The Green Mile

cbcdesign · 11-17-2009, 02:18 PM

This is another title I have waited for with great anticipation and by and large I am pleased with this Blu-Ray release but it not perfect.

Presented in a 1080P 16x9 format the transfer is quite sharp with very fine grain structure that grain haters like me will be more than happy with. You really have to look hard to see the grain at all.

One or two scenes however are slightly soft and at times I found the image lacked the crisp punch I would have expected from a film of this age but perhaps the stylised nature of the photography has something to do with that. Outdoor shots of the stars on the other hand looked stunning and most of the close-up shots revealed every pore and bead of sweat.

Audio quality is pretty good, by and large and is in the True HD 5.1 and Dolby Digital formats. But in the scene where Tom Hanks character discusses with his wife the prospect of going to hell for Killing John Coffey, a lot of hiss from the centre speaker is clearly audible. It really was quite bad and hardly acceptable for a modern state of the art release. Fortunately it disappears as soon as the scene changes.

Extras on the one disk version I have includeCommentary by Frank Darabont, Additional scenes, A making of documentary, Gallery and screen tests of Michael Clarke Duncan. Also included is a very interesting snippet on the training methods used for Mr Jingles.

Overall, a fairly nice presentation only spoiled ever so slightly by the audio issue and variable video quality that crops up on rare occasions.

**bruceames** · 11-17-2009, 09:11 PM

Thanks for the review. I'll probably pick this up when it goes on sale, otherwise Netflix.

GymBrat98 · 11-20-2009, 05:02 PM

I loved this movie!

tvine2000 · 11-20-2009, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcdesign

This is another title I have waited for with great anticipation and by and large I am pleased with this Blu-Ray release but it not perfect.

Presented in a 1080P 16x9 format the transfer is quite sharp with very fine grain structure that grain haters like me will be more than happy with. You really have to look hard to see the grain at all.

One or two scenes however are slightly soft and at times I found the image lacked the crisp punch I would have expected from a film of this age but perhaps the stylised nature of the photography has something to do with that. Outdoor shots of the stars on the other hand looked stunning and most of the close-up shots revealed every pore and bead of sweat.

Audio quality is pretty good, by and large and is in the True HD 5.1 and Dolby Digital formats. But in the scene where Tom Hanks character discusses with his wife the prospect of going to hell for Killing John Coffey, a lot of hiss from the centre speaker is clearly audible. It really was quite bad and hardly acceptable for a modern state of the art release. Fortunately it disappears as soon as the scene changes.

Extras on the one disk version I have includeCommentary by Frank Darabont, Additional scenes, A making of documentary, Gallery and screen tests of Michael Clarke Duncan. Also included is a very interesting snippet on the training methods used for Mr Jingles.

Overall, a fairly nice presentation only spoiled ever so slightly by the audio issue and variable video quality that crops up on rare occasions.

i will have to pick this one up too. i'm puzzled why do you hate grain?
when you go to the local movie house are you not watching a film with grain? why object to it on blu-ray?

cbcdesign · 11-21-2009, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tvine2000

i will have to pick this one up too. i'm puzzled why do you hate grain?
when you go to the local movie house are you not watching a film with grain? why object to it on blu-ray?

Grain is not nearly as visible in a movie house in fact since most of them, around my neck of the woods anyway, tend to have a softer image, partly due to poor focussing and partly due to the size of the screen.

Why do I hate grain? That is easy to explain but possibly a bit long winded. Anyway, here goes:-

In still image photography, visible grain in an image is an unwanted element that most photographers try to avoid by using lots of light, i.e a wide aperture or a longer exposure with a slow speed film.

Sometimes grain is unavoidable in low light situations where long exposures are impossible and we use faster film and put up with grain rather than lose the shot. By and large though, we try to avoid it since it spoils the image. The world after all does not look grainy to the naked eye and most people agree that it spoils a picture.

Similarly, in Digital photography, we try to use lower ISO settings to reduce noise as much as possible. Noise, like grain, spoils an image.

In just the same way that visible grain looks dreadful in still images, I think it looks equally dreadful in movies. Sure, it can be used to great effect sometimes to convey an illusion that you seeing some very old footage but by and large, it isn't pleasant to see grain in a movie.

It has become almost politically incorrect to complain about grain of course but to be honest, I care not a jot. I don't like grain in still images and I don't like grain in movies either. I like a crisp, well focussed, detailed and colourful image that looks something like it would in the real world to the naked eye.

Some so called purists will even say that film images must have visible grain otherwise they don’t look like film. I say, go and do a photographic course and learn something about what grain is and why the vast majority of photographers try to avoid visible grain in their images, apply that knowledge to film which is after all nothing more than a series of still images projected in sequence, then come back and talk about grain.

