Just saw the DVD "Last Waltz"

[Sckott]

Absolutely done well. It's fabulous. Love this goddam disc.

I know it's old news, but it's fairly amazing on how much better it looks. I haven't brought it to the "surround room" for 5.1 yet, but I'ts the best $24.99 I've spent this year, even watching in stereo. Enough material to engross you for hours. Wow.

Go git this DVD.

[Todd Fredericks]

Thanks, Sckott! I will definately be checking this DVD out. A friend may be bringing it over tonight...

Todd

[Mark H]

Finally bought this DVD over the week end and just watched it tonight. Obviously the music is timeless and I guess I'd sort of forgotten what a great guitar player Robbie was. Had an eerie feeling looking at poor doomed Richard Manuel and also knowing that Rick Danko is also no longer with us. Definitely something I'll watch many more times.

[Uncle Al]

.....and when you get to that 5.1 mix, you will be pleasantly rewarded. No "overt" discreet information in the rears. The mix is such that the sound is balanced somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 to the front channels with the rears giving the same info at a lower volume. The only "discreet" information in the rears being audience reaction. Damned if it isn't the way it must have sounded from the first few rows in the hall....

[Todd Fredericks]

Okay, I watched the DVD last night in 5.1 and I was very disappointed (nobody shoot me). I'll try and explain my reasons:

First off, I was very into watching the film last night. A friend came over with the DVD, etc. I didn't see the restored film in a theatre, so I'm only judging what I saw & heard by this DVD (*and of course, this is just my opinion). I think they did a good job restoring the music but sadly it just didn't match with the image very well. There were a lot of syncing problems and I just didn't get "the illusion" that the music was coming from the performers playing in the venue/soundstage. Why? The music was mixed/polished/etc. (sounded very, very good quality wise) yet the film image was not of the same quality (do you know what I mean?/it made me very aware of quality of different sources). It's like the annoying effect (for me) that sometimes happens when a state of the art 5.1 modern recording is added to a badly perserved silent film. It just didn't match. I felt that the interviews and jamming in the dressing room matched a lot better. For example, I saw Dr. John playing the piano, I could hear the piano in the mix yet I didn't get the feel that the "he" was playing the piano. I just didn't feel connected. Also, when singers were moving in and away from mikes, there was not the slightest change in their vocals or other stuff that usually is just part of the live experience (the mix sounded was just too polished and "perfecto").

Now, I need to talk about the image. I am as mad as hell what they did to this film (at least on the DVD I saw last night). Yes, it looked clear and the colors were vivid but it didn't look like a film. I felt that they went way overboard with the "common" popular digital "restoration" practices (edge-enhancement, etc.). There was no depth at all. I couldn't tell if a mike was in front or next to a singer or who was standing where (only unless 2 objects crossed). It was hurting my eyes. In some ways it looked like a digital cartoon. It wasn't natural. What happened to people's skin tones or does wood or metal look like that? Compare this to the great work the Criterion Collection did with 'Gimme Shelter' (image & sound match better/film grain present/looks like a film/etc.). I just don't understand why they aggresively did this to the imade (MTV generation?). It's like they tried to turn it into something more "modern" and will look good on a showroom TV (you know what I mean). It really bothered me because behind this digital enhancement mess I could imagine from what ever was left (through the digital haze) that this film could've looked and "felt" so much better than how it was butchered. For me, it's like the problems we have with "beloved" older recordings that are no-noised, compressed & eq'd to death to make them sound more "hip & modern". My eyes really hurt...

Another thing. The subtitles (we watched some of the DVD with them on out of curiosity)? Why did they turn them off during the performances?

So, sadly, I was very disappointed with this DVD of 'The Last Waltz'. Of course, I did love the music performances & film but not how it was served by the restoration (yuck).

All the best,

Todd

P.S. Again, this is my opinion and it's not meant to knock anyone else's...

[jdw]

Originally posted by Todd Fredericks
There were a lot of syncing problems and I just didn't get "the illusion" that the music was coming from the performers playing in the venue/soundstage. Why? The music was mixed/polished/etc. (sounded very, very good quality wise) yet the film image was not of the same quality (do you know what I mean?/it made me very aware of quality of different sources)...

I just didn't feel connected. Also, when singers were moving in and away from mikes, there was not the slightest change in their vocals or other stuff that usually is just part of the live experience (the mix sounded was just too polished and "perfecto").



The syncing problems and artificial feel are also due to the fact that huge portions of these live recordings were replaced with studio overdubs after the fact. I don't know how many of the "guests" actually re-did their parts, but I've read that not much of what's left is from the actual night.

