The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration Blu-ray Collection - 9/23/08
09-21-08, 04:42 PM
#151
DVD Talk Legend
Even a "slightly" improved picture and improved audio is worth the extra bucks for me. There is no way that the SD and Blu-Ray versions of The Godfather are going to really be that comparable on a large HD set. Now quit trying to sell us on just picking up the SD set.
09-21-08, 04:58 PM
#152
It takes more than a couple of months to do a BD encode and have discs ready to be pressed and packaged. So, no, the BD release wasn't thrown together at the last minute. BD releases are planned months in advance.
09-21-08, 06:35 PM
#153
DVD Talk Reviewer
Again, I've found that older films like Dawn of the Dead and Halloween look fantastic on Blu-Ray. The picture isn't sharp or 'platic-ish' with the 'wow' imagery of newer films, but there's much more detail than there was before. I couldn't believe some of the details I've never seen in those films before. I'm sure the Godfather restoration will be just fine on blu.
09-21-08, 08:52 PM
#154
From Robert Harris on blu-ray.com:
"There are a great many functions applied during the restoration, all based upon our selection of specific shots or frames from one element over another, that led to the final look and feel of the films on 35mm as well as Blu. I won't even get into SD, as our abilities there to replicate an image are so far removed from those of BD, that I prefer not to go there.
We began with between 150 to 155 minutes of slightly faded, heavily damaged and dirty OCN and from there scanned samples of every available dupe or preservation element we felt viable, inclusive of an original CRI produced in 1972 for UK and foreign.
In a number of cases we were saddled with dupe shots (some damaged as early as 1972), field enlargements, etc. that were up to fifth generation. A great deal of effort went into adapting and massaging these to make them work within the context of the film as a unit.
The general ethic we use in any restoration is to virtually disassemble the film, and then rebuild it using the best (the meaning of which changes on occasion) shots or frames available after side-by-side comparisons with their counterparts as well as original reference.
All decisions toward the creation of the final product were made with only film in mind. The idea that we made certain decisions, color corrections or whatever toward a potential SD or even HD release as I've seen posted elsewhere are laughable.
Referencing the CRI, we found that although it would ordinarily have been written off without inspection, that it had been produced slightly underexposed, ie. darker, which was beneficial in that some reels had less fade than they might, and allowed us to harvest certain shots from the unit.
I'll bring up one other anomaly here, that being the concept of "reference." We used the final Technicolor reference print of GF 1, which has survived under the aegis of the Academy Film Archive, as well as several dye transfer prints of GF 2 (courtesy of AMPAS, UCLA and Harvard Film Archive) as color and density reference, further supported by aid from Mr. Willis and Mr. Daviau.
We had found in the past and confirmed once again that Technicolor reference is not perfect, and the reason appears to be economic. Final density and color changes originally made their way into the printing process and final printing matrices. One gets to a place, whether attempting to maneuver a point's difference one way or the other, that the lab is going to cease the creation of six thousand feet of matrix for a small change.
Those anomalies become apparent through multiple examinations of the print, and some final tweaks which never made it into the "final" set of printing matrices are included in our 4k data files as well as all digital derivatives.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Penton, with appreciation for the loan of his thread. I'm not opening my own, as I have no need to deal with the "scientists" who apparently have all the answers."
"There are a great many functions applied during the restoration, all based upon our selection of specific shots or frames from one element over another, that led to the final look and feel of the films on 35mm as well as Blu. I won't even get into SD, as our abilities there to replicate an image are so far removed from those of BD, that I prefer not to go there.
We began with between 150 to 155 minutes of slightly faded, heavily damaged and dirty OCN and from there scanned samples of every available dupe or preservation element we felt viable, inclusive of an original CRI produced in 1972 for UK and foreign.
In a number of cases we were saddled with dupe shots (some damaged as early as 1972), field enlargements, etc. that were up to fifth generation. A great deal of effort went into adapting and massaging these to make them work within the context of the film as a unit.
The general ethic we use in any restoration is to virtually disassemble the film, and then rebuild it using the best (the meaning of which changes on occasion) shots or frames available after side-by-side comparisons with their counterparts as well as original reference.
All decisions toward the creation of the final product were made with only film in mind. The idea that we made certain decisions, color corrections or whatever toward a potential SD or even HD release as I've seen posted elsewhere are laughable.
Referencing the CRI, we found that although it would ordinarily have been written off without inspection, that it had been produced slightly underexposed, ie. darker, which was beneficial in that some reels had less fade than they might, and allowed us to harvest certain shots from the unit.
I'll bring up one other anomaly here, that being the concept of "reference." We used the final Technicolor reference print of GF 1, which has survived under the aegis of the Academy Film Archive, as well as several dye transfer prints of GF 2 (courtesy of AMPAS, UCLA and Harvard Film Archive) as color and density reference, further supported by aid from Mr. Willis and Mr. Daviau.
We had found in the past and confirmed once again that Technicolor reference is not perfect, and the reason appears to be economic. Final density and color changes originally made their way into the printing process and final printing matrices. One gets to a place, whether attempting to maneuver a point's difference one way or the other, that the lab is going to cease the creation of six thousand feet of matrix for a small change.
Those anomalies become apparent through multiple examinations of the print, and some final tweaks which never made it into the "final" set of printing matrices are included in our 4k data files as well as all digital derivatives.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Penton, with appreciation for the loan of his thread. I'm not opening my own, as I have no need to deal with the "scientists" who apparently have all the answers."
09-22-08, 09:30 AM
#156
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They created a restoration for DVD, they worked on it for ages...then a few months before the release date, they say "Hey...bluray just won the format war....lets slap this transfer onto bluray real quick"
the result is that the bluray version is probably similar to the new DVD transfer with improved colors.
the result is that the bluray version is probably similar to the new DVD transfer with improved colors.
1) Your assumption about the HD release of this film is WRONG.
1a) You don't seem to understand much about film restorations/home media releases. They're taking the source element that is much higher definition than Blu. Why would you want to buy the version with 1/8th the detail when you can get the version with 1/3rd the detail? Right now the Blu is around $10 more than the SD individual releases. It's not like we're paying triple or some crazy premium here.
2) We don't care if the Blu is not a huge upgrade from whatever DVD option is available. I have a 112" screen. DVDs look like shit on a 112" screen, especially compared to a "marginal" Blu. Well with an extra $10.
3) You are a "cool new member" and you're not starting off very well around here. You made your point about 8 posts ago. It so happens that nobody else here agrees with you. Your point was made, move on, sir. If you aren't banned and a year from now somebody posts that they wish they had just bought the DVD over the Blu (probability in the 1-2% range), you can feel free to link to one of your original posts and gloat.
09-22-08, 12:36 PM
#157
DVD Talk Legend
They created a restoration for DVD? Someone really thinks all that work goes into a 4K master when they only need to worry about a DVD version that will be missing much of the detail and color?
My BD version is ordered and I can't wait for it. I'm not expecting it to look like some CGI movie from 2008 and if that was all BD was really good for I never would have bought into the format in the first place.
My BD version is ordered and I can't wait for it. I'm not expecting it to look like some CGI movie from 2008 and if that was all BD was really good for I never would have bought into the format in the first place.
09-22-08, 12:48 PM
#159
Moderator
Paramount went the extra step to actually cull new 35mm prints from the restoration - I and II have been featured at the Castro in San Francisco and the Film Forum in NYC.
09-22-08, 12:59 PM
#161
DVD Talk Hero
09-22-08, 03:36 PM
#163
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just received my order from Borders and let me just say WOW! I cannot stress how great this transfer looks. It honestly feels like I was watching the movies for the first time all over again. Kudos to Robert Harris and company for a job well done.
09-22-08, 05:49 PM
#166
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Received my order from tower.com this afternoon and the set is simply the best set to ever be released on home video. Simply perfection. Every aspect of it.
Right now, I'm in the middle of The Godfather and it's like I've never seen this film before, in a good way. To me, The Godfather is the only perfect film in the history of cinema and watching this disc right now, to me, reaffirms my conviction on this film.
The transfer is striking.
If you have the equipment and the dollars to get this set in Blu-Ray, it is an absolute must for cinema fans. To me, your collection of Blu-Ray starts with this set and trickles down.
I hope and expect that the Rings Trilogy and the Star Wars Saga match this set because I just don't see another set matching this in the near future. It's utterly perfect.
