Theatrical Reference Thread

[Pirate]

There seems to be a lot of discussion when reviewing HD-DVDs and Blu-ray Discs about grain, focus, softness, and other such attributes that may or may not have been intended by the filmmaker. So, with that in mind, I thought we could update this thread with our cinematic experiences. Then we can later use this thread as a—ahem—reference.


A few rules about posting:

1. Don’t comment if you saw the film in a run-down cinema with a dirty, low-light projector. Unless, of course, the stylistic choices are still clear under those conditions.

2. Comment on what kind of cinema you saw the film in (conventional, DLP, IMAX, etc.).


Hopefully this will be helpful.


Reference Links:

1408

The Bourne Ultimatum

Goya's Ghosts

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

The Invasion

License to Wed

Live Free or Die Hard

Ocean's Thirteen

Ratatouille

SiCKO

The Simpsons Movie

Stardust

Sunshine

Superbad

Transformers

[Pirate]

Here's an example. You can use any format you like, though.

Ocean’s Thirteen

Cinema Type: DLP
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shooting Process: Super35

Experience:
The film was razor-sharp during indoor and any casino scenes. There was a prevalent amount of grain during very dark scenes and in skylines. Skin tones were accurate, but leaned a bit towards orange during daylight scenes.

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

Don’t comment if you saw the film in a run-down cinema with a dirty, low-light projector.

You just described almost every multiplex on the face of the Earth. I swear I can't remember the last time I saw a film in focus.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by dugpa

You just described almost every multiplex on the face of the Earth. I swear I can't remember the last time I saw a film in focus.

Exactly. You must have top notch theaters there in Knoxville. All I know is that there were good ones in Austin, but the DC area doesn't compete at all. Nice seats and looks, but the picture and sound are not as good.

[Iguana Man]

This is a neat idea, hopefully it will take off since it would help folks like me know what to expect a bit more from a HD dvd prior to buying it.

[ganthc]

Yes, it's a good idea. I will clarify and say that. Since you watch a lot of movies in theaters, it's good to know some reference titles.

[Pirate]

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still awful going to the cinema, but we have many DLP screens now. More often than not, the picture looks perfect.

[dugpa]

The problem with this thread is, what's reference mean? Some people consider film grain a negative, even when the director intentionally makes use of it. And of course Shooting Process only means so much since most any studio film with even the slightest effect added comes from a 2k digital intermediate (or 4k if it's a big budget film).

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by dugpa

The problem with this thread is, what's reference mean?

The way people use the word on this and other forums drives me crazy. Everybody has a different opinion on what a "reference" disc is. The way I'm using it is different. This is a thread to reference when reviewing a disc, as in the act of referring back to something. You'll never hear me say that anything on HD-DVD or BD is "reference."

I'm actually using the word correctly.

[Pirate]

1408

Cinema Type: DLP
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shooting Process: Unknown*

Experience:
A generally sharp picture with a fine misting of grain, mostly in darker shots and wide city shots. The film also has a few scenes that are intentionally soft. The film won’t "pop" in HD, but it should look crisp and clean.


* The film was probably shot using the Super35 process given that Hafstrom's last film, Derailed, looked similar.

[Pirate]

Live Free or Die Hard

Cinema Type: DLP
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shooting Process: Super35

Experience:
The film has a razor sharp picture with deep, almost crushing, blacks. There is grain throughout most of the film, but it’s only really noticeable in skylines and in wide city shots. This is odd, but the green screen work when the characters were in cars was terrible. I’m sure this was heightened by the DLP, so except the same when it hits HD.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

The way people use the word on this and other forums drives me crazy. Everybody has a different opinion on what a "reference" disc is. The way I'm using it is different. This is a thread to reference when reviewing a disc, as in the act of referring back to something. You'll never hear me say that anything on HD-DVD or BD is "reference."

I'm actually using the word correctly.

Unless the reference is to a perfect demo disc. Then it is being used properly.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Unless the reference is to a perfect demo disc. Then it is being used properly.

The point I've made since day one is that everyone uses the word differently, so why not just say "perfect demo disc"? Notice that people who use that word usually have to clarify.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

The point I've made since day one is that everyone uses the word differently, so why not just say "perfect demo disc"? Notice that people who use that word usually have to clarify.

That takes too long to type. Reference is concise. I know that when most people list such and such movie as a reference disc, I usually look at buying that disc because I know it to be a great demo disc. There hasn't been an instance where it hasn't.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

That takes too long to type. Reference is concise. I know that when most people list such and such movie as a reference disc, I usually look at buying that disc because I know it to be a great demo disc. There hasn't been an instance where it hasn't.

But there has been several instances where "reference," as defined by some, should have applied to other films, but it didn't because the word is subjective when used in this way. That's why I feel it's being used incorrectly.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

But there has been several instances where "reference," as defined by some, should have applied to other films, but it didn't because the word is subjective when used in this way. That's why I feel it's being used incorrectly.

Well, then you can use that term for those films and people can decide whether they want to add them as demo discs. Where is the problem?

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Well, then you can use that term for those films and people can decide whether they want to add them as demo discs. Where is the problem?