I haven't heard the 4 CD bootleg of the actual "line" recording of the complete show to confirm this (does anybody want to trade with me for it?), so perhaps someone else can comment...

Levon Helm goes into some detail about this in his autobiography. Helm refused to go back into the studio to re-do the drums, and he doubts that much of what is left on the soundtrack is actually live. The band's first producer, John Simon (who provided technical help for the Last Waltz concert) is also quoted in Helm's book regarding the over-dubs...

John

[Ken_McAlinden]

The syncing problems and artificial feel are also due to the fact that huge portions of these live recordings were replaced with studio overdubs after the fact. ...of course, the flip side of this is that many of these songs sound better than they did on the original studio recordings. :) I thought the image looked very filmlike, personally. It certainly tops my old pan & scan laserdisc with no chapter stops and analog RF stereo sound. For some reason (beyond just digital compression), I thought the 2.0 soundtrack sounded a bit lifeless compared to the older stereo versions. It was also at a very low level, I had to crank my volume to get the levels to sound comparable. The 5.1 was very good, however.

Regards,

[Todd Fredericks]

Ken,

I did think the 5.1 mix sounded very good but I felt that it didn't work with the image. It's a nicely done multi-channel mix on it's own...

Again, just my opinion,

Todd

[Uncle Al]

Well Todd - all those years of LISTENING to music never tested the eyeballs. To be honest with ya - I think I noticed the sync problems and never thought too much of them. These problems aren't nearly as bad as..

Yesongs
The Song Remians the Same
Woodstock
Montery Pop
Ladies and Gentlemen The Rolling Stones

and probably all of the "film era" rock concert movies. Seems they had a lot of synch problems between the visual and audio back then. Maybe it was extensive overdubbing, maybe poor use (no use?) of SMPTE synch tracks. Maybe they used Friday nights video with Thursday nights audio. Probably all of the above...

I found the picture to be beyond adequate, however. I found the flesh tones to be reasonably accurate - given that most of the stage lighting exhibits a reddish hue. Additionally, the color red, which is often given to saturation on all video based formats, never "glows" back at you. Edge lines are distinct, not overly sharp, and do not exhibit any real digital edge enhancement. Film grain was not evident (which is not a good thing - think of film grain as hiss), but any enhancement techniques were used in moderation......

HOWEVER - I did not view this on a a 16:9 HDTV calibrated setup. On an RCA 36" direct view screen the picture seemed fine, equal in picture quality to the best DVD's I own. As far as the rest - I was never a die-hard fan of the Band, owning only "Rock of Ages" on vinyl and and the "To Kingdom Come" CD set, but this film has encouraged me to seek out more.

[Todd Fredericks]

Uncle Al,

My friend and I were noticing the same stuff. Edge lines were extremely killing the eyes. I don't have the DVD with me (it was my friend's copy) but just look at the microphones, guitar strings, Joni Mitchell's teeth (seriously), all the action in the background, etc. It's a mess. It's very unnatural looking. The Neil Diamond performance looks like it was used a little less (I'm not sure why but it looked better). I was just amazed that it looked like this. Afterwards , we threw in 'Gimme Shelter' to just make sure we weren't going mad (it looked fantastic). I'm not knocking anyone's eyes, I'm just reporting my experience the other night. I'm sure this DVD will look amazing to a lot of viewers because it doesn't have that "old" look which usually turns some people off but it really hurt the "film" (IMO). It's like how the Beatles' "1" sounds great to a lot of people but it really doesn't because the songs were doctored & glazed, etc. I just think with a lot of use of "digital" tricks they turned this 70's film into something that it's not and it shows (almost like colorizing but not as dramatic obviously).

As for the sync problems, I have no idea if that was a problem with the elements or a botched job on an Avid (which I'm guessing was used). A friend of mine is an Avid editor and he has said many times that the most difficult thing to do sometimes is to sinc correctly. We've watched many things on TV and even films were this is evident (sometimes really bad). Also, I feel that the 5.1 mix just didn't work with the image. There was a too obvious difference in quality (meaning each had it's own specific kind of character). Another good example of what I mean is when watch (and listen) to the restored 'Vertigo', it is very obvious that the foley effects were recorded with 90's technology and it just sticks out too much because of this (perhaps Robert Harris should have had the sound engineers match the tonality of the other older elements). It just sounds a bit weird with the 50's recorded score/diologue & 50's shoot image (again, IMO).

Anyway, maybe my friend & I are the only ones in the world who had this reaction to 'The Last Waltz' (possible because the two of us together are the "madmen" of NYC/he's an eccentric actor & drummer from Berkeley so he must be nutz) but maybe not? Again, I'm just posting my findings...


