A.I. Transfer - very patchy

z5461313

Prominent Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
686
Points
519
Hello

Just watched the R2 of A.I.

When it starts it is terribly patchy and grainy - I have never seen such a bad transfer. I thought the whole point of DVD was to have smooth detailed pictures

Also in the layer change - at the flesh fair - I noticed the worst lyp synch ever

Talk about how to make a good film bad!!

I am seriously thinking about taking it back and getting a refund as it must be the worst DVD transfer in my collection
 
I also thought it looked a bit rough, I had no problems with lipsinc.
 
how about a "sticky" thread for people to complain about this film?
 
Hi,

I was annoyed by the transfer too. I know sometimes the director likes to have grain in the film, but from a viewers point of view, it is so easy for the eyes to pick up, you can't but help looking at it, so it annoying. Now especially where most homes have huge tvs, it even worse.

I assume they wanted it like this, but it nothing we can do about it now. Has anyother steven.s films overloaded with grain?


rai
 
I don't think the grain is intentional. It does not look like film grain but rather digital noise. I think they did a rough job transfering it.

I ddi not see the film in the cinema but a friend of mine with an industry background did and made note of the disparity between the noise on the dvd and the fairly normal looking print he saw.
 
It's not a "bad" transfer. This is the way S. Speilberg wanted it to look. "Futuristic".

I watched it on my HTPC, on a 6ft screen, & you couldn't believe how bad it looked. I even checked my setup as I thought I had a serious problem.

IMO, if it looked "clean", the film WOULD have lost that "image" he was going for. To be fair, how can a director give a film a certain "look", without introducing "effects" such as this?
 
Never the less the "grain" on the AI dvd looks nothing like pushed film grain. It looks like a rather simplistic digital noise filter.

Even overtly grainy film footage when transferred to video can lose its grain in the process by virtue of the downsample to video resolution. I suspect they've banged digital grain over the top after transfer to try and recapture the desired look and pretty unrealistic grain it is too.

Its ugly as hell.
 
I have seen better VHS transfers
 
Steven Spielberg and his cinematographers like to use lots of smokes on their sets as they find it adds more atmosphere and the light defracts in the air more.

Who really gives a **** anyway. The first film to be digitally projected (i.e highest quality) will be Attack of Clones. And judging by Episode 1 and the most recent trailer - a decent transfer aint gonna save that piece of souless ****.
 
Totally off-topic but attack of the clones is far from the first film to be digitally projected I think you meant shot digitally. Even then its only portions of the film not every scene. Even then digital cinematography still does not capture as much information as film in all areas: resolution , dynamic range , colour gammut.

And anyway we were talking about the dvd transfer of AI.
 
It is the first film to be digitally projected as its the first studio film to be shot on digital cameras and then will be projected on digital projectors in limited screens in America. For everyone else it's converted back to film. Also I think that Ep2 was shot on digital cameras during special effects scenes - i.e. every damn scene.

George Lucas is just in it for the money so for him he's cutting cost on the film and getting it converted to digital for fx shots anyway. I everyone continues to shoot on film - I think most directors wouldn't work on anythingelse.

Anyway, I answered the 'poor transfer' question - its in the special features somewhere probably if you bother to look.

"Blast. This is why I hate flying"
 
I'll have a look at the dvd and hear what they say but under no circumstances would I classify the transfer of AI being good. There are ways of retaining a grainy look to the transfer : AI looks like a bodge to me.

Digital capture for film has compromises over shooting on 35mm. Resolution is lower , intensity response is lower especially in the whites. Digtal projection again is less capable in resolution and dynamic range compared with either digital or film capture.

Net result just because its been shot digitally does not mean it will look superior on digital projection compared to a movie shot on film thats been transfered properly. digital is not superior its cheaper and faster and easier to get to a certain quality threshold whether thats acceptable compared with what is realisable with film is open to debate.

As for episode 2 I'll see if I can have a word with David Tattersall ( the DP on ep1 and ep2) who I'm currently working with or some of my mates at ILM as to what was shot digitally. I know for a fact ILM shoot vista for background plates.
 
Ive got the R1 special edition and I don’t recall it being grainy, I'll have a look when I get home. Are you referring to the first section in the house? What about the later sections i.e. the moon ship, fleshfair and city?
Mark
 
Awesome bit of name dropping there Mr D.
Long live film I say but when I looked at the new trailer it appeared in some shots that even the floor was digital .
 
Originally posted by redlum
It is the first film to be digitally projected as its the first studio film to be shot on digital cameras and then will be projected on digital projectors in limited screens in America. e.

ACtually Toy Story 2 was shown as a digital projection at the Odeon Leciester Square when it was first released, very nice it looked too.
 
I really think you're reading too much into the digital capture side of things. It doesn't bear much relevance when you go to digital projection as I've already said. Digital capture is not any more or less ideal for digital projection than properly transfered film material or CGI for that matter.
 
I've just had a look at the extras disc and I can't find any mention of intentional graininess. I'm convinced the grain on AI is just simply bad compression which is what I initially thought the first time I saw it. ( the film itself substantially improves on repeated viewing by the way)
 
I have to agree with Mr. D here.

I first saw this at the cinema (on a considerably larger screen!) and do not recall seeing the massive amount of grain then. The extras state that smoke was used a lot to soften the scenes but as Mr. D says - no mention is made of intentional grain on the film print itself.

Can any one dircect us to the source /article detailing Speilberg's use of this so called 'intentional grain'?
 
i have just watched A.I on region 2 and the transfer is an absolute disgrace. i have read reviews in some magazines saying the picture is good. This makes me think if they have actually watched the whole film. I have a Sony player and it copes with most discs superbly so i know it is not the player itself to blame. Although its been mentioned that the film has intentional grain i do not think that is what i am seeing when watching the movie. In fact in one scene when David is underwater the background is dancing about and breaks up badly. I agree with earlier comments that the transfer is a botched job and if i knew how bad it was i would not have bought this movie!
 
Originally posted by Adzman
If you're watching 4 grain.........


Adzman...

... you are perhaps interested in how the original cinematography has been translated from film to MPEG2 compressed video perhaps... especially in light of the numerous reviews on the net and else-where that either make no mention of the grain on the transfer or naively and even pompously suggest that people who in actuallity have more properly appraised the material and voiced honest concern with the quality of the transfer are somehow less than au fait with cinematic convention and technique... because otherwise they would actually covet what is in actual fact a compression artifact...

emperor's new clothes anyone ?
 
The relevent point in all this is, was it intentionaly done by Spielberg who obviously likes to oversee most of his work.
I think the answer is a resounding yes.
Looking at his past track record and taking Saving Private Ryan as just one example would tell you this.
Mr D, I did see this movie in one of the better Cinema's and I'm afraid the look was very similar.

I would very much like to know WHY Spielberg chose to introduce this hazy/grainy look, call it what you will.
My best guess is that as in movies where storys are set in the past and we look back, this grainy look gives the viewer the feeling of times past etc.
Following on from this school of thought, and I'm only guessing here, looking into the far future can be an uncertain and need I say 'hazy' affair also.

On a side note, I know this film didn't go down well with many but I have to say, this is my favourite movie in the last few years. Simply superb.

Eric
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom