1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A.I. Transfer - very patchy

Discussion in 'Movie Forum' started by z5461313, Apr 2, 2002.

  1. z5461313

    z5461313
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,456
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +172
    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
     
  2. Timh

    Timh
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2000
    Messages:
    4,817
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Altair-4
    Ratings:
    +140
    I also thought it looked a bit rough, I had no problems with lipsinc.
     
  3. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    17,992
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +4,968
    how about a "sticky" thread for people to complain about this film?
     
  4. raigraphixs

    raigraphixs
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2001
    Messages:
    50,591
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +15,681
    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
     
  5. European

    European
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    ...I suppose you people didn't like the DVDs of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (eek! those streaks! ...and the grain!), TRAFFIC (yegghhh! those washed-out colours! ...and the grain!) and THE MATRIX (egads! that greenish tinge! ...and the grain!) either, eh wot?!...

    http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Review&id=715&story=2930

    . . . ;) . . .
     
  6. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    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.
     
  7. Kramer

    Kramer
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    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?
     
  8. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    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.
     
  9. z5461313

    z5461313
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,456
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +172
    I have seen better VHS transfers
     
  10. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    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 ****.
     
  11. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    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.
     
  12. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    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"
     
  13. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    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.
     
  14. MarkB

    MarkB
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Messages:
    737
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    Suffolk, England
    Ratings:
    +26
    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
     
  15. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    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 .
     
  16. Matt

    Matt
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    775
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Ratings:
    +21
    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.
     
  17. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    yes but that wasn't shot on digital cameras!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  18. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    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.
     
  19. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    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)
     
  20. HeadBanger

    HeadBanger
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2000
    Messages:
    1,765
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Ashingdon
    Ratings:
    +272
    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'?
     
  21. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    If you're watching 4 grain.........


    Adzman...
     
  22. eel

    eel
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    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!
     
  23. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    ... 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 ?
     
  24. Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Cheers for that Mr D.
     
  25. uncle eric

    uncle eric
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    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
     
  26. Lex

    Lex
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,089
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Ratings:
    +4
    I agree. Some of my friends criticised it for having a surreal and "unrealistic" ending, but I pointed out to them that it is not meant to be realistic, it is a modern day fairy tale, and I think you have to watch it with this in mind.

    I really loved it, and I am sorry but there really is nothing wrong with the transfer!

    Controversially,

    Lex!
     
  27. Rock Da Bass

    Rock Da Bass
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2002
    Messages:
    5,346
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    EU
    Ratings:
    +616
    Yep, this is the film Bicentennial Man should've been.

    Nothing wrong with the so-called graininess either. The picture is ultra sharp on Phantom Menace (another sci-fi epic) and it ends up looking bland and soulless. Perhaps Spielberg learnt from Lucas's mistakes?

    RDB :)
     
  28. HeadBanger

    HeadBanger
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2000
    Messages:
    1,765
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Ashingdon
    Ratings:
    +272
    As I have said in an earlier thread, I saw this at the cinema (on a huge screen) and do not recall the excessive graininess.

    Anyone else here see it at the cinema and agree?
     
  29. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,053
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,130
    I admit to not having seen the film in the cinema.
    However the dvd does not look like unusually grainy film transfered to video : the "grain" looks more like a digital artifact.

    So its either a mistake and down to a bad compression job or its an additional noise filter added to the transfer to attempt to recapture the overtly grainy look of the original film as exhibited on film: not that I have seen anything to the effect that the original was intended to be grainy.

    As I said earlier I have a friend who is a visual effects supervisor who saw the film in the cinema then commented on how awful the dvd transfer was with regard to the grain issue.

    I have looked online and have found nothing that indicates that the film was deliberately pushed or processed to up the grain. Maybe if we all have a look we might come up with the answer : supposition from badly written review sites not withstanding.
     
  30. andypandy

    andypandy
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    594
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Surrey, UK
    Ratings:
    +10
    I've read all the posts on this topic, but surely one of the obvious questions is what the hell is it like on R1. One post mentioned that he did not notice anything , although he was going to check [The end] !!!!??!!

    Can anyone comment on the R1 version of this film, or has no one got it.
     

Share This Page

Loading...