Todd

[Ken_McAlinden]

Another good example of what I mean is when watch (and listen) to the restored 'Vertigo', it is very obvious that the foley effects were recorded with 90's technology and it just sticks out too much because of this (perhaps Robert Harris should have had the sound engineers match the tonality of the other older elements). It just sounds a bit weird with the 50's recorded score/diologue & 50's shoot image (again, IMO). One aspect of the Vertigo mix that makes the new sound effects sound even stranger on a home 5.1 setting was that the mix was done with large-format presentations in large theaters in mind. While the new foley is still very noticeable and somewhat distracting in theaters (I saw it at the Uptown in Washington D.C.), it sounds more of both at home in my family room.

Regards,

[Todd Fredericks]

Ken,

I sadly didn't get the chance to see it in a theatre (was very busy with work at that time). It works against the "illusion" of the film a bit (makes me aware that something's off).

Todd

[dwmann]

Being almost as fanatic about film as I am about music, and owning over 750 DVDs, including most of the Criterion Collection, I was about as disappointed by this release as I possibly could be. The sync problems didn't bother me, because they've always been there, but on some songs the 5.1 mix is so bad that I ended up watching most of the film in stereo. I don't want to watch Levon Helm play the drums in front of me and hear him playing LOUDLY behind my head. Also, the edge enhancement used on the picture is so severe that I didn't really enjoy watching the film at all. It doesn't look anything like I remember it looking in the theaters. It WAS soft and beautiful. Now it is bright and edge-enhanced. It's the DVD equivalent of an ear-bleed remaster. Only worse.

I have to echo the sentiments of those who have compared this release to Criterion's Gimme Shelter, which is a WONDERFUL DVD. What Criterion did with that film was amazing. It's too bad they weren't given The Last Waltz. What was done to this film is criminal, IMO. However, since most of the general public seems to LIKE ear-bleed remasters and prefers bright edge-enhanced pictures that don't look anything like real film, I'm probably in the minority for thinking this. (But then, if the general public had a clue, DCC would have sold millions of copies of the gold CDs, and we'd still have SH's version of Who's Next on MCA.)

On the positive side, the 5.1 mix is very well done on some of the songs. (I can't believe the same person or crew mastered the sound for the entire disc.)

[Todd Fredericks]

dwmann,

I'm very glad you posted your observations about this DVD. I was worried that my friend and I were the only ones who saw and heard these problems. If I'm reading you correctly, you saw the restoration version in a theatre, so this is the work of the DVD production team? I can't believe that Marty would sign off on this (if in fact he ever did). It's a shame that Criterion didn't get the rights to work on this title...

Todd

[dwmann]

Todd,

I never saw the restored version in the theaters, but I saw the film at a pre-release screening in 1978 and saw the original release six times. I also saw seven or eight bad prints at midnight movies in the early eighties. (I used to LOVE this film.) The Last Waltz does not look like it did then. It USED to LOOK like a seventies film. It doesn't anymore. I love DVD, but MOST DVDs don't look like the original films. Someone somewhere got the idea that film grain is bad, and unless you buy Criterion releases or a just-slapped-on-DVD print (which usually looks pretty bad) you usually don't get to see much film grain on DVD. Digital enhancement alters the picture somewhat, but is what most consumers seem to like.

Curiously, I've read a number of reviews of this disc, and most say the edge enhancement is not too severe or noticeable, but it seems that way on MY TV. (I though Joni Mitchell's teeth looked disgusting - like some kind of huge plastic dentures.) Maybe it isn't edge enhancement, but the picture is definitely a lot brighter and sharper than it was originally, and it LOOKS like it has too much edge enhancement to me. However the film grain is GONE, and the look and feel of the picture has changed so much it's hard to tell. The Last Waltz ALWAYS had kind of a weird look to it, but it looks a lot weirder now. If some of the better reviewers aren't seeing the digital artifacts associated with edge enhancement, it's possible that the enhancements were performed on the restored print, and not just on the DVD. However, there IS edge enhancement on the DVD, and the combination of that and whatever else was done to "modernize" the look of this film ruined it IMO. If I ever watch this DVD again, I will turn the brightness and contrast on my TV WAY down, and try to get it to look like I think it should. But it will probably just sit on the shelf.


dwm

[Todd Fredericks]

I thought Joni Mitchell's teeth looked disgusting - like some kind of huge plastic dentures.

Very, very true! The DVD's image was just hurting my eyes (especially on metal objects with strong edge-lines/mikes, guitar strings, etc.). Yes, sunglasses are recommended (white-level way off). I'm glad I didn't buy this (my friend was mad that he did)...

Todd

P.S. I'm sure Joni will be slightly pissed when she watches this DVD...

