12

I've noticed it in both DVD and Blu-ray transfers of older movies (for example a few spaghetti westerns). Throughout the movie, the transfer quality is very good, and at the last scene (when there is no more dialog, just that very last scene right before the end credits start rolling), it switches back to a less sharp, more noisy transfer, and stays like that, throughout the end credits.

What is the reason behind this? Why does that last scene get a different treatment?

Edit: example screenshots here: https://imgur.com/a/WfP1vA8 (from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly MGM Extended Edition Blu-ray). The quality change seems to effect the scenes including text on screen (hence noticible during end credits in some movies too).

Look at the sky for example. In the second screenshot with the on-screen text, much more noise is present.

Looks Good

Looks Noisy

  • 1
    Can you post a screenshot showing what you mean? I've not seen this before. – user1118321 Aug 18 '18 at 23:03
  • Yep, added an example. – Adam Szabo Aug 19 '18 at 23:42
  • I'm not sure that we can come to proper conclusion with only one example. Do you have experienced this with other than your copy if The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? Could be some problem with your edition and/or your copy. I'm not sure. but IMO it won't be possible to answer without some more.. – Vishwa Aug 20 '18 at 5:00
  • I've seen it in many other films, I'm just not in a position to acquire evidence. Otherwise I wouldn't have noticed this trend. – Adam Szabo Aug 20 '18 at 13:54
15

I will admit that this is a guess, but I have to wonder whether it's an issue with the type of film restoration they do when making the disc. With older prints, there can be a lot of dust, scratches, hairs, etc. on the print. Also, depending on a number of factors about how the movie was filmed, it may be grainier than they wanted, but were limited at the time by budget, technology, etc.

To combat this, during the restoration, they'll use a number of filters and processes to reduce the amount of noise, dust, scratches, etc. This can result in a softening of parts of the image. It may be that when text is displayed, the softening is more obvious or objectionable, so they simply turn it off or turn it down in those scenes. I say that because what I see in your examples is an increase in high frequency noise in the whole image when the credits are displayed.


So I asked a guy I know who won a technical Oscar for his work on film restoration systems. He had this to say:

Most likely [at the end credits noise reduction is] turned off, or the company doing it was lazy. Usually when we did high dollar restorations ..., we’d essentially remove the text/credits, clean the image beneath and then clean the text and re-composite them because they have different characteristics (aka in that time they were likely optical effects, so they had double noise/grain and other foreign problems from the compositing process). But we did have several clients that wanted ‘quick and dirty’ restorations that wouldn’t pay for that level of work, they just wanted everything run with the same settings, which obviously wouldn’t work as well in opticals.

What he refers to as "opticals" are when 2 things (in this case text and footage) are combined using a physical process rather than in a computer. For something like credits over footage, they would have to film the credits, then invert them, film the footage with the inverted credits over them, the project that with the original credits on top. All of these steps were done by projecting and refilming, so each step added more film grain. By the time they were done, it was all very grainy.

He added that a lot of times the client was paying by the frame, and they figured nobody cared about the credits, so as soon as the credits started, they'd just stop the restoration process and leave the credits noisy.

  • Thanks. My other guess was, that perhaps for the film without text, they can go back to the original negatives, while for the ones with the text on (since the effect was not done in camera), they can only rely on processed 2nd generation copies, where the original processing took toll on it too. What do you think about this theory? – Adam Szabo Aug 20 '18 at 13:57
  • It certainly sounds plausible! I have a friend who used to do these sorts of restorations. I'll see what he thinks. – user1118321 Aug 20 '18 at 14:56
  • I talked to him today and added some more info above. – user1118321 Aug 21 '18 at 2:24
  • Thank you. Seems like my guess was correct then. Thanks again for asking him. – Adam Szabo Aug 21 '18 at 15:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .