Even Black and White classic films are butchered with excessive DNR :mad: Who the frak is in charge over there! Will someone please talk to these people? Who is making these decisions? Did they even try and watch the HD DVD Casablanca (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1040951)?

A travesty. The best I can come up with this release along with Patton (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1039303). A rental at best.

That is all.


Note: The DVD versions are NOT the benchmark here anymore. Its how the movie is faithfully transferred to the disc.


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
The Longest Day AVC 2:58:22 39,626,440,704 40,765,784,136 29.62 23.40 DTS-HD Master 5.1 3318Kbps (48kHz/24-bit) DD AC3 4.0 448Kbps


PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00004.mpls
Size: 39,626,440,704 bytes
Length: 2:58:22 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 29.62 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00006.M2TS 39,626,440,704 2:58:22 0:00:00 2:58:22

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 23398 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 3318 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 1536kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio English 448 kbps 4.0 / 48kHz
Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz
Dolby Digital Audio English 224 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz
Dolby Digital Audio French 224 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz
Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 224 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/a2ea3cd9.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/94a715f1.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/f9faa93c.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/21954e70.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/a025b603.gif

HOLY CRAP! It looks like animation!:eek:

Look at backgrounds. I don't know how to describe it.

Presented for the first time ever in Claymation!

Holy crap is right. What the HELL is this abomination? 39GB of wasted space.

Looks like I should hang on to my sd version, after all.

Xylon-

Thanks for the screenshots you've posted.

I actually did a double take on the BD capture of John Wayne...I actually thought for a split second I was looking at a painting.

Incredibly disappointing. :(

The picture just looks too artificially cleaned up.

Woah! Looks like someone put it through the "mosaic" or "painting" filter in photoshop!

Thanks for posting these pics!

It's very easy to see the effects of excessive DNR in these B&W shots. They look so soft, when they should be very sharp.

I mean, just look at the BRD shot of the helmet and how soft the netting looks. That netting is IN FOCUS. The only reason it's fuzzy and not razor sharp is because of the DNR.

This is one of the worst cases I've seen. It's also the first time I can honestly say I prefer the DVD shots. The DVD obviously has lower resolution and therefore is soft and blurry by comparison, but at least it doesn't look like animation. Seriously, that BRD transfer reminds me of "A Scanner Darkly."

The BRD seems to be cropped slightly on the left side of the second shot, not that it matters.

not only is the helmet net soft and lacking in detail but look at the sand... even wet sand wouldn't look glass smooth

fox is pissing all over these films with DNR then demanding a higher MSRP? i wouldn't even rent this

Cell shading cool !

As bad as Patton is,compared to the work the DNR junkies who got a hold of The Longest Day managed, it was amateur hour.:(:(

Art

They finally managed to CGI John Wayne. Actually the shot reminds me of those adverts where we get modern people mixing with old stars....I think it was a drinks ad that did that but it has that artifical fake look.

I can only guess that they think folks with modern 40 and 50 inch 120hz sets will love the look of these and to hell with any film fans (that's film fans with standards )

Is it possible that these are the old DVD masters and were already DNR'd with DVD's lower resolution in mind? I get the impression that people here are assuming these were all-new transfers and that the DNR was intended for the BD.

I really enjoyed watching my copy of this Blu-ray.

Is it possible that these are the old DVD masters and were already DNR'd with DVD's lower resolution in mind? I get the impression that people here are assuming these were all-new transfers meant for BD.

Patton was a brand new transfer.

Same with The Longest Day.

It was just a major error on the part of those involved in creating the new HD master.

Well, if that's true and these are all-new transfers, then the outrage is justified. Unfortunately, I own both of them.

Man, those Fox compressionists keep falling short of the mark. If they try just a little bit harder next time, maybe they'll finally get one looking just like A Scanner Darkly - maybe their rotoscope is broken...

this is one mushy mess, nasty!

-Gary

They finally managed to CGI John Wayne. Actually the shot reminds me of those adverts where we get modern people mixing with old stars....I think it was a drinks ad that did that but it has that artificial fake look.

I can only guess that they think folks with modern 40 and 50 inch 120hz sets will love the look of these and to hell with any film fans (that's film fans with standards )

Yep. It's like the colorization trend but worse. At least with that you could turn the color down to off on your set. Here, there is no escape. The "toon"ing of film.

Woah! Looks like someone put it through the "mosaic" or "painting" filter in photoshop!

I knew it! :D

Presented for the first time ever in Claymation!

Holy crap is right. What the HELL is this abomination? 39GB of wasted space.

Now don't let the bitrate watchers read that ;)

As bad as Patton is,compared to the work the DNR junkies who got a hold of The Longest Day managed, it was amateur hour.:(:(

Art

I really can't explain what they did to this movie. I always assume that these people are at least knowledgeable in film restoration.

I tell you they are dumbing this down to the PS3 demographic :mad:

Bingo!!!!

not only is the helmet net soft and lacking in detail but look at the sand... even wet sand wouldn't look glass smooth

fox is pissing all over these films with DNR then demanding a higher MSRP? i wouldn't even rent this


It boggles my bind.

Man, those Fox compressionists keep falling short of the mark. If they try just a little bit harder next time, maybe they'll finally get one looking just like A Scanner Darkly - maybe their rotoscope is broken...

It has nothing to do with the compression.

If I'm not mistaken, the folks at Lowry Digital were the ones who did the new HD masters for Patton and The Longest Day.

From what I understand about Lowry, they are one, if not the only film restoration house that currently has the equipment to perform DNR, yet leave high frequency information intact in the picture of a film. While this certainly is bad, it's not as bad as the whole Citizen Kane restoration that occurred almost 10 years ago. They do excellent work for the most part. Unfortunately in this particular instance what I can surmise is that whoever was applying the DNR was not careful to make sure the high frequency information was retained. The blame also falls on Fox for accepting the finished product. But Fox probably figured most would not care about it, and if that is the case, AVS has proven them right for the most part thanks for various individuals here.

First off, I think Fox did an amazing job at making sure the print was pristine and crisp. But like you said it has been DNRed which I disagree with. A quick question, how recent is the DVD? Is it the same master or an older one? Because to my eye it looks like it may have been DNRed as well which makes the comparison difficult for me.If both have had DNR applied, I think the Blu ray is a much superior DNR mess than the DVD.

Oh ya, the reason the Helmet mesh is soft is because the focus is on the seaweed, don t ask me why

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/3f2d7460.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/d95e7b78.png

It would be a "gorgeous" capture if it were of the animated version as that pic. above looks NOTHING like either a film print or reality to me. I don't even know what it's supposed to look like. Beowulf?

I'm going to just throw something out there...(like meat to the wolves)

I have seen the mantra of "DNR bad, DNR bad" being tossed around this and other forums for several months now, reaching something of a fever pitch lately. All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film. So, here's my thought.

Blu-ray (and HD DVD for that matter) is unique in the consumer market. No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution? My question is rhetorical of course. I already know the answer. Hopefully some others here will give the concept some thought.

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.

(...)Fox appears to have gone back to the original camera negative while digitally supering all the subtitles (in an approximation of the original 1962 font), rather than go with lesser elements where the original subtitling has already been optically inserted.

Hey they're right, there! The subtitles are in a different position now (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/94a715f1.png&sd=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/a2ea3cd9.png), but it doesn't look like any digital subtitling I've ever seen. The font looks exactly the same, and the text has a "glow" to it like opticals. Plus it's every bit as smooth as the rest of the image.

Is it possible that these are the old DVD masters and were already DNR'd with DVD's lower resolution in mind? I get the impression that people here are assuming these were all-new transfers and that the DNR was intended for the BD.

It's obviously not the same master; the framing is different in every shot for one thing.

And as for comments about the BD looking better than the DVD, the DVD is pretty awful res-wise as it isn't even using full 480p resolution.

BD -> 720x480 bicubic -> 1920x1080 bicubic vs DVD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/TLD_BD_resize.png&sd=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/3f2d7460.png)
BD -> 720x480 bicubic -> 1920x1080 bicubic + Gaussian blur (radius 2.0) vs DVD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/TLD_BD_resize_blur.png&sd=http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/3f2d7460.png)

It's obviously not the same master; the framing is different in every shot for one thing.

