The Godfather Trilogy: Original (2001) vs. Remastered (2008)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Jun 2008, 06:04

The Godfather - http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name ... &artid=843
The Godfather: Part 2 - http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name ... &artid=848
The Godfather: Part 3 - http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?name ... &artid=850

The original looks better to me. I don't like how they've messed with the colours. Even before that it doesn't look any sharper etc... They've just made it orange.

Any ideas which has the more accurate colours?

* It's worth noting the original box set was 5 discs: Disc 1: Godfather, Disc 2: The Godfather: Part 2, Disc 3 + 4: The Godfather: Part 3, Disc 5: Extras
* The new 5 disc box set has: Disc 1: Godfather, Disc 2: The Godfather: Part 2, Disc 3: The Godfather: Part 3, Disc 4 + 5: Extras

Because Godfather: Part 2 is now on 1 disc, the picture quality could be sacrificed.

A list of the old and new extras can be seen here:

http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/ ... ilogy.html

Not much, in other words!

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 08 Jun 2008, 06:43

This new colour correction looks pretty acceptable to me, perhaps closer to how a 3-strip technicolor film should look. Remember that these would've been all remastered in-house at American Zoetrope, so Coppola would've had final say on everything.

But I don't know honestly, Zoetrope's recent remastering of Bram Stoker's Dracula reportedly drained a lot of the warm primary colours that a lot of people loved about that film.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Jun 2008, 15:01

EvaUnit02 wrote:This new colour correction looks pretty acceptable to me, perhaps closer to how a 3-strip technicolor film should look.

You could be right. Some of the Original captures look a "bit" too dark but otherwise they look more natural.

Except for the colours does anyone see any other changes/improvements?

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 08 Jun 2008, 15:06

The new ones look crap. Some shots even show less detail thanks to contrast boosting. No need for upgrade.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Jun 2008, 15:14

HungFist wrote:Some shots even show less detail thanks to contrast boosting.

That's what I was thinking. The odd shot looks better but otherwise certainly not.

Sadly I bet the BD is based on this new master.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 08 Jun 2008, 18:18

It's alarming how many of the new caps DON'T look improved.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 08 Jun 2008, 20:03

In some shots the colours look really different. The Paramount logo in the new one looks like it took place at night!
Wasnt this Harris's photochemical restoration?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Jun 2008, 20:36

grim_tales wrote:Wasnt this Harris's photochemical restoration?

I think so. You're the one who started the thread

:

https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... php?t=3895

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 08 Jun 2008, 21:06

Oops.
The original looks better IMO

captainjoe · Post by **captainjoe** » 08 Jun 2008, 22:35

The new transfer is from the original negative scanned at 4K resolution. Robert Harris worked on this transfer and the colour's are corrected to how they looked when the movies first came out.
Wait until we see them for ourselves though, I always find that some websites don't have very good capturing methods.

Plus the old release is plagued by EE and very bad DNR (not visible on caps but definitely on a TV)

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Jun 2008, 23:24

captainjoe wrote:Wait until we see them for ourselves though, I always find that some websites don't have very good capturing methods.

True. Some of the captures aren't even exact frames. As it's not one of our captures, I was intending it to give us an idea.

Either way it still looks like shit.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 09 Jun 2008, 00:55

EvaUnit02 wrote:This new colour correction looks pretty acceptable to me, perhaps closer to how a 3-strip technicolor film should look. Remember that these would've been all remastered in-house at American Zoetrope, so Coppola would've had final say on everything.

But I don't know honestly, Zoetrope's recent remastering of Bram Stoker's Dracula reportedly drained a lot of the warm primary colours that people that a lot of people loved about that film.

Agreed, I've never seen The Godfather in the cinema (before my time) but the colour scheme certanly looks more like technicolor should. Image is sharper, brightness has been significantly improved; much contrast boosting? Sorry Hung, you're wrong there m8. Maybe some clipping of highlights might be going on and I think there might be some contrast boosting, but the blooming that robs detail out of some areas of the grabs probably comes from the increased brightness and colour saturation. Overall there is a much more significant increase in detail in the new transfer.

I'd be happy with the new transfers, but then I won't be buying the Godfather again until I go HD!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Jun 2008, 01:40

Which ones in particular are sharper?

Shingster wrote:much contrast boosting? Sorry Hung, you're wrong there m8.

If I had said that, you'd have called me clueless

.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 09 Jun 2008, 04:16

bradavon wrote:Which ones in particular are sharper?

All of them (godfather one i'm talking about here). Most of the grabs the difference is negligable, but if you want the best two examples then look at the 4th comparison down on pg01 (brando talking to someone), and the 1st comparison on pg02 (car parked out in the boondocks).

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Jun 2008, 04:41

Thanks. I see what you mean. The second example you give is one of the ones that stuck out to me.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 09 Jun 2008, 09:43

Shingster wrote:Sorry Hung, you're wrong there m8. Maybe some clipping of highlights might be going on and I think there might be some contrast boosting, but the blooming that robs detail out of some areas of the grabs probably comes from the increased brightness and colour saturation.