The differences between moving image photography and still image photography is not as vast as people like to pretend and yet the acceptability of grain in the finished image differs widely between these two art forms. Why is that?

Clearly people hate it which is why so many transfers are being subjected to edge enhancement, noise reduction and image smoothing techniques.

For the record I am against removing grain when it results in lost image detail however. As a general rule though, visible grain is distracting, unpleasant to look at and in some cases so off putting that it renders a film almost unwatchable, 300 being a prime example.

Sorry, my reply is almost a lecture but I feel so strongly about the subject that I feel I must explain in detail why I hate grain and ask some awkward questions too which are all to easily brushed off.

Alan

tvine2000 · 11-21-2009, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcdesign

Grain is not nearly as visible in a movie house in fact since most of them, around my neck of the woods anyway, tend to have a softer image, partly due to poor focussing and partly due to the size of the screen.

Why do I hate grain? That is easy to explain but possibly a bit long winded. Anyway, here goes:-

In still image photography, visible grain in an image is an unwanted element that most photographers try to avoid by using lots of light, i.e a wide aperture or a longer exposure with a slow speed film.

Sometimes grain is unavoidable in low light situations where long exposures are impossible and we use faster film and put up with grain rather than lose the shot. By and large though, we try to avoid it since it spoils the image. The world after all does not look grainy to the naked eye and most people agree that it spoils a picture.

Similarly, in Digital photography, we try to use lower ISO settings to reduce noise as much as possible. Noise, like grain, spoils an image.

In just the same way that visible grain looks dreadful in still images, I think it looks equally dreadful in movies. Sure, it can be used to great effect sometimes to convey an illusion that you seeing some very old footage but by and large, it isn't pleasant to see grain in a movie.

It has become almost politically incorrect to complain about grain of course but to be honest, I care not a jot. I don't like grain in still images and I don't like grain in movies either. I like a crisp, well focussed, detailed and colourful image that looks something like it would in the real world to the naked eye.

Some so called purists will even say that film images must have visible grain otherwise they don’t look like film. I say, go and do a photographic course and learn something about what grain is and why the vast majority of photographers try to avoid visible grain in their images, apply that knowledge to film which is after all nothing more than a series of still images projected in sequence, then come back and talk about grain.

The differences between moving image photography and still image photography is not as vast as people like to pretend and yet the acceptability of grain in the finished image differs widely between these two art forms. Why is that?

Clearly people hate it which is why so many transfers are being subjected to edge enhancement, noise reduction and image smoothing techniques.

For the record I am against removing grain when it results in lost image detail however. As a general rule though, visible grain is distracting, unpleasant to look at and in some cases so off putting that it renders a film almost unwatchable, 300 being a prime example.

Sorry, my reply is almost a lecture but I feel so strongly about the subject that I feel I must explain in detail why I hate grain and ask some awkward questions too which are all to easily brushed off.

Alan

no ,not at all good post. i don't mind grain. and even if i didn't like grain i'd put up with it.grain is better then using dnr and losing detail.
now that were in the hi def age,if your a grain hater its only going to get worse. with 2060p or higher in the future were gonna get even more detail. maybe someday hollywood will move away from film all together,but until then what do you do?

it seems grain haters and blu-ray don't mix. and studios like sony don't use dnr ,yet every new and old catalog title are getting high marks in the video end. seems to me if you want hi def your gonna have to put up with grain.

unless someone comes up with a knew technology that removes grain but not details your screwed because it looks like the studios are moving away of the over use of dnr. i'm talking movies made on film,and mostly catalog titles.

since grain is part of the film stock even a new technology wouldn't do the job. as i see it without grain theres no point in going forward with hi def and go backwards a stick with dvd ,and since thats not going to happen were back to the beginning,[the chickin in the egg.]

cbcdesign · 11-22-2009, 08:43 AM

I am rather more hopeful though. Take a look at the latest movies, the new Star Trek being a great example. There is lots of detail, beautiful colours, really good skin tones and very very little visible grain.

Modern film stock has a much finer grain structure and tends to be faster too and this results in much cleaner looking images. Also, with digital sensor technology getting better and better with ever increasing ISO levels, I can see things improving all the time.

Filmmakers will almost certainly start using digital more and more as the technology improves just as professional still photographers have done.

I think we are in a sort of half way house scenario at the moment. Older films are being released on Blu-Ray and because the stock used had a courser grain structure, we are seeing quite a bit of grain in the image in some casese. Others only show grain in darker scenes where faster stock was used for the low light and night shots. Some can be processed and grain is not an issue at all. The remastered Blade runner movie is an excellent example.