And as for comments about the BD looking better than the DVD, the DVD is pretty awful res-wise as it isn't even using full 480p resolution.



??? the DVD looks better then the down res blu-ray and you can stilll see the grain on the old DVD...

The problem is, even with the horrid amounts of DNR, we'll still get people complaining that The Longest Day lacks "3D pop"…

I'm going to just throw something out there...(like meat to the wolves)

I have seen the mantra of "DNR bad, DNR bad" being tossed around this and other forums for several months now, reaching something of a fever pitch lately. All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film. So, here's my thought.

Blu-ray (and HD DVD for that matter) is unique in the consumer market. No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution? My question is rhetorical of course. I already know the answer. Hopefully some others here will give the concept some thought.

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.

Robert, IMO you are one of the most pragmatic guys on the forum and I man who's opinion I have great respect for. I certainly wouldn't argue with the basic validity of anything you have said in the quote and as I've stated before we aren't insiders all we can do is extrapolate from known precedents. Films like Casablanca or even Jail House Rock are light years more detailed than The Longest Day and have grain (as do old films like Rio Bravo in BD). I've seen hundreds of black and white SD DVDs that exceed the detail of The Longest Day. Film has grain, even the largest formats like IMAX as we all know. Just by that it can be surmised that Patton and The Longest Day have very likely been tampered with much like Citizen Kane was in SD where it was digitally cleansed to such an extent that it had no detail.

Of course ,we could say ,that since we haven't actually seen the original source elements, that that film had no detail or grain structure that was visible but this is surely much less likely than excessive DNR applicatrion at the transfer IMO.

Art

I'm going to just throw something out there...(like meat to the wolves)

I have seen the mantra of "DNR bad, DNR bad" being tossed around this and other forums for several months now, reaching something of a fever pitch lately. All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film. So, here's my thought.

Blu-ray (and HD DVD for that matter) is unique in the consumer market. No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution? My question is rhetorical of course. I already know the answer. Hopefully some others here will give the concept some thought.

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.


While grain doesn't bother me at all, I agree with your stance and louigi's, yet I understand and SEE the opposing sides point of view. Like an example before in another thread, I see little things looking remarkably better. Look at the rock or shell to the left rear of the helmut in the first shot. You can see the layers in it in the BD version courtesy of Xylon, where as the DVD it looks like a blob of blur. At the same time, the waxy look on BD's sucks and I have become more aware of it thanks to you #(&@^@o. :D

This is a tough issue. I agree the wax look needs to go. I think I saw quite a bit of it on the Jumper BD.

All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film.

Right. Now tell that to Robert Harris.

What are the chances that the original film negative had little grain and looked digitally processed?

Of course ,we could say ,that since we haven't actually seen the original source elements, that that film had no detail or grain structure that was visible but this is surely much less likely than excessive DNR applicatrion at the transfer IMO.
Art

You are being generous here - whether you go back to the original negative or to release prints there always is enough grain structure in 35mm stock of that vintage to show up at the 1920 x 1080 resolution the format permits. IF master and transfer are done properly, there is even grain visible in the significantly larger 65/70mm format. I am not that familiar with low grain stock that apparently is available today, but all modern movies that I watched which are shot on film and have good or great transfers show grain to some degree, too.

Xylon, you should go back and replace all your grain simulated Patton pics with grayscale versions of the Blu-Ray. It removes the marvelous colors from the equation and allows you to see just how little high frequency detail is there. It also makes the EE really stand out since it's no longer camoflauged by the colors. Look at a grayscale of the picture where patton is standing in front of the flag for instance.

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

If there is little to no grain in 2K there is nonetheless superior detail from 35mm and 65mm and not a claymation look with no fine detail. The difference between naturally low grain film and radical DNR with loss of fine detail is very obvious and really not difficult to tell apart.

What are the chances that the original film negative had little grain and looked digitally processed?
Zero (for digitally processed as in Patton or Day).

The problem is, even with the horrid amounts of DNR, we'll still get people complaining that The Longest Day lacks "3D pop"…
I agree. As I understand 3D pop Day has lost it due to the silly claymation look. :D

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.
Of course what we purists say is not: Grain is good, no grain is bad.
We say: The authentic original look of the film is good, the radically altered look due to filtering is bad.
The original look may involve a lot of grain, or little or almost none in 1080p. It depends. It never includes a constant claymation look if the film is before the DI age. Even if clay puppets were filmed there would be a fine level of grain over them. :D

What are the chances that the original film negative had little grain and looked digitally processed?Absolutely NONE!!!!!

Digital image processing didn't exist back when this film was released. Computers were in their infancy, took huge rooms to install and used vacuum tubes! They were very limited in math, for example ther performed multiplying by using repititive adds.

Vern

I really can't explain what they did to this movie. I always assume that these people are at least knowledgeable in film restoration.

I tell you they are dumbing this down to the PS3 demographic :mad:
As a member of the "PS3 demographic" (no, really, I own 16 PS3 games in addition to my 103 Blu-ray Discs), I find that comment insulting. ;)

Seriously, this is just effing awful. What's funny is that another DNR-laden studio (New Line) put out one of the best arguments for leaving the film grain in... Shoot 'em Up looks phenomenal on Blu-ray, film grain and all. Too bad they didn't show the same respect to Pan's Labyrinth.

No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution?

I found the bashing threads just after ordering the TLD BD - I watched the movie (my first end-to-end viewing since it's original release) - there are several scenes which look very 'funky' - I won't presume to know the specific cause - in any case I was able to enjoy the movie and there were many scenes that I thought looked good.

With most things, the end result is a compromise between many tradeoffs - do I think this film could have been done better? Yes!

But without knowing the input and variabilities I cannot say that for sure nor can I say that another outcome could be significantly better in one respect without creating issues in another...???

Bottom line, I'm all for raising the questions regarding TLD. But I agree with Robert in suspecting that most posters making categorical statements regarding the production probably don't have the absolute basis for those conclusions...

The John wayne cap is easily one of the worst Noise Reduced images I have ever seen.

But that cap just above is not a fraction as bad to my eyes, the extra detail you see is vast compared to the dvd. It is an improvment hats for sure and looks like the upgrade would be worth it, well if the plastic look was not so evident in that Wayne image.

Too many people saying "It looks better than the DVD" when these things happen....I mean i know it's going to look better than the DVD as the Blu Ray has six times ( five times UK ) more resolution to it.

It's clear that studio's are making one version for both DVD and Blu Ray and are not taking into account the fact Blu Ray can show fine grain without the problems that a DVD encode with grain has. Thus some longer films get the DNR treatment so it fits better on DVD and that same version is used for Blu Ray.

I remember buying Apocalypse Now on DVD ( PAL UK Version ) - Great image with fine grain throughout...One of the best looking DVD's ever made. That was released by Fox in the UK for the Pathe label.

Fast forward a few weeks and i also picked up Apocalypse Now - Redux edition....This time released by Buena Vista ( Disney ) ....They had added huge amounts of DNR and removed all fine detail and no grain was evident...probably done in order to fit the film onto one disc but it looked absolutely c*** compared to the theatrical version from Fox/Pathe......My point being that longer films are being DNRed for DVD and we seem to get the same DNRed version when it hits Blu Ray....Sometimes the studio doesn't try hard enough or goes all cheap on us.

It would be great if instead of people saying....This looks better than DVD they can look at the bigger picture and ask themselves if it looks as good as it can for the Blu Ray format.

I sure hope Lawrence of Arabia doesn't get this DNR treatment but i suspect it'll be fine and will be split into two discs for DVD and have very little DNR for Blu Ray.

I've been thinking.
Based on Xylon's screen captures I have decided to purchase both Patton and The Longest Day. Normally I would not make a "purchase" decision based on screen caps alone but those captures SHOUT at me as to how much more detailed the BD version is over the crappy SD DVD title. I know this was not Xylon's intent....but when you post screen shots (remember that saying - a picture is worth a thousand words) Xylon's "intent" got blown away by how good the BD pics looked, in my opinion, and his message got lost in the translation.
I know BD has 6 X's more detail than SD DVD and is supposed to look a lot better, but...THIS MUCH BETTER!!!!! HOLLY MOLEY.
As a comparison, look at Xylons A Passage to India comparison pics. Now this title was not one of my David Lean favorites but I doubt I would replace the SD DVD disc with the BD version as the former holds up very well and yes....this was not Xylon's intent but it's so bloody obvious.
I think one of the most pressing problems we have as movie aficionados is trying to decide if it's worth replacing a semi-favorite SD DVD title with the same just released BD title.....anyway, it is for me as I still have over 400 SD DVD titles.
Xylon, thanks for the GREAT screen pics...but let your pics do your talking for you. Really, they speak volumes. Let US decide if the Patton screen pics are "despicable." It could have been fun if you just posted the comparison and commented, "well...what do you guys think?"

It would be great if instead of people saying....This looks better than DVD they can look at the bigger picture and ask themselves if it looks as good as it can for the Blu Ray format.

Problem is they will never re-release them and invest more cash into new transfers just becuase people do not like the newly released HD transfers.

It never happened on dvd, and it wont happen on HD.

Well not for a year or two when they milk us all over again :eek:


Thing is pretty much most of all the transfers out there could look better with time, cash and the right input. But we still buy them becuase it is as good as it will get for a long time. Sad but true.

I imagine these new uglyfied Noise reduced War film transfers will still sell loads, transfer niggles or not as frankly the "Joe Public" do not care it seems :(

Xylon, thanks for the GREAT screen pics...but let your pics do your talking for you. Really, they speak volumes. Let US decide if the Patton screen pics are "despicable." It could have been fun if you just posted the comparison and commented, "well...what do you guys think?"

He posts the screen caps because he chooses to. He is not, nor does he claim to be any form of impartial journalist. He invests a large amount of time, effort and money to do this and you thank him by asking him not to comment on what he works so hard to do? That certainly takes some gall...

As bad as PATTON is, this is far worse. So F'n terrible that it's infuriating. It's a crime.

But I agree with Robert in suspecting that most posters making categorical statements regarding the production probably don't have the absolute basis for those conclusions...


Who needs it we have all seen film many times we do not have to have seen TLD specifically. As I said I could put up many DVDs that have more detaiol but of course have retained the grain and don't even put Casablanca up next to TLD !

Art

Besides all this talk about "DNR bad," the thing that bugs me most is the lumping of people who own PS3s into the animation/HD video crowd. Some of us can recognize the loss of detail with excessive use of filtering AND own a PS3. If you're going to complain about excessive DNR blame it on the studios trying to get everything to look like a demo loop in a B&M store, not that fact that we own a PS3.

I enjoy movies looking as close to film as possible on my tiny ass 50" plasma with a PS3, but please refrain from making offhand remarks about a demographic that allowed one HD format to win and provided incentives for the studios to give us HD material to watch. It makes it difficult for those of us just getting into HD to "fight for unprocessed films" when we're tossed into the "no taste" crowd.

Besides all this talk about "DNR bad," the thing that bugs me most is the lumping of people who own PS3s into the animation/HD video crowd. Some of us can recognize the loss of detail with excessive use of filtering AND own a PS3. If you're going to complain about excessive DNR blame it on the studios trying to get everything to look like a demo loop in a B&M store, not that fact that we own a PS3.

I enjoy movies looking as close to film as possible on my tiny ass 50" plasma with a PS3, but please refrain from making offhand remarks about a demographic that allowed one HD format to win and provided incentives for the studios to give us HD material to watch. It makes it difficult for those of us just getting into HD to "fight for unprocessed films" when we're tossed into the "no taste" crowd.

I keep reitterating the same mantra over and over. Ths PS3 PQ for BD's is as good as ANY player, yes any and we have had confirmation of such from members who have high end equipment. The PS3 is no crappy PS2 DVD player or device. It is a different world these days. Many of us who have PS3's happen to have equipment that makes the PS3 look cheap in terms of dollar amount. There are many PS3 owners who have tens of thousands invested in their setups. The bottom line is today there is no PS3 demographic that can be said to be typical. Stating PS3 owners are part of said demographic is insulting and elitist.

I keep reitterating the same mantra over and over. Ths PS3 PQ for BD's is as good as ANY player, yes any and we have had confirmation of such from members who have high end equipment.

We've also had people with high end equipment state some of the newer standalone players are at least slightly better than the PS3 and this has been my experience too. However, I do agree the PS3 is a very good unit.

I wish we could get the transfer engineers to speak up in this forums so we can get what they were thinking. I still maintain that we must put on the video box the name of the transfer engineering studio and the specific engineer so we can decide who needs to find another line of work.

Marcus

As far as the PS3 thing all stereotypes have some basis in fact. Way too many threads on these forums bear this out. It really is no excuse to lump everyone but still not unfounded either.

Art

He posts the screen caps because he chooses to. He is not, nor does he claim to be any form of impartial journalist. He invests a large amount of time, effort and money to do this and you thank him by asking him not to comment on what he works so hard to do? That certainly takes some gall...

+1

Xylon, thanks for the GREAT screen pics...but let your pics do your talking for you. Really, they speak volumes. Let US decide if the Patton screen pics are "despicable." It could have been fun if you just posted the comparison and commented, "well...what do you guys think?"

So everyone gets to voice their opinion except for the one taking the time and effort to provide us these screencaps?:rolleyes:

Hey, I too own a PS3 but got it because it was a great BD player. I also went to NYU film school and used to shoot industrials before mostly switching to shooting on video later.
I think it is when U see a screename here like "BluROOLZ!" with "Lord Of The Underworld" underneath the name that some of the stereotyping has some basis in fact.

:)

Hey, I too own a PS3 but got it because it was a great BD player. I also went to NYU film school and used to shoot industrials before mostly switching to shooting on video later.
I think it is when U see a screename here like "BluROOLZ!" with "Lord Of The Underworld" underneath the name that some of the stereotyping has some basis in fact.

I was an art-house film projectionist (and freelance bass player/project producer) for 20 years before I moved into multimedia production, specializing in video and interactive museum exhibits. I do know a little bit about what film and video look like.

I'm also a PS3 owner. The "PS3 mentality" is simply the "digital home media mentality." It's still the best $300 BD player you can buy.

In other words, PS3s don't murder film grain; ignorance murders film grain.

I still maintain that we must put on the video box the name of the transfer engineering studio and the specific engineer so we can decide who needs to find another line of work.

That's what I was wondering: if it has anything to do with the specific company that did the disc. On many BDs there are some "credit" videos after the movie plays. I think the encoding and authoring of "Juno" for instance was done by Panasonic.

HOLY CRAP! It looks like animation!:eek:

That's exactly the very first thing that popped in my head!

Wow.

Honestly, im one of those guys that doesnt mind DNR, but this is just... wow, they should be ashamed

I m not trying to start anything, but I was wondering if someone could clarify something for me. Xylon says that Casablanca is the way a B&W film is supposed to look like, and I agree that it looks good (I also own it), but in all fairness it doesn t seem like they have that much more detail in the faces. So is this because of the film stock used? And is The Longest Day really missing a huge amount of detail that it otherwise would have had without DNR? Obviously some is missing because of DNR, but I think your cries of CGI are a bit far fetched.

but in all fairness it doesn t seem like they have that much more detail in the faces.Please give us some info on your viewing setup, resolution, screen size, and viewing distance.

Vern

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/d9840cef.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/1b6989ac.png

I m not trying to start anything, but I was wondering if someone could clarify something for me. Xylon says that Casablanca is the way a B&W film is supposed to look like, and I agree that it looks good (I also own it), but in all fairness it doesn t seem like they have that much more detail in the faces. So is this because of the film stock used? And is The Longest Day really missing a huge amount of detail that it otherwise would have had without DNR? Obviously some is missing because of DNR, but I think your cries of CGI are a bit far fetched.

The NON-DNR version of Longest Day without a doubt will be superior in overall PQ over Casablanca. Better technology and all. You have to take into account the age of the film.

Wow, that looks like an acrylic painting.

It looks good to me, I don't get all of these.."oh! it looks cell shaded" or "it looks like a painting or animated" comments. It sure looks leaps and bounds more superior than the dvd version. In those shots posted by Xylon, I sure see quite a bit of detail.

Terrible. I can't believe some knucklehead(s) at Fox OK'd this.