Either ways, obviously something went wrong when detail was decreased.

I don't know what's the intended or original look, and I don't really care here. I'm just not a huge fan of blooming red/orange faces.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Jun 2008, 15:20

HungFist wrote:I don't know what's the intended or original look, and I don't really care here. I'm just not a huge fan of blooming red/orange faces.

Agreed, me too.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 09 Jun 2008, 15:56

HungFist wrote:Either ways, obviously something went wrong when detail was decreased.

No, nothing went wrong at all! The brightness and colour saturation was just so low in the original transfer that it created extra detail in the boldest areas of the image in exchange for losing a tonne of detail elsewhere in the darker areas of the image.

Just because the image does not suit your own personal tastes does not make it wrong! You have to be completely objective when judging transfer comparisons if you're going to make comments like that! It's exactly the kind of comment that brad gets chewed up over all time, sometimes even by you!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Jun 2008, 16:10

I don't think you have to be subjective (outside of a "review"). Your comments are clearly just that and if you prefer the look of another transfer, you should be able to say so.

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 09 Jun 2008, 17:00

Shingster wrote:
HungFist wrote:Either ways, obviously something went wrong when detail was decreased.
No, nothing went wrong at all! The brightness and colour saturation was just so low in the original transfer that it created extra detail in the boldest areas of the image in exchange for losing a tonne of detail elsewhere in the darker areas of the image.

Just because the image does not suit your own personal tastes does not make it wrong! You have to be completely objective when judging transfer comparisons if you're going to make comments like that! It's exactly the kind of comment that brad gets chewed up over all time, sometimes even by you!

Sorry, I didn't know bad remastering could add this much detail (the white shirt)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/ ... tigua7.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/ ... izado7.jpg

Anyway, calm down, man. I did't say anything about your girlfriend, I said the new transfer looks shit.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Jun 2008, 17:41

Agreed the detail is lost in the remastering of the shirt. What's with the blue splodges?

HungFist wrote:Anyway, calm down, man. I did't say anything about your girlfriend, I said the new transfer looks shit.

. Being calm isn't something Shingster does naturally.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 09 Jun 2008, 18:39

The shirt looks too white on the remaster.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 09 Jun 2008, 22:15

HungFist wrote:Sorry, I didn't know bad remastering could add this much detail (the white shirt)

No offence Hung, but that's because what you know about the remastering process and assessing DVD/HD transfers, you could write on the back of your little finger. The very fact that you've got Brad acting as your cheerleader in this thread and agreeing with everything you say should be throwing up warning signals for you! Anyway, here are two images:

This is the screenshot from the new release, with the brightness reduced significantly. Note that most of the detail lost in the white bloom is now back in the image. (Not that there ever was much detail lost in the image in the first place! It was one or two creases!)

This is the original release, with the brightness boosted. Note that the bloom on the left arm of the white shirt is almost identical to that in the restored. Ergo: This is not an issue of contrast boosting as you originally claimed. The fact of the matter is that if anything, it is the original transfer that is too dark.

At the very least, you should realise that your comment that the new transfer "looks crap" is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. Even if you think its image is weaker than the old edition, it's at the very least a competent transfer and it wipes the floor with many of the old exploitation film transfers you're used to sitting through!

If you want me to go into more detail on this, I can. I can also point out just how much more extra detail is in the restored image over the original.

Anyway, calm down, man. I did't say anything about your girlfriend, I said the new transfer looks shit.

WTF? Someone posts on an internet forum that they think an opinion you expressed is wrong and all of a sudden they're making an angry rant against you? Is your life really that charmed that you can't handle straightforward debate?

The shirt looks too white on the remaster.

You know what the light source is in that image grim? It's an exposed, standard lightbulb about 4 inches directly above the head of the guy sitting on the left in that image. Do you know how a white shirt will look in a darkened room with a single standard lightbulb shining directly onto it from around a foot away when you film it on camera with mid to high exposure? It blooms. Here's a still from the original release showing how much bloom there is on the wiseguy's right arm compared to the rest of his upper body:

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 09 Jun 2008, 23:55

The very fact that you've got Brad acting as your cheerleader in this thread and agreeing with everything you say should be throwing up warning signals for you!

Hey! Your beef is with Hung, keep me out of this.

Is your life really that charmed that you can't handle straightforward debate?

Ask yourself that first, before you ask it of others.

As far as I'm concerned the original DVDs look better, call me a philistine if you want, you're probably going to anyway. The fact the Remastered DVD may technically be better is secondary to what I prefer. If others disagree, fine, that's up to them.

You're clearly knowledgeable about such things, but that doesn't mean you should come across as thinking you're better than others. Your patronising tone gets dull. As does your persistence to include my name in every other sentence, for no good reason.

DangerousLeeHandsome · Post by **DangerousLeeHandsome** » 10 Jun 2008, 00:31

Thats the new Paramount logo on the Godfather 1 screens right?