We are heading in the right direction, I am sure. It will just take time before we get the best of both worlds.

Alan

tvine2000 · 11-22-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcdesign

I am rather more hopeful though. Take a look at the latest movies, the new Star Trek being a great example. There is lots of detail, beautiful colours, really good skin tones and very very little visible grain.

Modern film stock has a much finer grain structure and tends to be faster too and this results in much cleaner looking images. Also, with digital sensor technology getting better and better with ever increasing ISO levels, I can see things improving all the time.

Filmmakers will almost certainly start using digital more and more as the technology improves just as professional still photographers have done.

I think we are in a sort of half way house scenario at the moment. Older films are being released on Blu-Ray and because the stock used had a courser grain structure, we are seeing quite a bit of grain in the image in some casese. Others only show grain in darker scenes where faster stock was used for the low light and night shots. Some can be processed and grain is not an issue at all. The remastered Blade runner movie is an excellent example.

We are heading in the right direction, I am sure. It will just take time before we get the best of both worlds.

Alan

again i agree with you all the way. i can see by understanding these things we can all enjoy a older film with grain. the issue i have with some is they understand noting about these things or they just want to bitch about it. i think to that we are still use too dvd and its soft picture. and your not going to notice grain because of 480i. there is a adjustment going to hi def. i hope hollywood gets away from film too. we know as the technology get cheaper they will hop aboard. but your right we are seeing sharper pq with new releases and fine grain.

i do take issue with people saying watching a movie with grain is like watching the movie with a screen door in front of it. i have never seen a blu-ray like that! i have seen heavy dnr use ee and on early bds a soft picture.

cbcdesign · 11-25-2009, 04:09 AM

I note that High Def Digest Review have only given this release 3.5 starts for Video Quality. Frankly that score is ludicrous and seems to be based upon the reviewers dislike of the directors stylistic colour tone rather than a genuine issue with actual video quality.

"the movie looks absolutely gorgeous. Detail is wonderful, with every hair on Mr. Jingles' cuddly little body visible, and the costumes particularly popping. "

And that apparently only warrants 3.5 starts! As I said, a ludicrous score.

Alan

HD Goofnut · 11-25-2009, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbcdesign

I note that High Def Digest Review have only given this release 3.5 starts for Video Quality. Frankly that score is ludicrous and seems to be based upon the reviewers dislike of the directors stylistic colour tone rather than a genuine issue with actual video quality.

"the movie looks absolutely gorgeous. Detail is wonderful, with every hair on Mr. Jingles' cuddly little body visible, and the costumes particularly popping. "

And that apparently only warrants 3.5 starts! As I said, a ludicrous score.

Alan

I have found both HDD and BD.com to have biased reviews quite often. When I do a review I take into account the director's stylistic choices and so forth. I honestly think at those other two sites many of the reviewers are more subjective rather than objective.

oblioman · 11-30-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

I have found both HDD and BD.com to have biased reviews quite often. When I do a review I take into account the director's stylistic choices and so forth. I honestly think at those other two sites many of the reviewers are more subjective rather than objective.

Increasingly,,,the goofnut review is the only one me considers.

pappylap · 11-30-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oblioman

Increasingly,,,the goofnut review is the only one me considers.

All hail the Goofnut!....

HD Goofnut · 11-30-2009, 09:36 PM

I appreciate it guys! I am extremely flattered.

11-17-2009, 02:18 PM	#1
cbcdesign High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North Somerset, UK Posts: 1,332	The Green Mile This is another title I have waited for with great anticipation and by and large I am pleased with this Blu-Ray release but it not perfect. Presented in a 1080P 16x9 format the transfer is quite sharp with very fine grain structure that grain haters like me will be more than happy with. You really have to look hard to see the grain at all. One or two scenes however are slightly soft and at times I found the image lacked the crisp punch I would have expected from a film of this age but perhaps the stylised nature of the photography has something to do with that. Outdoor shots of the stars on the other hand looked stunning and most of the close-up shots revealed every pore and bead of sweat. Audio quality is pretty good, by and large and is in the True HD 5.1 and Dolby Digital formats. But in the scene where Tom Hanks character discusses with his wife the prospect of going to hell for Killing John Coffey, a lot of hiss from the centre speaker is clearly audible. It really was quite bad and hardly acceptable for a modern state of the art release. Fortunately it disappears as soon as the scene changes. Extras on the one disk version I have includeCommentary by Frank Darabont, Additional scenes, A making of documentary, Gallery and screen tests of Michael Clarke Duncan. Also included is a very interesting snippet on the training methods used for Mr Jingles. Overall, a fairly nice presentation only spoiled ever so slightly by the audio issue and variable video quality that crops up on rare occasions. __________________ 65 HD DVD's Latest Buy: Backdraft & Mr Bean's Holiday 57 Blu-rays Latest Buy: Star Trek TNG Movie Collection, Rambo, Terminator Salvation, The Da Vinci Code & Angels & Demons

