit, or if they just expand everything to fill the screen. Knowing joe Public, it will be super stretch on everything! and in super blue vision! LOL.

It's an interesting TV and I can't wait to see what our tests turn up...

I'm going to stick my neck out here and risk being completely wrong, but my guess is that you were watching Krzysztof Kieslowski's Krótki Film O Zabijaniu (A Short Film About Killing), or possibly Trois Couleurs: Bleu (Three Colours: Blue).

If that was the case, then I'm afraid you probably let yourself down a little, David. I've seen interviews with Kieslowski where he explained how he worked with DoP Slawomir Idziak on A Short Film..., and used mainly green, but also a few blue filters to express the cold, harsh world of the killer, as exemplified by the city in which he lived. Indeed, he had to have many of the filters handmade.

The effect is well-documented, well-established, and much discussed by Kieslowski himself.

He used a similar technique in Trois Couleurs: Bleu (Three Colours: Blue).

If it was some other film than these two, then that's different, but I strongly suspect (knowing what I do about how film studies is taught and the classic exemplars used) that it was this film.

Steve, there is a big difference to a poorly set up display or poor transfer, to what was intended with filters. As we work to accurate image quality it is very easy to determine which source is wrong or what was intended, even by eye. Its easy to see an overly blue looking TV image against a blue tinted film look.

Of course to see material as it has been mastered, you need to stick to standards for playback. Have you had your display calibrated yet? It's about time....

I was very interested in the discussionon 3-D.

I have my own thoughts about the process as a cinematic device, but it was interesting to hear comments about how well (or badly) you all felt it was working in practice.

Yet to see anything that has convinced me that it is anything other than a gimmick, even for just pure entertainment. I think I am accurate in saying I have seen demos of every technology that is being pushed so far. But lets see, Cameron may just pull it off - although the time it is taking, those types of productions will probably be niche.

As for Peter Bradshaw, well I have yet to hear from a film critic who actually has any technical understanding of what they are watching. He has done nothing but make himself look silly, but I'm sure they will be happy with the publicity. For someone in his position not to understand that film has more resolution then high definition is unforgiveable, especially if his film reviewing covers home formats. The only thing he said right IMHO was a projector is the best way to get cinema at home, but even then he completely missed the point. Poor guy...

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by Phil Hinton

Our reviews are based on Industry standards, so it doesn't matter what aspect ratio that display is, image quality to what is intended to be seen is paramount. I.e. correct greyscale and colour performance along with contrast.

Phil, I knew that was your opinion, but it's great to hear you repeat it.

Originally Posted by Phil Hinton

The arguements about CIH seem to be based on two areas where the lines get blurred between intention of the mastered material and playback against a directors framing. As the mastered material is an accurate representation (in 8 bit video terms) of that framing, I don't think that arguement is valid. So the final arguement must be on playback. As always that should be to industry standards in our reviews for intended video level quality and playback. Where it gets complicated is when picture processing is introduced to scale the material to the Philips TV native resolution, this will be the main area of interest.

I think any arguments over image size are pretty pointless as, well 2.35:1 is wider than 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 and 1.33:1. The :1 is constantly the same height. On a TV the sidemasking will be black bars. On the Philips the 1.85:1 image is still a good size of approx 40" (not really done the exact sums) and 1.33:1 will be smaller again, but no smaller than an old 4:3 CRT TV. Obviously people may be concerned with side bars and if thats the case, then a 60" plasma that does CIW would probably suit better. But I don't see the bars as a problem. After all if the content you are watching is any good, the image quality of the display is accurate and there are no obvious flaws with the tranfer to pull you out of the movie, it will be immersive at any size (and ratio) as you forget where you are and watch the film etc.
Of course that is assuming that owners of this TV follow the aspect ratios and switch the screen to suit, or if they just expand everything to fill the screen. Knowing joe Public, it will be super stretch on everything! and in super blue vision! LOL.

Only two areas, Phil? I make it around twenty two!

For me (and I suspect for you too, but I won't put words in your mouth) OAR on a good, and well set-up display is 99% of the point. Get that right, and as long as the display is up to scratch you're laughing. Get that wrong and nothing else you do can make it right.

Originally Posted by Phil Hinton

Of course to see material as it has been mastered, you need to stick to standards for playback. Have you had your display calibrated yet? It's about time....

I've just PM'd you.

Originally Posted by Phil Hinton

As for Peter Bradshaw, well I have yet to hear from a film critic who actually has any technical understanding of what they are watching. He has done nothing but make himself look silly, but I'm sure they will be happy with the publicity. For someone in his position not to understand that film has more resolution then high definition is unforgiveable, especially if his film reviewing covers home formats. The only thing he said right IMHO was a projector is the best way to get cinema at home, but even then he completely missed the point. Poor guy...

I can't totally agree that I've not seen a film critic who has no technical understanding. When Blu-ray Disc was launched Marc Kermode made several very intelligent and knowledgeable comments about it.

A great podcast this one, as it covered so many topical and interesting areas.

Best wishes.

Steve W

[enhgusdaf]

Not sure I agree with the comments made about Blu-ray recorders, namely that if ITV HD doesn't relax from their 'copy never' flagging then there is no point in a HDD/Blu-ray Recorder combi.

First and foremost the HDD side will not be effected by such flagging so full recording features of all channels will be available - only archiving to disc would be prevented.

Secondly the vast majority of channels will allow archiving to Blu-ray disc even if only one copy can be made. Personally I have no problem with that - mass production of copyrighted material is not on my agenda - and I suspect for those who aspire to this they would not use a HDD/BD-R recorder! Material that isn't protected (i.e. personal camcorder footage) will allow as many copies as you so wish.

Thirdly the HDD/BD-R will allow archiving of long SD content on BD disc. Even with a DVD-R DL you are limited to about 2hrs at max DVD bitrate. BD-R will allow that time limit (and maybe the bitrate) to be pushed.

I do agree that, as with standard def, HDD only PVRs will become the norm rather than HDD/BD-Rs. But I think they offer the same benefits for High Def as current HDD/DVDRs offer for standard def. IMHO anyway.