I sure see quite a bit of detail.Then I would have to say that you don't understand what is missing. Yes, gross detail is there, but absolutely none of the fine details captured by the camera are present.

It's a human male face.... Where are the facial hairs, where are the pores, etc, etc?

No human face looks like this. A replication in a wax museum somewhere probably looks like this. In this case, you can be sure that the original film contained these details.

Vern

It looks good to me, I don't get all of these.."oh! it looks cell shaded" or "it looks like a painting or animated" comments. It sure looks leaps and bounds more superior than the dvd version. In those shots posted by Xylon, I sure see quite a bit of detail.

:eek::confused:

Art

You could easily see it in the first pic, but that last close-up of Wayne is just horrendous.

:eek::confused:

Art

x1000

I have never complained about grain in any movie. I've owned both DVD editions of The Longest Day and now this Blu-ray. Even with the likely DNR, this version is 10x better than the blurry mess that the most recent DVD was. I'd rather that DNR not be used so that it could have been 20x better, but to say the DVD is preferred over the Blu-ray is like cutting your nose off to spite your face. It seems to me the screen shots here tend to make the DNR more obvious than is noticed in the actual moving image.

I don't think most here are saying they prefer the DVD to the BD, it's just such a blown opportunity.

Dear god!!!!

It´s like if someone put acid in my coffie when I watch that last screenshot :(

Then I would have to say that you don't understand what is missing. Yes, gross detail is there, but absolutely none of the fine details captured by the camera are present.

It's a human male face.... Where are the facial hairs, where are the pores, etc, etc?

No human face looks like this. A replication in a wax museum somewhere probably looks like this. In this case, you can be sure that the original film contained these details.

Vern

Vern,
I understand what your saying and might even agree with you if I watched movies frame by frame under a microscope looking for facial hairs and pores! But I don't and I wouldn't recommend watching a movie this way.:D
I think it's totally unfair and extremely biased to make the assumptions your making, based on screen shots, while not commenting on what you experienced while watching the motion picture version of this classic movie.
You have seen this on BD....right? If not....come-on...give it a fair shot and rent it. Than give us your thoughts.:)

LOL LOL

Funny how no one is mentioning how much better it looks in COMPARISON to the DVD.

Does it have some DNR sure.

But in COMPARING it to the DVD, LOL the DVD is a blurry absolute joke.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews37/the%20longest%20day%20blu-ray/2_HF7Y2991_The_Longest_Day_SD.jpg
DVD

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews37/the%20longest%20day%20blu-ray/2c_HF7Y3073_The_Longest_Day_BRD.jpg
Blu Ray

If you want to miss out on the above detail, be my guest, don't buy the Bluray

+1
So everyone gets to voice their opinion except for the one taking the time and effort to provide us these screencaps?:rolleyes:
I guess you've never heard of the "power of suggestion" concept. It's the equivalent of you going to an Art museum and, while viewing a painting, the guide comes up to you and says, " doesn't that painting look like a piece of crap." Most times the "herd" mentality kicks in and even though you may disagree with the guides assessment, you say, "yup...it sure does."
Here's another example of "power of suggestion/herd mentality." On another forum, I ran across a post made by someone who saw Patton on BD and posted how great looking the title was. A few days later, after Mr Harris posted his negative review, that same poster, after watching the BD again, now noticed how everything looked so plastic and un-natural.

I guess you've never heard of the "power of suggestion" concept. It's the equivalent of you going to an Art museum and, while viewing a painting, the guide comes up to you and says, " doesn't that painting look like a piece of crap." Most times the "herd" mentality kicks in and even though you may disagree with the guides assessment, you say, "yup...it sure does."
Here's another example of "power of suggestion/herd mentality." On another forum, I ran across a post made by someone who saw Patton on BD and posted how great looking the title was. A few days later, after Mr Harris posted his negative review, that same poster, after watching the BD again, now noticed how everything looked so plastic and un-natural.

Yah i guess we're just too dumb to think for ourselves :rolleyes:

terrible..the smearing is just awful.

bluray could be a lost cause even among HT enthusiasts :(

I have never complained about grain in any movie. I've owned both DVD editions of The Longest Day and now this Blu-ray. Even with the likely DNR, this version is 10x better than the blurry mess that the most recent DVD was. I'd rather that DNR not be used so that it could have been 20x better, but to say the DVD is preferred over the Blu-ray is like cutting your nose off to spite your face. It seems to me the screen shots here tend to make the DNR more obvious than is noticed in the actual moving image.
As opposed as I am to DNR, I had the same thoughts about Pan's Labyrinth. Some of the scenes in that Blu-ray Disc are just flat-out stunning in HD - even when I was noticing the DNR. I just can't even imagine going back to the DVD after seeing it on BD.

I guess you've never heard of the "power of suggestion" concept. It's the equivalent of you going to an Art museum and, while viewing a painting, the guide comes up to you and says, " doesn't that painting look like a piece of crap." Most times the "herd" mentality kicks in and even though you may disagree with the guides assessment, you say, "yup...it sure does."

I guess I just give (most of) the AVS posters more credit than you do. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think it's extremely presumptuous (not to mention rude) to come into one of Xylon's threads and basically tell him to keep his opinions to himself. He has as much right to comment on the screencaps as anyone else does. It might behoove you to remember that he's doing us all a favor by posting these pics. Again, I direct you to sperron's post:
He posts the screen caps because he chooses to. He is not, nor does he claim to be any form of impartial journalist. He invests a large amount of time, effort and money to do this and you thank him by asking him not to comment on what he works so hard to do? That certainly takes some gall...

Every single respected Blu Ray reviewer thinks it looks absoultely marvelous, and your calling them misguided or just plain ignorant.

Ralph Potts from AVS Forums:::::"how wonderfully detailed this presentation is. Close ups revealed lots of fine articulation in the faces, hair and clothing worn by the cast members. Some have very expressive features, like John Wayne for instance, where high definition reveals every crack, crows foot, and wrinkle. Things that might otherwise be missed like tiny droplets of water (like dew) laying on the surface of clothing and hair had distinctive shapes and texture to them. Object detail in both interior and exterior shots was delivered quite well. This added a wonderful sense of depth to the image which made it appear more lifelike."

DVD Beaver(Leonard Norwitz):::::"It would have not been possible to predict just how good this image is from what Fox put out in their wretched 2-disc Collector's Edition. Even projected to a large screen of over 100 inches, there is a coherency, a tightness to the Blu-ray image that makes most color films look positively pixilated. Leather jackets shine, yet you can almost smell them."

DVD Talk(Stuart Galbraith):::::"1080p image is just uniformly clean, undistorted, and with better depth-of-field. On Blu-ray one can see all manner of detail previous standard DVD editions just can't pick up. Just as high-definition television is great for things like sporting events where you can make out every face in the stadium, it's a godsend for war movies and a heck of a lot easier making out faces running around the battlefield. Possibly one reason the film looks as good as it does"


DVD Authority:::::"I was impressed here, as some scenes look stunning and show off some brilliant depth. This is an instance where the added resolution can backfire however, as the image is so clear, you can see...."

DVD Verdict::::::"So how does a 1962 black-and-white war movie look in high-definition? One word: stunning."

Well there you have it, every single reviewer loves it.

But THEY MUST be incompetent right?

Because according to you guys, its a smeary mess, nothing but garbage

Every single respected Blu Ray reviewer thinks it looks absoultely marvelous, and your calling them misguided or just plain ignorant.

Ralph Potts from AVS Forums:::::"how wonderfully detailed this presentation is. Close ups revealed lots of fine articulation in the faces, hair and clothing worn by the cast members. Some have very expressive features, like John Wayne for instance, where high definition reveals every crack, crows foot, and wrinkle. Things that might otherwise be missed like tiny droplets of water (like dew) laying on the surface of clothing and hair had distinctive shapes and texture to them. Object detail in both interior and exterior shots was delivered quite well. This added a wonderful sense of depth to the image which made it appear more lifelike."

DVD Beaver(Leonard Norwitz):::::"It would have not been possible to predict just how good this image is from what Fox put out in their wretched 2-disc Collector's Edition. Even projected to a large screen of over 100 inches, there is a coherency, a tightness to the Blu-ray image that makes most color films look positively pixilated. Leather jackets shine, yet you can almost smell them."

