MovieChat Forums > Koyaanisqatsi (1983) Discussion > The Blu-Ray wasn't all that great.

The Blu-Ray wasn't all that great.

posted 9 years ago by Ldotdo1
11 replies | jump to latest

I totally understand that there's only so much they can do when restoring a 30 year old movie. But to sum up the Criterion Blu-Ray release in one word, GRAINY! Again, there are limitations when restoring an older movie but when compared to other classic movies from the 70's and 80's on Blu-Ray, you might feel kinda disappointed after watching this. Especially if you're a huge fan of the movie like me. I had really high hopes for this. Why couldn't they have done a better job on cleaning up the picture? Did it cost too much? Was it not possible? Anyway, the re-issue wasn't a total failure. Especially if you're into bonus content. The Blu-Ray is chock full of all kinds of goodies like in depth interviews both recent and older. Also, there's a super fascinating demo version of the movie that was really cool. Not to mention, the score has been completely remastered and sounds great! Just don't expect to have your mind totally blown by this. You're not going to get much more satisfaction from this then you would from watching the DVD.

[–] Mr. Bug 9 years ago

I think you are confused. You want more clean up? Because it's too grainy? Grain is not something to clean up! It's part of the original photography! It's what defines the content of the images. The Blu Ray of this film looks better than any print I have seen. And I have seen many. It's exceptionally clean compared to prints in cinemas. It's sharper as well. It was often a revelation. There is also stock footage which has limitations and always had in this film. It's often not so sharp and very grainy. It would be pointless to try to "fix" it digitally. It is what it is.
The Bluy Ray is an accurate rendition of the camera negative in 1080p and there is nothing wrong with it at all. Thank God they left the correct filmic texture alone and did not try to reduce grain or sharpen it and thereby deliver an unauthentic video version of the film.
And the bit rate is very high for minimising compression losses. A better Blu Ray is hard to imagine. I wish all older films were so well done on Blu Ray.

[–] Ldotdo1 9 years ago

No! Not confused! I understand what you're saying 100%. What I was getting at by eliminating the grain, was that they should've made a stunningly blemish free flawless representation of this movie. You know like when you really gotta hear the vinyl of a record that you want to listen to but you also have the option of listening to it in a super high quality digital representation if you wanted to. Just kinda depends on what mood one might be in. Same as for this movie. You should have the option to watch a completely flawless version of it or if you're in the mood for a more raw, stripped down version, then just watch the DVD or hell even the VHS. Maybe this did all have to do with the certain cameras they were using for filming this but I will argue with you up and down about how this looks like crap to a lot of the older films that have been released on Blu-Ray. Older films have been well done on Blu-Ray and I wish this one looked better then all of them.

[–] Mr. Bug 9 years ago

I'm afraid that there is nothing that they could have done here to "improve" the picture without making it an unauthentic digital bastard of the original work. There are a few speckles left that could have been removed. It would look basically the same after that.
The basic sharpness, detail and grain level is like that in the camera negative and stock footage. Also, part of the film was shot on 16mm and not 35mm. These parts will always be less sharp and grainier. Sure one could these days remove all grain. The result is a waxy image. Then one could add artifical grain and sharpen some. The result could look quite ok. It would not be authentic and it would not really have improved image quality at all. It would just have messed with the look and feel by altering the texture of the film. The film was shot the way it was and not in 70mm or on a digital 4K camera and we should accept that. It would have been very cool if it were shot in 70mm (even the DOP says so) but it wasn't.

[–] sharad-3 8 years ago

Film grain is actually wanted on the true restoration of films. That's the way the negative looked, and that's part of the the beauty of film, it has grain. I think you're a bit mixed up on what a film restoration's goal is. It's to restore it to a pristine print as if it was first being projected. It's not to clean up wha makes it look it was shot on film!

When I was little, me and my friends loved to even comment on the film grain, and hated watching movies at home on the old betamax where the resolution was so low you couldn't see the grain. We would sit front row.

[–] EtaoinShrdlu001 7 years ago

Ldotdo:
You are so right!
You know what else they should do? Make alternate versions of paintings by Van Gogh where they remove all those annoying brush strokes. Just so you can see how good they would look nice and flat, without all those ugly blotches of paint ruining everything.

[–] A_Friend_of_Sarah_Connor 7 years ago

You clearly have no idea how film works. Stuff that wasn't shot on digital (like today's movies) will not be grain free and "smooth" like today's blu rays. Criterion is among the best in the business and I bet this film looks beautiful on blu ray. You idea of "flawless" would be something like the the horrendous issue of Predator; DNR'd into oblivion, plastic looking, with no detail. If you want less grain, set your TV settings to high grain reduction.

"Some men are coming to kill us. We're gonna kill them first."

[–] benGsboat 9 years ago

Grain is not something to clean up!

Exactly. Speckles, dirt, scratches, etc are what should go -- and Criterion's transfer of K is pretty much spotless.

Those time-lapse cityscapes (day and night) look absolutely stunning. Actually, most of the film looks great, especially when you consider the different stocks used.

I wanted Criterion to include the 1.33:1 'open matte' version that I.R.E. released years ago on dvd. Check out these screen captures -- looks awesome.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare2/koyaanisqatsi.htm

[–] THXboy 9 years ago

Koyaanisqatsi, for all its amazing photography, is essentially a low budget movie. A lot of the amazing footage was accomplished in-camera or practically.

The source material is what it is and may look as good as it's ever going to get. Only sharpness and clarity will improve from here and grain will only get more apparent at higher resolutions.

It's already a huge upgrade over every DVD and Laserdisc version (though I've heard from some that the Pacific Arts Laserdisc has a better soundtrack mix than even Criterion's Blu-ray.)

As already mentioned, the other two Qatsis and especially Baraka/Samsara came on higher film stock. This and the wide variety of footage seen in the film creates a ton of disparities.

I also wouldn't doubt that some of Fricke's footage was "blown up" to fit the theatrical aspect ratio. I think he mentions that the Pruitt-Igoe scenes were filmed in a helicopter on 8mm, as well as a good portion of the "demo" footage that ended up in the final film. Converting/blowing up that footage only exacerbates the limitations of the film stock.

I understand that many viewers would like to see more pristine-looking films on Blu, but sometimes it comes at the expense of the film looking "waxy" due to DNR. Sometimes, with lower budget films like this, there's only so much you can do in a restoration. Unlike big budget productions like Alien, Blade Runner and Star Wars, I doubt a meticulous restoration or added visual effects will add much of anything to Koyaanisqatsi without compromising the integrity of the original presentation.

Reggio doesn't seem like a director who would approve of extensive modification, IMO at least.

[–] polet_bally 9 years ago

The UK Arrow blu ray release has slightly better grain structure than the Criterion, but this is barely visible in motion. You mention the soundtrack - I think that the Criterion has the newer remastered/remixed soundtrack. The UK Arrow release has this, but it also has the old LPCM (Mono) soundtrack, which I prefer. The US Criterion blu ray has more bonus material though, so both releases have their advantages and disadvantages.

And those who complain about grain are way too used to modern movies and don't know what movies that are shot on film, especially low budget film stock are supposed to look like.

[–] Struckworld7767 9 years ago

It looks amazing.

I'm from Paris... TEXAS

[–] axxonnn 8 years ago

This is a terrible post.

A: it is supposed to be grainy. That's the fast film stock they used.
B: applying a denoiser would look terrible. If you want to see the results of those endeavours, look at the horrible botched DNR releases of films like Predator. And even if you could, it's supposed to look grainy. The grain is the texture and that's how it was shot.