Right now, I'm in the middle of The Godfather and it's like I've never seen this film before, in a good way. To me, The Godfather is the only perfect film in the history of cinema and watching this disc right now, to me, reaffirms my conviction on this film.
The transfer is striking.
If you have the equipment and the dollars to get this set in Blu-Ray, it is an absolute must for cinema fans. To me, your collection of Blu-Ray starts with this set and trickles down.
I hope and expect that the Rings Trilogy and the Star Wars Saga match this set because I just don't see another set matching this in the near future. It's utterly perfect.
09-22-08, 06:07 PM
#167
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NY NY
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Received my order from tower.com this afternoon and the set is simply the best set to ever be released on home video. Simply perfection. Every aspect of it.
Right now, I'm in the middle of The Godfather and it's like I've never seen this film before, in a good way. To me, The Godfather is the only perfect film in the history of cinema and watching this disc right now, to me, reaffirms my conviction on this film.
The transfer is striking.
If you have the equipment and the dollars to get this set in Blu-Ray, it is an absolute must for cinema fans. To me, your collection of Blu-Ray starts with this set and trickles down.
I hope and expect that the Rings Trilogy and the Star Wars Saga match this set because I just don't see another set matching this in the near future. It's utterly perfect.
Right now, I'm in the middle of The Godfather and it's like I've never seen this film before, in a good way. To me, The Godfather is the only perfect film in the history of cinema and watching this disc right now, to me, reaffirms my conviction on this film.
The transfer is striking.
If you have the equipment and the dollars to get this set in Blu-Ray, it is an absolute must for cinema fans. To me, your collection of Blu-Ray starts with this set and trickles down.
I hope and expect that the Rings Trilogy and the Star Wars Saga match this set because I just don't see another set matching this in the near future. It's utterly perfect.
09-22-08, 07:54 PM
#168
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few problems here.
1) Your assumption about the HD release of this film is WRONG.
1a) You don't seem to understand much about film restorations/home media releases. They're taking the source element that is much higher definition than Blu. Why would you want to buy the version with 1/8th the detail when you can get the version with 1/3rd the detail? Right now the Blu is around $10 more than the SD individual releases. It's not like we're paying triple or some crazy premium here.
2) We don't care if the Blu is not a huge upgrade from whatever DVD option is available. I have a 112" screen. DVDs look like shit on a 112" screen, especially compared to a "marginal" Blu. Well with an extra $10.
3) You are a "cool new member" and you're not starting off very well around here. You made your point about 8 posts ago. It so happens that nobody else here agrees with you. Your point was made, move on, sir. If you aren't banned and a year from now somebody posts that they wish they had just bought the DVD over the Blu (probability in the 1-2% range), you can feel free to link to one of your original posts and gloat.
1) Your assumption about the HD release of this film is WRONG.
1a) You don't seem to understand much about film restorations/home media releases. They're taking the source element that is much higher definition than Blu. Why would you want to buy the version with 1/8th the detail when you can get the version with 1/3rd the detail? Right now the Blu is around $10 more than the SD individual releases. It's not like we're paying triple or some crazy premium here.
2) We don't care if the Blu is not a huge upgrade from whatever DVD option is available. I have a 112" screen. DVDs look like shit on a 112" screen, especially compared to a "marginal" Blu. Well with an extra $10.
3) You are a "cool new member" and you're not starting off very well around here. You made your point about 8 posts ago. It so happens that nobody else here agrees with you. Your point was made, move on, sir. If you aren't banned and a year from now somebody posts that they wish they had just bought the DVD over the Blu (probability in the 1-2% range), you can feel free to link to one of your original posts and gloat.
Last edited by wd65733; 09-22-08 at 08:21 PM.
09-22-08, 08:20 PM
#169
wd65733
Probably said before, but the Godfather films had a lot of ambience to what they were all about. Dark. Smoke. Shadows. It was certainly possible to "clean" the grain from the film. Most certainly. But the Godfather would have looked unreal and unconvincing because I believe the grain actually adds a certain time element and if you read more from Gordon Willis, you'll come to understand this new HD transfer was not meant to be as free of grain as possible, but to preserve what it looked like on film.