DVD Talk(Stuart Galbraith):::::"1080p image is just uniformly clean, undistorted, and with better depth-of-field. On Blu-ray one can see all manner of detail previous standard DVD editions just can't pick up. Just as high-definition television is great for things like sporting events where you can make out every face in the stadium, it's a godsend for war movies and a heck of a lot easier making out faces running around the battlefield. Possibly one reason the film looks as good as it does"


DVD Authority:::::"I was impressed here, as some scenes look stunning and show off some brilliant depth. This is an instance where the added resolution can backfire however, as the image is so clear, you can see...."

DVD Verdict::::::"So how does a 1962 black-and-white war movie look in high-definition? One word: stunning."

Well there you have it, every single reviewer loves it.

But THEY MUST be incompetent right?

Because according to you guys, its a smeary mess, nothing but garbage
They can both be right, you know. The Blu-ray Disc is a huge upgrade from previous DVD editions. However, it's still a flawed transfer and some people are going to react differently to what flaws are there than other will. Personally, I can't help but agree with Xylon in that the images looks less like film and more like a watercolor.

And how is it a problem just to not agree with the herd of reviewers? They have legitimate, demonstrable issues with the transfer of this film. Just because so many reviewers are loving it doesn't mean that the people here don't have a point.

Read the posts in this thread.

They aren't just disagreeing.

They are making it out so if you like it, you have no idea what film should look like, and you should just shut the hell up.

and that kind of attitude pisses me off, sorry if it affends you.

Hey mike171979, I'm guessing by your username you were born in '79? I always told my wife and my daughters that a man doesn't grow up until he's at least 32.

Calling people pricks who don't agree with you.... nice.

Yancy

I have never complained about grain in any movie. I've owned both DVD editions of The Longest Day and now this Blu-ray. Even with the likely DNR, this version is 10x better than the blurry mess that the most recent DVD was. I'd rather that DNR not be used so that it could have been 20x better, but to say the DVD is preferred over the Blu-ray is like cutting your nose off to spite your face. It seems to me the screen shots here tend to make the DNR more obvious than is noticed in the actual moving image.

As has been said multiple times in various places, every BD looks better then it's SD DVD counterpart. That doesn't mean that the BD is perfect, nor does it mean the BD shouldn't be criticized for it's deficiencies. Most of us are trying to make this an issue now so that it stops happening in the future. The best case outcome from this is for people see this here and then take the time to write a snail mail letter to Fox. No one here wants this title to be boycotted because it may convince Fox that classics don't sell rather then focus on our complaints about excessive DNR.

Someone posted the contact information in the other thread:

Steve Feldstein
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment
2121 Avenue of the Stars, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Maybe Xylon can add it to the first post of these 2 threads.

Re-read please, I said it makes you "look" like pricks.

Whether or not you are one is up to you.

But putting folks down that like how it looks, well my friend, that certainly gives the impression that you are a prick.

Wouldn't you agree?

Ralph Potts from AVS Forums:::::"how wonderfully detailed this presentation is. Close ups revealed lots of fine articulation in the faces, hair and clothing worn by the cast members. Some have very expressive features, like John Wayne for instance, where high definition reveals every crack, crows foot, and wrinkle. Things that might otherwise be missed like tiny droplets of water (like dew) laying on the surface of clothing and hair had distinctive shapes and texture to them. Object detail in both interior and exterior shots was delivered quite well. This added a wonderful sense of depth to the image which made it appear more lifelike."

What's see what an AVS administrator thinks about about Ralph's Patton review here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14088395#post14088395):

With all due respect, unless I've missed it, Ralph Potts's review (AKA the official AVS review) did not mention EE or DNR on this title either. The closest thing to it would be the mention of pasty fleshtones, but it's attributed to the makeup used in the film.

Hi Steeb

I make no excuses for this. Most review sites seam to concentrate on the story line with very little attention or accuracy to PQ. I wish we had a reviewer with an 8 foot wide or larger screen giving reliable and accurate PQ descriptions.

Even an administrator admits that their own AVS reviews do not give a "reliable and accurate PQ description".

If AVS can't give an accurate PQ review, what hope do we have for the rest of the net?

What's see what an AVS administrator thinks about about Ralph's Patton review here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14088395#post14088395):



Even an administrator admits that their own AVS reviews do not give a "reliable and accurate PQ description".

If AVS can't give an accurate PQ review, what hope do we have for the rest of the net?


I watched Jumper on DVD back to back with the BD. I mention this because I read Ralph Potts review of Jumper and other BD's I have seen and he seems more than generous with many titles, almost promotional in his reviews.

Every single respected Blu Ray reviewer thinks it looks absoultely marvelous, and your calling them misguided or just plain ignorant.

Ralph Potts from AVS Forums:::::"how wonderfully detailed this presentation is. Close ups revealed lots of fine articulation in the faces, hair and clothing worn by the cast members. Some have very expressive features, like John Wayne for instance, where high definition reveals every crack, crows foot, and wrinkle. Things that might otherwise be missed like tiny droplets of water (like dew) laying on the surface of clothing and hair had distinctive shapes and texture to them. Object detail in both interior and exterior shots was delivered quite well. This added a wonderful sense of depth to the image which made it appear more lifelike."

DVD Beaver(Leonard Norwitz):::::"It would have not been possible to predict just how good this image is from what Fox put out in their wretched 2-disc Collector's Edition. Even projected to a large screen of over 100 inches, there is a coherency, a tightness to the Blu-ray image that makes most color films look positively pixilated. Leather jackets shine, yet you can almost smell them."

DVD Talk(Stuart Galbraith):::::"1080p image is just uniformly clean, undistorted, and with better depth-of-field. On Blu-ray one can see all manner of detail previous standard DVD editions just can't pick up. Just as high-definition television is great for things like sporting events where you can make out every face in the stadium, it's a godsend for war movies and a heck of a lot easier making out faces running around the battlefield. Possibly one reason the film looks as good as it does"


DVD Authority:::::"I was impressed here, as some scenes look stunning and show off some brilliant depth. This is an instance where the added resolution can backfire however, as the image is so clear, you can see...."

DVD Verdict::::::"So how does a 1962 black-and-white war movie look in high-definition? One word: stunning."

Well there you have it, every single reviewer loves it.

But THEY MUST be incompetent right?

Because according to you guys, its a smeary mess, nothing but garbage

Those of us who have expressed concern over the transfer of both Patton and The Longest Day do so because we would prefer to not see poor transfers. There is an interest in preserving the appearance of a film, rather than digitally manipulating it whether the reason be to try and appeal to today's audiences, or through error.

The unfortunate reality of TLD and Patton is that people are mistaking clarity for detail. Xylon's screenshots have done a wonderful job of illuminating the lack of detail present in these transfers. I don't dispute the BD versions of these films look much more crisp and clear than the DVD versions have. However, the increased clarity has come with a price attached to it; lack of detail.

These are not the best these films have ever looked, and it would be nice to have seen better quality control applied here. The finished product under no circumstances should ever have been accepted by Fox...there is no justification for the DNR that has been applied to the transfers. If it meant a further delay in the release of the Blu-ray to the public, even though people would have been upset, it's much better to get something right than something wrong.

As has been said multiple times in various places, every BD looks better then it's SD DVD counterpart. You only have to go to the first 10 posts of this thread to find someone who prefers the DVD to the BD based on the screen shots. I read the same thing in the Patton thread. It's one thing to point out a deficiency, it's quite another to resort to the hyperbole that many of the posts have.

Yah i guess we're just too dumb to think for ourselves :rolleyes:
Look...I'm not the one posting screen shots labeled "despicable." Did you think they were despicable as we understand the word?

It might behoove you to remember that he's doing us all a favor by posting these pics.

Maybe, maybe not.

A loaded gun is a very valuable tool when one is starving in the wilderness, or alone in an inner city tenement with a burglar coming through the window, but not so much in the hands of curious children.

A lot of people are making a lot of assumptions based on still frame captures of electronic transfers of motion picture film being viewed on a wide array of computer monitors.

Again, I'm not saying some of the HD transfers being discussed are not over-processed, or could not have been done differently (better?). All I'm saying is we are dealing with a relatively new technology for which the vast majority of us have no previous frame of reference. I think it's time to step back a bit and dispense with some of the overreaction and hysteria.