11-17-2009, 09:11 PM	#2
bruceames Moderator Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Rafael, CA Posts: 10,478	Thanks for the review. I'll probably pick this up when it goes on sale, otherwise Netflix. __________________ Blu-rays: 69 Latest purchases: Lost: seasons 1-5, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

11-20-2009, 05:02 PM	#3
GymBrat98 HD Is Off Da Hook! Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 6,116	I loved this movie! __________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UuLAZpHbMo "Stereotypes are devices for saving a biased person the trouble of learning"

11-22-2009, 08:43 AM	#7
cbcdesign High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North Somerset, UK Posts: 1,332	I am rather more hopeful though. Take a look at the latest movies, the new Star Trek being a great example. There is lots of detail, beautiful colours, really good skin tones and very very little visible grain. Modern film stock has a much finer grain structure and tends to be faster too and this results in much cleaner looking images. Also, with digital sensor technology getting better and better with ever increasing ISO levels, I can see things improving all the time. Filmmakers will almost certainly start using digital more and more as the technology improves just as professional still photographers have done. I think we are in a sort of half way house scenario at the moment. Older films are being released on Blu-Ray and because the stock used had a courser grain structure, we are seeing quite a bit of grain in the image in some casese. Others only show grain in darker scenes where faster stock was used for the low light and night shots. Some can be processed and grain is not an issue at all. The remastered Blade runner movie is an excellent example. We are heading in the right direction, I am sure. It will just take time before we get the best of both worlds. Alan __________________ 65 HD DVD's Latest Buy: Backdraft & Mr Bean's Holiday 57 Blu-rays Latest Buy: Star Trek TNG Movie Collection, Rambo, Terminator Salvation, The Da Vinci Code & Angels & Demons Last edited by cbcdesign; 11-22-2009 at 08:47 AM.

11-25-2009, 04:09 AM	#9
cbcdesign High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: North Somerset, UK Posts: 1,332	I note that High Def Digest Review have only given this release 3.5 starts for Video Quality. Frankly that score is ludicrous and seems to be based upon the reviewers dislike of the directors stylistic colour tone rather than a genuine issue with actual video quality. "the movie looks absolutely gorgeous. Detail is wonderful, with every hair on Mr. Jingles' cuddly little body visible, and the costumes particularly popping. " And that apparently only warrants 3.5 starts! As I said, a ludicrous score. Alan __________________ 65 HD DVD's Latest Buy: Backdraft & Mr Bean's Holiday 57 Blu-rays Latest Buy: Star Trek TNG Movie Collection, Rambo, Terminator Salvation, The Da Vinci Code & Angels & Demons

11-30-2009, 09:36 PM	#13
HD Goofnut The Official HDF Reviewer Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Mississippi, U.S.A. Your resident Dune, Star Wars, and war film expert Age: 27 Posts: 7,358	I appreciate it guys! I am extremely flattered. __________________ Living Room Setup Sharp LC-46SB57UN 46" 120hz 1080p LCD (24fps) Onkyo TX-SR606 7.1 Receiver Onkyo SKS-HT540 7.1 System DirecTV HR21-100 HD DVR Sony 40 GB PS3 (Netflix Enabled) LG BH200 Super Blu Toshiba HD-A20 Nintendo Wii Bedroom Setup Sanyo DP46848 46" 60hz 1080p LCD DirecTV HR23-600 HD Magnavox NB500MG9 Toshiba HD-A2 My Movie Collection 309~157~DVD193 Latest Review: *Ferris Bueller's Day Off*

Similar Threads to The Green Mile
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The New Nielsen Pie Chart	Lee Stewart	High Definition Media	3577	Yesterday 06:16 PM
Star Trek: The Next Generation Blu-ray	Kcgreatfox	High Definition Media	136	02-07-2010 09:55 PM
Where are the modern/80's classics?	cbcdesign	High Definition Media	50	09-02-2009 08:17 AM
The Green Mile - UK BD in November	MikeRox	High Definition Media	11	07-18-2009 03:01 PM
Worlds Fastest 1/4 Mile Run! . . . Made 30 Years Ago	Lee Stewart	Car Forum	14	01-06-2009 07:32 PM
XBR2 Green Blob??	Rew70	Rear-Projection TVs	23	01-16-2007 04:57 AM