Probably said before, but the Godfather films had a lot of ambience to what they were all about. Dark. Smoke. Shadows. It was certainly possible to "clean" the grain from the film. Most certainly. But the Godfather would have looked unreal and unconvincing because I believe the grain actually adds a certain time element and if you read more from Gordon Willis, you'll come to understand this new HD transfer was not meant to be as free of grain as possible, but to preserve what it looked like on film.
09-22-08, 09:14 PM
#171
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: H-Town, TX
Posts: 3,662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got done watching some of Godfather I & II. My random thoughts:
Part I - The color scheme is different than what I've been used to seeing all these years, but in a good way. The reds really stand out now. Check out Don Corleone's rose on his tux in the first scenes and Mo Green's blood looks a lot darker and more realistic now. The audio is improved as well. There are some bits of dialogue that came out a lot clearer than ever before. Great job by Coppola and Co.
Part II - A lot like Part I. The color scheme is different, but usually in a good way. The fleshtones are where things went bad however. At times, the actors look a little too tanned. The worst offender is unfortunately the final shot of Michael sitting alone. He's so orange, he looks like an Oompa Loompa. I'm not exaggerating. It's awful. And it nearly ruins one of my favorite closing shots in cinematic history. I'm not sure what happened here. As for the audio, it's fine. That gunshot at the end when Al Neri caps Fredo sounded a little different, but the mono track is included for the purist in me, so no harm done.
One of my minor nitpicks is the lack of burned-in subtitles. They're player generated. They look good, but considering nearly 25% of Part II is in Italian, I think they should've just left them burned-in. Again, I'm a purist about these things, so most likely won't be bothered by it.
So overall it's a great set. Highly recommended if you're a fan, but damn it, I just wish that last shot of Part II hadn't been so messed up.
Part I - The color scheme is different than what I've been used to seeing all these years, but in a good way. The reds really stand out now. Check out Don Corleone's rose on his tux in the first scenes and Mo Green's blood looks a lot darker and more realistic now. The audio is improved as well. There are some bits of dialogue that came out a lot clearer than ever before. Great job by Coppola and Co.
Part II - A lot like Part I. The color scheme is different, but usually in a good way. The fleshtones are where things went bad however. At times, the actors look a little too tanned. The worst offender is unfortunately the final shot of Michael sitting alone. He's so orange, he looks like an Oompa Loompa. I'm not exaggerating. It's awful. And it nearly ruins one of my favorite closing shots in cinematic history. I'm not sure what happened here. As for the audio, it's fine. That gunshot at the end when Al Neri caps Fredo sounded a little different, but the mono track is included for the purist in me, so no harm done.
One of my minor nitpicks is the lack of burned-in subtitles. They're player generated. They look good, but considering nearly 25% of Part II is in Italian, I think they should've just left them burned-in. Again, I'm a purist about these things, so most likely won't be bothered by it.
So overall it's a great set. Highly recommended if you're a fan, but damn it, I just wish that last shot of Part II hadn't been so messed up.
09-22-08, 09:26 PM
#172
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-22-08, 09:39 PM
#173
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After watching both the bluray and dvd versions today, I take back my earlier assessment that the bluray is only "slightly" better looking than the 2001 dvd.
It's a huge improvement over the 2001 DVD...but I must say...the 2001 DVDs look pretty awful. Worse than I remember.
It's a huge improvement over the 2001 DVD...but I must say...the 2001 DVDs look pretty awful. Worse than I remember.
09-22-08, 10:15 PM
#174
Btw, you own a Mitsu 65" DLP?
I think you encountered a phenom which many of us, even myself experience, from time to time. Our eyes are awfully smart and adaptive at making our brains think what we're seeing is the "best", but when looking at factually higher quality material sometime later, our eyes will tell us it isn't that much different. It isn't until we sort of "reset" our eyes and our brains, and then look over the material again, do we get a more neutral observation.
Last edited by DVD Polizei; 09-22-08 at 10:18 PM.
09-22-08, 10:48 PM
#175
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, I don't own a mistu dlp. This screen name was very random. I was shopping for a large tv awhile back, and I was deciding between the 65 inch mistu, 61 inch samsung LED, and the Sony 60 inch A3000.
Never actually got the TV though...I'm still stuck with a small bedroom 40 inch Samsung lcd for now(lnt4071f)
Never actually got the TV though...I'm still stuck with a small bedroom 40 inch Samsung lcd for now(lnt4071f)