EDIT: I'll go ahead and add for the record that my viewing environment is based on a calibrated 1080x1920 LCoS projector (Sony VW60) on a 106" diagonal color corrected white screen at a viewing distance of ~11 feet in a light controlled room. Also for the record, I'll point out that I have not voiced an opinion of the BD version of The Longest Day as I have not yet picked up this disc. I do, however, have the recent releases of Patton, The Sand Pebbles, The Battle of Britain, A Bridge Too Far, The Professionals, along with many dozens of other Blu-ray and HD DVD versions of movies both old and new.

You only have to go to the first 10 posts of this thread to find someone who prefers the DVD to the BD based on the screen shots. I read the same thing in the Patton thread. It's one thing to point out a deficiency, it's quite another to resort to the hyperbole that many of the posts have.

So instead of focusing on the one or two people you perceive as going hyperbolic -- and worse, ascribing their opinions to everyone else in the thread -- why not just discuss the issue with the people you see as trying to be fair and balanced?

Most of the detractors of this transfer are saying that their problem is that the processing keeps the image from being as accurate and detailed as it could and should have been. They are not saying it's worse than the DVD. They are not saying it isn't very clear looking. They are saying that some of the fine detail has been glossed over by the DNR and that the EE has, in some scenes, created an artificial separation between foreground and background. And that this was unnecessary and done for the wrong reasons.

Personally, this is a favorite film of mine, and I was looking forward to the BD. But I don't own a copy in any format, because there has never been a transfer that I felt did the film justice. There still isn't. So if I get an irresistable urge to see it, I'll rent it, and hope there will be another release some time in the future.

I guess I just give (most of) the AVS posters more credit than you do. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think it's extremely presumptuous (not to mention rude) to come into one of Xylon's threads and basically tell him to keep his opinions to himself. He has as much right to comment on the screencaps as anyone else does. It might behoove you to remember that he's doing us all a favor by posting these pics. Again, I direct you to sperron's post:
First of all, I would never tell ANYONE to keep their opinions to themselves. In fact...the opposite is more factual...to encourage diverse opinions which I don't think you get by labeling those pictures as "despicable." and than presenting them to support your point of view.

First of all, I would never tell ANYONE to keep their opinions to themselves. In fact...the opposite is more factual...to encourage diverse opinions which I don't think you get by labeling those pictures as "despicable." and than presenting them to support your point of view.

If you actually read Xylon's posts (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14092242#post14092242) in the Patton thread or watched the movie, you'd have seen that he was referencing a famous line:

"Despicable". That's the first time anyone's ever applied that word to me.

- George S. Patton

It sure looks leaps and bounds more superior than the dvd version. In other words, your reference for visual quality is DVD. Many of us prefer to use the original FILM as the visual reference, something you're apparently not interested in.

A lot of people are making a lot of assumptions based on still frame captures of electronic transfers of motion picture film being viewed on a wide array of computer monitors.



I don't understand you.....No assumptions are being made but proof is being provided and has been provided by Robert A Harris that this film has had excessive DNR applied to it ( Note i said excessive not just minor which most people would probably accept )

I guess it's a question of trust.....You have to look at the person making the posts about this film and look at their past record and ask yourself the question of whether you trust them and in this instance i do....I'm not going to suddenly buy the film and check for myself if it's bad because A) I would be wasting my money if i disliked the DNR look and frankly i don't have money to just throw about and B) I'm sending a message to Fox that excessive DNR is acceptable if i buy this film.

As for a frame of reference....Surely the frame of reference becomes the Theater ( Cinema )

You have been a long time member here and are intelligent so what are your actual views on excessive DNR being applied to classic films or indeed any films ?

If some people are happy with the Blu Ray of this film then by all means say so....Indeed maybe the majority of AVS members would be happy with it just because it's "better" than the DVD edition and the same is probably true of the majority of reviewers.....I consider the DVD edition a low bar to aim for though and think they should be basing their transfers on the potential of making them look as good as they did in the master prints that they have of this film ( note that's not the actual cinema run prints )

After all Robert A Harris already said that they could have removed the grain and LEFT THE DETAIL IN but someone hasn't done their job right. I think it's not about grain it's about removing the fine detail that Blu Ray is capable of preserving - Someone just didn't do their job right and if a film restoration expert can come on here and state this then surely we all need to believe him as after all he's an expert and we are not. I would trust him more than i trust reviews written by anybody.

It's not about looking better than DVD as the extra resolution alone should mean every film potentially should look better than the DVD counterpart but for me it's all about capturing the original theatrical experience and the look of the cinema that i personally want and would like and i'm sure many on here agree with that. I would compromise and take less grain if they can keep the detail intact and apparently Mr Harris says they can but for some reason didn't for this transfer.

So hey if you love the film and can live with the DNR then buy it....I will take a film experts view on this and not buy it even though the film is an absolute gem.

First of all, I would never tell ANYONE to keep their opinions to themselves. In fact...the opposite is more factual...to encourage diverse opinions which I don't think you get by labeling those pictures as "despicable." and than presenting them to support your point of view.


With all due respect, you like I are nobodys on AVS. We have zero credibility and if we call BS most of the time we are scolded and simply told we are wrong. There are some members who are "untouchable" with regards to their posts and proofs and they and other members have elevated themselves to that status. If they are confronted or questioned it is generally done in an apologetic and puppy dog manner.

I see three choices. Accept the way it is, fight the battle ( which most likely is going to be futile), or move on.

*EDIT* see above post for what I am saying!

So instead of focusing on the one or two people you perceive as going hyperbolic -- and worse, ascribing their opinions to everyone else in the thread -- why not just discuss the issue with the people you see as trying to be fair and balanced?I went back and looked at some posts to make sure I wasn't just basing it on one or two people - my opinion is that at least 30% of the posts on the front page used a gross over exaggeration to describe the issue in The Longest Day. I was commenting on what I perceived to be the tone of the thread as a whole, not an individual post or two.

Most of the detractors of this transfer are saying that their problem is that the processing keeps the image from being as accurate and detailed as it could and should have been. They are not saying it's worse than the DVD. They are not saying it isn't very clear looking. They are saying that some of the fine detail has been glossed over by the DNR and that the EE has, in some scenes, created an artificial separation between foreground and background. And that this was unnecessary and done for the wrong reasons.If many of the critical posts referred to the issue in as unemotional manner as you have done I wouldn't have any disagreement. Some posters have been told that this is a science forum and they should expect people to be more critical here. The flip side to that is that the critical posts should therefore be more scientific in their descriptions of the problem and less hyperbolic.

Vern,
I understand what your saying and might even agree with you if I watched movies frame by frame under a microscope looking for facial hairs and pores! But I don't and I wouldn't recommend watching a movie this way.:D
I think it's totally unfair and extremely biased to make the assumptions your making, based on screen shots, while not commenting on what you experienced while watching the motion picture version of this classic movie.
You have seen this on BD....right? If not....come-on...give it a fair shot and rent it. Than give us your thoughts.:)Hell, I own it and obviously have watched it. Along with about 200 HD DVD, 150 BD, several thousand DVD's, and a few hundred LD's.

This issue is not only visible, but downright butt ugly and distracting on any high quality 1080 display when viewed at the proper SMPTE / THX recommended viewing distance. It totally destroys any semblance of watching the original FILM.

In my case, that would be a Qualia 004 projector projecting on a 5' x 14' screen with the first (preferred) row at 14' and the second row at 20'.

If we had a better way to illustrate the issue in a forum like this, I can assure you that we wouldn't be depending on screen shots. ;)

There are many indications that detail has been properly preserved in a video transfer. I could tell you to look for the IATSE bug in the title sequence and see if you can read all the text, for example. However, facial detail is an easily observable attribute to use to check for the presence of fine image detail. If it's not there, there no fine detail is present.

Clearly this is not an important issue to you, so why aare you wasting your time here in a forum of enthusiasts who take their home theater experience seriously?

Vern

I went back and looked at some posts to make sure I wasn't just basing it on one or two people - my opinion is that at least 30% of the posts on the front page used a gross over exaggeration to describe the issue in The Longest Day. I was commenting on what I perceived to be the tone of the thread as a whole, not an individual post or two.