The problem is that it's poor communication. Unless we're all on the same page with a frequently used word, I see no point in using it. There are too many variations. The point of reviewing DVDs is to impart information, but if not everyone is clear on what Derb, you or me mean by "reference," there will be confusion. If writing "this is great demo material" is too much work, then maybe that person shouldn't bother.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

The problem is that it's poor communication. Unless we're all on the same page with a frequently used word, I see no point in using it. There are too many variations. The point of reviewing DVDs is to impart information, but if not everyone is clear on what Derb, you or me mean by "reference," there will be confusion. If writing "this is great demo material" is too much work, then maybe that person shouldn't bother.

I don't think that it's too much work (I was being sarcastic). It's just that reference = demo disc. I'm sure there are just as many variations for defining a demo disc. I think there are limits on how exclusive or snobby you want to be on reviews for movies. Allow for disagreements and differing opinions. That said, your current thread on setting a reference for theatrical releases is awesome. Most of us probably won't remember what the theatrical production looked like, but to have a reference for what it looked like will help in reviewing. Which goes to show that since memories of theatrical presentations are short, the result will be differing ideas of reference/demo material on disc.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I don't think that it's too much work (I was being sarcastic). It's just that reference = demo disc. I'm sure there are just as many variations for defining a demo disc. I think there are limits on how exclusive or snobby you want to be on reviews for movies. Allow for disagreements and differing opinions.

The thing is that there's usually no debate or disagreement. Someone states "reference" and that’s the end of that. If Derb (or whoever) was to put a disclaimer under each review with an explanation, this would be a non-issue. And if we want a concise phrase, we could use "demo" or "demo disc."

Originally Posted by ganthc

That said, your current thread on setting a reference for theatrical releases is awesome. Most of us probably won't remember what the theatrical production looked like, but to have a reference for what it looked like will help in reviewing. Which goes to show that since memories of theatrical presentations are short, the result will be differing ideas of reference/demo material on disc.

Thanks. I’m hoping the thread will be helpful for future HD viewing. I just wish more people were contributing, but it seems I’m the only one still going to the dreaded cinema.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

The thing is that there's usually no debate or disagreement. Someone states "reference" and that’s the end of that. If Derb (or whoever) was to put a disclaimer under each review with an explanation, this would be a non-issue. And if we want a concise phrase, we could use "demo" or "demo disc."



Thanks. I’m hoping the thread will be helpful for future HD viewing. I just wish more people were contributing, but it seems I’m the only one still going to the dreaded cinema.

You're the only one going to DLP cinemas, where we can get a great idea about how films are supposed to look. Everytime I go, the prints are damaged and there are sometimes low light levels. DLP makes a huge difference. Austin had more dlp theaters than DC does.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by ganthc

That takes too long to type. Reference is concise.

Bullpoop! I used Derbs 'reference' listing and bought 16-20 dvd's based on that alone. Personally, I'd like to see Derb burned at the STAKE ... Oh my..

Hold on....

GULP BEER!

Ok, personally, his 'reference' aint my reference. Plain and Simple.



Edited: If I sounded a bit harsh on ya Derb, take note it was all in jest.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Bullpoop! I used Derbs 'reference' listing and bought 16-20 dvd's based on that alone. Personally, I'd like to see Derb burned at the STAKE ... Oh my..

Hold on....

GULP BEER!

Ok, personally, his 'reference' aint my reference. Plain and Simple.

Derb also gave TFE 8/10 rating...which is ridiculous. But his 10/10 ratings have been pretty spot on. As far as dvd is concerned, I can't comment. I really don't watch those anymore, and doesn't really have meaning in the Highdef Software/Hardware thread. Even reference dvds that I thought were great now look less than impressive since I've been in hd. It's also why I don't watch normal cable channels either (with the exception of Monk, Psych, and Trading Spaces).

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Derb also gave TFE 8/10 rating...which is ridiculous. But his 10/10 ratings have been pretty spot on.

Now are you talking about his 10/10 ratings or his reference ratings?

[Pirate]

SiCKO

Cinema Type: 35mm
Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
Shooting Process: Various (DV, HDV, Archival Footage)

Experience:
Michael Moore’s latest film was shot using mainly HDCAM cameras (used for many TV shows). The primary footage was intercut with interview footage, archival footage and still images. I don’t know if this film will hit HD, but if it does, it’ll be a difficult one to judge. Grain obviously appears throughout most of the film and the archival footage is filled with damage spots. Most of the new footage is clean looking with so-so color saturation and black levels. The film won’t pop in HD, but it should look as intended.



Ratatouille

Cinema Type: DLP
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Shooting Process: Digital

Experience:
First off, let me just say what a gorgeous film Ratatouille is. Pixar never fails to amaze me. If Ratatouille doesn’t look near-perfect when it comes to HD… get your pitchforks and torches out. Like most of Pixar's other films, they’ve added stylistic elements to the animation. Some scenes are intentionally soft and there are several wide shots where focus techniques are employed. However, no grain was added. There are a few scenes that may be tough for compressionists (fog, dark city scenes, etc.), but expect great things.

The textures of clothes and tablecloths are simply amazing and the shots of the exquisitely rendered Paris are breathtaking. This film should sing in HD.

[Pirate]

Transformers

Cinema Type: DLP
Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1
Shooting Process: Panavision (anamorphic)

Experience:
Transformers looks like a typical Michael Bay film: gritty and… um… orangey, yet polished (expect edge-enhancement). There is A LOT of grain throughout the film and in some darker indoor scenes, the film can look very harsh—almost murky. However, daylight scenes are crisp and bright, and the blacks are rock solid. The close-up shots of the robots have an amazing amount of detail that should really shine in HD.