[Ken_McAlinden]

Edge enhancement is used to describe the effect applied to video that is roughly the same as turning up the "sharpness" or "Velocity Scan Modulation" on one's TV. It creates visible halo artifacts around high contrast elements of the picture (check out Julie Andrews against the blue sky in the opening of The Sound of Music DVD for a particularly dreadful example). It is most notable on large screen projection sets, but if you sit close to a smaller set or if it is particularly egregious in its application, you can still notice it.

Interestingly, images are sometimes filtered to reduce high frequency information (entropy) for ease of digital compression, to mitigate grain, and to address a few other issues. When the telecinist sees the final result, they will sometimes think it looks too soft and add a little edge enhancement to increase the apparent sharpness. This actually increases the "entropy" and makes it harder to compress again - due to the high frequency content of the edge artifacts rather than actual picture information.

I see this as completely equivalent to the audio realm practice of no-noising to death and then trying to "recover" the lopped off high end by tilting the high-frequency eq so we can here "enhanced" noise.

There are other artifacts of video besides these edge halos that can be annoying . For instance, the Titanic DVD has zero edge enhancement applied, but it does have some flickering artifacts along horizontal edges from time to time.

Regards,

[lil.fred]

Originally posted by jdw


I haven't heard the 4 CD bootleg of the actual "line" recording of the complete show to confirm this (does anybody want to trade with me for it?), so perhaps someone else can comment...

John

Thanks for the reminder about Levon's account, jdw. - I have heard some of this set (excerpts in the incredible 3cd "Crossing the Great Divide" from Scorpio) and the sound is good and the performances wonderful.

Studio overdubs. In a film meant to be a souvenir of a historic event. Sigh.

People who feel this way, as I do, may be interested in the Criterion DVD's bonus "Gimme Shelter" footage of Mick falsifying "Little Queenie" in the studio. You get to hear him belting the words out (he's got cans on) without any backing track -- sort of not, you know, live music.

[lukpac]

Originally posted by lil.fred
People who feel this way, as I do, may be interested in the Criterion DVD's bonus "Gimme Shelter" footage of Mick falsifying "Little Queenie" in the studio. You get to hear him belting the words out (he's got cans on) without any backing track -- sort of not, you know, live music.

I know the DVD has them *mixing* Little Queenie, but I don't think there's any footage of them recording it.

Funny seeing a young Glyn Johns at the mixing desk.

As a side note - I know those NYC (Stones) shows were recorded with 16-track equipment, but in many respects they sound like 8-track recordings. For instance, the drums are not spread out at all, which is a trademark of Glyn's "sound". Why would the drums be dead center with a) Glyn Johns, b) a 16-track machine?

[SamS]

FWIW, I think the picture on the DVD is great. I'm watching on 55" ISF-calibrated HDTV with a great prog-scan DVD player.

I think that some of the complaints on the picture eminate from the source prints. I personally don't see that much edge-enhancement. I have an eye for EE and see it on many releases, but it didn't pop out on this one.

For the folks that are seeing EE, are your sets ISF'd?

[Ken_McAlinden]

Originally posted by SamS

For the folks that are seeing EE, are your sets ISF'd?

You don't need an ISF calibration for that. Just make sure that your "sharpness" is down very low and that you have disabled/turned off any "Velocity scan modulation" feature.

From what was described, I think people were referring to other types of artifacts even though they were calling it "edge enhancement".

Regards,

[SamS]

Kevin,

What you're saying about having ISF and seeing EE is mostly true, but from my experience, some sets add EE even if sharpness and VSM are turned off or down.

[teaser5]

you can still see Neil Youngs cocaine booger! :eek:
Got the Howdy Doody jaw thing workin' too...
It's better to burn out...

Peace,
Norm

[Ken_McAlinden]

Originally posted by SamS
What you're saying about having ISF and seeing EE is mostly true, but from my experience, some sets add EE even if sharpness and VSM are turned off or down.
Sam,

You are right that there are sets where the VSM cannot be turned off by the standard menu or even the service menu. You would need a technician (or at least a service manual) to turn it off. I was just commenting that you don't need a full ISF calibration (setting grey color temp and all of that good stuff) to address set-generated edge ringing.

Regards,

[lil.fred]

Originally posted by lukpac


I know the DVD has them *mixing* Little Queenie, but I don't think there's any footage of them recording it.

Hmm, I will look again when I get home ... the extra footage shows Mick recording a replacement vocal in the studio, belting out: "She's in th' MOOD -- no need'n BREAK it ... I gotta CHANCE -- ah oughta take it ..." Also some amusing footage of a very irascible Keith insisting that the camera be shut off.