If many of the critical posts referred to the issue in as unemotional manner as you have done I wouldn't have any disagreement. Some posters have been told that this is a science forum and they should expect people to be more critical here. The flip side to that is that the critical posts should therefore be more scientific in their descriptions of the problem and less hyperbolic.

+1. Guys, he is right. If I based my purchase of this BD on what I read here, I would think it is one of the worst looking BD's. If that isn't true and it isn't as bad as some have suggested than that doesn't do this forum, members, new members and the movie itself true justice.

In other words, your reference for visual quality is DVD. Many of us prefer to use the original FILM as the visual reference, something you're apparently not interested in.

But that's the issue then, isn't it. Do we make visual reference to that which we have first hand experience with, or with some imagined hypothetical. And that's what's going on here. I very much doubt anyone in this thread either knows what sort of film element was used for the transfer of The Longest Day (or Patton for that matter) or what that film element is SUPPOSED to look like. Even if someone here did see a newly struck print projected in a theater recently enough to have an accurate memory of what it really looked like, that would not be representative of what the element used for this transfer actually looks like as this is most assuredly not a release print.

Some here seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are not looking at film. We are looking at an electronic representation of film. It isn't the same thing and never will be the same thing. Film is a photochemical process displayed by passing light through a translucent medium. Video could not be any further removed from that from a technical standpoint. To even further compound the dilemma, many people are passing judgment based on the visual memory of what one of the worst representations of filmed material looks like, a release print. Prints are (almost) never used for video transfers for very good reason. For all anyone here really knows, this HD transfer of The Longest Day may well be the absolute closest representation of the source film element that this technology allows.

If you actually read Xylon's posts (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14092242#post14092242) in the Patton thread or watched the movie, you'd have seen that he was referencing a famous line:

"Despicable". That's the first time anyone's ever applied that word to me.

- George S. Patton
Oh....my bad. I thought he used "despicable" to describe the transfer. I must have gotten that impression since he also used the description, "A revisionist piece of cow dung!" as well. Oh well...:D

But THEY MUST be incompetent right?

Because according to you guys, its a smeary mess, nothing but garbage

No they are not. Using "pro" reviewers does not make make an iota of difference on how these films should look. You should know by now that we dont give a frak about "reviews". And quoting them on my threads is just hilarious. The fact is some of them don't understand the film making process just like you. By using DNR the fine details thats otherwise visible on these films are scrubbed out. Making them look un-natural and waxy. Its despicable. Its not our fault that we don't prefer the videogame look just like you. We actually like to see films the way its suppose to look just like what the directors intended. Film is film. No ifs and buts.

Reviewers will post their observations based on their equipment and understanding of film. Some of them are right, some of them are wrong. Its not their fault.

mike171979 do not make my threads and others like you about "3D POP". The PQ TIER thread of which you have been an active participant is more suited to your taste.

In other words, your reference for visual quality is DVD. Many of us prefer to use the original FILM as the visual reference, something you're apparently not interested in.
Come on Robert...not many of us are lucky enough to have 35 mm projectors/prints in their home theater rooms. :D Sorry...couldn't resist

Here's another example of "power of suggestion/herd mentality." On another forum, I ran across a post made by someone who saw Patton on BD and posted how great looking the title was. A few days later, after Mr Harris posted his negative review, that same poster, after watching the BD again, now noticed how everything looked so plastic and un-natural.
While this is a factor people can actually learn to see things they overlooked before. It's an equally well known phenomenon as the other. And depending on your job you might have to learn to see it reliably or you can not function in your job. A good compressionist sees compression problems far better than the average consumer of his work. A color corrector deals with color nuances that mean nothing to most of us. And someone familiar with the look of film needs no hints and suggestions to see when digital processing has transformed the data into something looking anything but like (the original) film. And they are not brainwashed, just applying acquired abilities. That most people miss these abilities (but can often learn them if they have/want to) is no excuse or reason to ridicule the ones that have them.

Come on Robert...not many of us are lucky enough to have 35 mm projectors/prints in their home theater rooms. :D Sorry...couldn't resistOn the other hand, some of us do. :D:D:D

Some here seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are not looking at film. We are looking at an electronic representation of film.No, I don't think we have. Otherwise we would still be watching VHS. :)

I'm pretty sure that the creators of LD, DVD, and now BD didn't spend the money and effort to not be able to replicate that film image as accurately as possible.

It would be different if no BD release to date had accurately replicated the original experience, but that is clearly false. There are probably at least 50 different BD titles released that could easily stand up to an A-B comparison with the typical 35mm release print.

Vern

Come on Robert...not many of us are lucky enough to have 35 mm projectors/prints in their home theater rooms.Apparently, you're not "lucky" enough to EVER watch 35 mm film to use it as a guide for your visual reference, whether it's in your home or not.

Come on Robert...not many of us are lucky enough to have 35 mm projectors/prints in their home theater rooms.

That's the beauty of AVS. We have people here that have 35mm projectors and films in thier home theater rooms. We have projectionists, people in digital video productions, film restorers, calibrators, people that do studio TV work and many other facets of the industry. And they contribute here. This is really a great resource for home theater enthusiasts.

Even if someone here did see a newly struck print projected in a theater recently enough to have an accurate memory of what it really looked like, that would not be representative of what the element used for this transfer actually looks like as this is most assuredly not a release print.Robert, is it your contention that DNR was used to bring this film closer to the look of the original elements? Quite the contrary, It's perfectly reasonable to think that a high quality theatrical print looks MUCH closer to the original elements than this overprocessed thing. Living in the Los Angeles area, I've been fortunate enough to see what high quality film elements look like. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I know film when I see it, and the BR of TLOD isn't it.

That's the beauty of AVS. We have people here that have 35mm projectors and films in thier home theater rooms. We have projectionists, people in digital video productions, film restorers, calibrators, people that do studio TV work and many other facets of the industry. And they contribute here. This is really a great resource for home theater enthusiasts.And I'd certainly take the word of such people over those who use DVD(!??) as their basis for judging how good something looks.

But that's the issue then, isn't it. Do we make visual reference to that which we have first hand experience with, or with some imagined hypothetical. And that's what's going on here. I very much doubt anyone in this thread either knows what sort of film element was used for the transfer of The Longest Day (or Patton for that matter) or what that film element is SUPPOSED to look like. Even if someone here did see a newly struck print projected in a theater recently enough to have an accurate memory of what it really looked like, that would not be representative of what the element used for this transfer actually looks like as this is most assuredly not a release print.No, it would have to be BETTER than the release print. Nothing that could ever be done in the film processing environment could ever create the look that this transfer has. This is something created in the digital realm, not the photochemical.

Some here seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are not looking at film. We are looking at an electronic representation of film. It isn't the same thing and never will be the same thing. Film is a photochemical process displayed by passing light through a translucent medium. Video could not be any further removed from that from a technical standpoint. To even further compound the dilemma, many people are passing judgment based on the visual memory of what one of the worst representations of filmed material looks like, a release print. Prints are (almost) never used for video transfers for very good reason. For all anyone here really knows, this HD transfer of The Longest Day may well be the absolute closest representation of the source film element that this technology allows.Sorry, no. Because if they used a release print, which as you say is the worst possible element to use, it would still look better than this. The release print was designed for projection on a 50' wide screen with a high level of detail. It's B&W, so there are no color fading issues. Since all HD is an electronic representation of film, how do you explain the 50 or more reference quality HD discs released over the last 2 years?

Vern

Thanks Xylon for clearing that up. I realize Casablanca was optimized for HD DVD and is older by about 25 yrs, but thanks for reminding me. I just wasn t sure if it was maybe due to shooting style (i.e the soft filters in a Bridge too Far), but going by your closeup it obviously isn t.

@Vern, I m using an HTPC; Powerdvd 8 on Vista 32
4gb Ram
ATI 4850 via HDMI to a Onkyo 605 and then a Sharp 42" LC42D62U
Energy C-200 x2
Energy c-c100
+ Harmon Kardon HKTS for remaining 4 channels and 10" sub

And I used HD DVD Essentials to configure the video

What I am curious about is: How many on here actually own the BD of Patton or the Longest Day? I m not implying that people that don t can t judge based on screenshots, but rather I am curious if the defense of the product is partially a self justification for those who have already purchased it. Since you can t return an opened Blu-ray, are most people defending because they don t want tothink that they wasted money, or do they actually, truly prefer it without grain?

