Patton

[Kuroman]

Just picked up the superb Patton Blu-Ray. Kudos to 20th Century Fox for an outstanding restoration and transfer...and for the terrific interview with Francis Ford Coppola. If you like this film you will love this disc.

 

[jostenmeat]

Just picked up the superb Patton Blu-Ray. Kudos to 20th Century Fox for an outstanding restoration and transfer...and for the terrific interview with Francis Ford Coppola. If you like this film you will love this disc.

I'm very sorry to burst your bubble. This title might be the most hated by videophiles, due to truly excessive DNR.

"Despicable" Patton comparison *PIX*

 

[Shock]

Patton was on showcase action today. It's a pretty good movie.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I did not get a bad review from the two sites I rely on. Minor quibbles but otherwise both said it was an outstanding transfer.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Patton-Blu-ray/679/

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1341/patton.html

 

[jostenmeat]

I did not get a bad review from the two sites I rely on. Minor quibbles but otherwise both said it was an outstanding transfer.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Patton-Blu-ray/679/

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1341/patton.html

Honest question, does either site ever rail on PQ? Over at AVS, we sometimes use the adjective of "Pattonize" to describe excessive DNR.

I think of the other movie which really disappointed me with excessive DNR, Pan's Labyrinth, and in fact this title had me think that my rather new PJ at the time was defective. I was thinking, how can my RS1 be suffering some weird looking white crush, or something? The girl's face sort of looked like a blurry topographic map. Bright white splotch at cheek bone, surrounded by a slightly less white ring, which itself was surrounded, etc.

So, I look at bluray.com for it, and they gave that 4.5/5. Hm.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pans-Labyrinth-Blu-ray/611/

 

[j_garcia]

IMO, Pan's Labyrinth already looked like that on the DVD, so I am not so sure it is the transfer or DNR that did this. I saw it in the theater and the PQ was already not that great.

 

[jostenmeat]

IMO, Pan's Labyrinth already looked like that on the DVD, so I am not so sure it is the transfer or DNR that did this. I saw it in the theater and the PQ was already not that great.

The bluray.com reviewer mentioned that he enjoyed grain, and that the theatrical release provided more grain, at the expense of some softness. I wouldn't be surprised if some of what I saw was due to excessive contrast boost (which I think I have learned that most movies do, when I was asking around about my bewilderment with how incredible the shadow detail was in Les Quatre Cents Coups).

 

[lsiberian]

Just picked up the superb Patton Blu-Ray. Kudos to 20th Century Fox for an outstanding restoration and transfer...and for the terrific interview with Francis Ford Coppola. If you like this film you will love this disc.

It's a great movie, but I'm waiting for Lawrence.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Honest question, does either site ever rail on PQ? Over at AVS, we sometimes use the adjective of "Pattonize" to describe excessive DNR.

Yes they do. I have found most, but not all of the stuff they have reviewed to be pretty darn accurate from what I have seen myself. This is just one example, but I have read many others.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2957/dreamscape.html

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dreamscape-Blu-ray/9139/

Question for you. I don't see the DNR from the screen shots they posted on Blu-ray.com. Is it possible the some of that edge enhancement is coming from adding a sharpening filter to photos from whatever photo program that is being used. Some programs add sharpening by default and you have to specifically find it and reduce it or turn it off. How are those screen shots being taken and are they being over processed before being posted? Just asking not accusing.

For what it is worth, the correct way to take a screen shot would be to setup a custom white balance using either a projected grey screen or a grey card illuminated by the ambient light from the scene. Next, the photo should be shot in RAW. Little or no processing of the photo should be done before converting it. Only a very small amount of sharpening is needed when processing RAW photo's. Most people do not understand this at all and I doubt High-def digest or blu-ray.com follows that either. Of course all that is assuming that the people looking at the screen shots have also calibrated their monitors correctly.

 

[jostenmeat]

jeffsg4mac, I really don't know, and TBH, I only rarely look towards bluray.com for reviews. As for the screen caps provided in the link in my first my response in this thread, they were taken by a poster name "Xylon", and it is precisely because they are controlled shots that we all bee-line towards his threads. I read how/why they are controlled a long time ago (probably years now), and I've looked for that explanation since, and once again just now, and can't find it.

I would be not surprised in the slightest if other forums like bluray did not use controlled screen shots. I only say that because with the projector reviews by Feierman, he'll use many, many comparative screenshots from all sorts of competitors, and yet he's the first one to tell you they are not controlled shots. They are there simply to help the narration/dialogue of the review.

Finally, IMHO, I think the DNR is still evident in the bluray.com screenshots, after I click on them and blow them up some, however it's a lot easier to tell with Xylon's caps because he blows them up quite a bit more for us. I pretty much can only detect DNR by looking at faces, if there is no side-by-side comparison available. Of course, with a side-by-side, you can compare just about anything, including t-shirts.