No, it would have to be BETTER than the release print. Nothing that could ever be done in the film processing environment could ever create the look that this transfer has. This is something created in the digital realm, not the photochemical.

Sorry, no. Because if they used a release print, which as you say is the worst possible element to use, it would still look better than this. The release print was designed for projection on a 50' wide screen with a high level of detail. It's B&W, so there are no color fading issues. Since all HD is an electronic representation of film, how do you explain the 50 or more reference quality HD discs released over the last 2 years?

Vern

As someone stated earlier in this or another thread, Jeff, the bland did DVD reviews here on AVS a few years back. Many were reviewed as "reference". Reference in that case would seem to mean reference for DVD quality. I think the same scenario would apply here. BD reference disks IMO would mean reference for BD and not reference in comparing to the actual film. IMO and based on the stringent requirements many have for film reproduction, while some BD's maybe close to reproducing film, none ever really will be.

Going by a viewing angle chart, someone with 20/20 vision has to sit no further then 5 feet away from a 42 inch screen to fully discern 1080p of detail. With a 42 inch TV, you have to sit no further then 8 feet away to fully discern 720p of resolution. If you are sitting further then 8 feet away, you can't even see 720p worth of detail on a 42 inch TV.

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w245/TheSerpentMage/resolution_chart.png

IMO and based on the stringent requirements many have for film reproduction, while some BD's maybe close to reproducing film, none ever really will be.The tone of that comment sounds to me like you think some people are demanding too much of the mere mortals at the studios, it being demanded that they put forth superhuman efforts. Nothing like that is being demanded at all. What is being asked is that they actually put forth LESS effort (OMIT the extra DNR processing), and achieve the look they're ALREADY attained with many other titles.

No they are not. Using "pro" reviewers does not make make an iota of difference on how these films should look. You should know by now that we dont give a frak about "reviews". And quoting them on my threads is just hilarious. The fact is some of them don't understand the film making process just like you. By using DNR the fine details thats otherwise visible on these films are scrubbed out. Making them look un-natural and waxy. Its despicable. Its not our fault that we don't prefer the videogame look just like you. We actually like to see films the way its suppose to look just like what the directors intended. Film is film. No ifs and buts.
Can you please stop implying that people who play and enjoy video games are the lowest common denominator and the target audience for this DNR ********? It was amusing the first few times and something I could easily shrug off but it's starting to get on my nerves for some reason.

And referring to it as a "video game" look isn't even accurate, considering that video games have been striving for a film look more and more as time goes on. Mass Effect, for example, even has a film grain effect that's on by default, not to mention the camera and lens effects used in games like Metal Gear Solid 4.

Some here seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are not looking at film. We are looking at an electronic representation of film. It isn't the same thing and never will be the same thing. Film is a photochemical process displayed by passing light through a translucent medium. Video could not be any further removed from that from a technical standpoint. To even further compound the dilemma, many people are passing judgment based on the visual memory of what one of the worst representations of filmed material looks like, a release print. Prints are (almost) never used for video transfers for very good reason. For all anyone here really knows, this HD transfer of The Longest Day may well be the absolute closest representation of the source film element that this technology allows.
WOW!!!! Robert I've never seen anyone describe the major bone of contention on this thread so eloquently and, your right; lost in all this strutting we tend to overlook how lucky we are to have all this technology at our disposal and for our enjoyment. Well said....

As someone stated earlier in this or another thread, Jeff, the bland did DVD reviews here on AVS a few years back. Many were reviewed as "reference". Reference in that case would seem to mean reference for DVD quality. I think the same scenario would apply here. BD reference disks IMO would mean reference for BD and not reference in comparing to the actual film. IMO and based on the stringent requirements many have for film reproduction, while some BD's maybe close to reproducing film, none ever really will be.Except that there are roughly 50 or so BD and HD DVD that already have. Have you seen "Aeon Flux"? The Dirty Harry boxset, the Pirates of the Carribean series?

Believe me, these transfers and many others will stand up very favorably to an A-B comparison to 35mm film, possibly be even better quality that a 3rd or 4th gen 35mm release print.

There are a number of titles that I can watch in my HT that are indistinguishable from a 35mm film print in the HT.

Vern

Robert, is it your contention that DNR was used to bring this film closer to the look of the original elements?

Absolutely not. If I am making any point, it's that many people are jumping to conclusions that may or may not be correct. I don't have any basis to even make the statement that this transfer did or did not have excessive DNR applied in the post process. Looking at a digital screen cap that does not exhibit obvious level of film grain is not evidence enough for me to make such definite statements. I guess my point is that this applies to everyone else here as well.

Nothing that could ever be done in the film processing environment could ever create the look that this transfer has. This is something created in the digital realm, not the photochemical.

Perhaps. One thing is certain, however. I absolutely have to see this for myself.

Sorry, no. Because if they used a release print, which as you say is the worst possible element to use, it would still look better than this.

I rather doubt that. I seen enough transfers of later generation prints to know even these screen caps have far greater range of contrast and black level than any transfer of a print could muster.

Since all HD is an electronic representation of film, how do you explain the 50 or more reference quality HD discs released over the last 2 years?

I don't have an explanation as I don't see that one has anything to do with the other. Every film element is like a fingerprint, unique in its own right. That is the nature of the photochemical process. Everything affects the look of the content captured by the lens and camera and later transferred down the processing chain. The camera, the lens, film stock, the exposure, the lighting, the makeup on the actors, the equipment and techniques used in post production, and on and on and on. Sweeping statements about how a particular film element is supposed to look, particularly when it has been transferred to such a dissimilar medium as video, is dubious at best.

@Sperron, thanks for the chart. I m viewing the tv from 5' away, the perfect distance and I didn t even know it. While my comments about Casablanca might sound outrageous, going by the screenshots Xylon posted, on a 42" any evidence of stubble or pores is difficult to pick out, exactly the same charge leveled at TLD, but this is keeping in mind the age of the film and the size of my screen.

With all due respect, you like I are nobodys on AVS. We have zero credibility and if we call BS most of the time we are scolded and simply told we are wrong. There are some members who are "untouchable" with regards to their posts and proofs and they and other members have elevated themselves to that status. If they are confronted or questioned it is generally done in an apologetic and puppy dog manner.

I see three choices. Accept the way it is, fight the battle ( which most likely is going to be futile), or move on.

*EDIT* see above post for what I am saying!
Interesting point of view but I don't see it that way. I got a "thick" skin and I'm not shy about voicing my opinion. I love talking movies...sometimes even more than watching them....:eek:

Absolutely not. If I am making any point, it's that many people are jumping to conclusions that may or may not be correct. I don't have any basis to even make the statement that this transfer did or did not have excessive DNR applied in the post process.

You may not have any basis but Robert A Harris does and since he is a film restoration expert then surely you need to take his opinion on board and conclude that the film has had excessive DNR applied.

A little research before posting would have found you his comments.

If on the other hand we dismiss Mr Harris and his statements then surely we can also dismiss every single review stating the film actually looks good.

I know who i believe.

By the way everyone i do have a thin skin and i burn easily....Comes from being Scottish. ( so bear that in mind for future posts )

The tone of that comment sounds to me like you think some people are demanding too much of the mere mortals at the studios, it being demanded that they put forth superhuman efforts. Nothing like that is being demanded at all. What is being asked is that they actually put forth LESS effort (OMIT the extra DNR processing), and achieve the look they're ALREADY attained with many other titles.


No I am not saying that. You are reading into internet text. There is no tone.

And for the record as I have stated many times I see both sides of this debate and agree to some extent with both.

Hell, I own it and obviously have watched it. Along with about 200 HD DVD, 150 BD, several thousand DVD's, and a few hundred LD's.

This issue is not only visible, but downright butt ugly and distracting on any high quality 1080 display when viewed at the proper SMPTE / THX recommended viewing distance. It totally destroys any semblance of watching the original FILM.

In my case, that would be a Qualia 004 projector projecting on a 5' x 14' screen with the first (preferred) row at 14' and the second row at 20'.

If we had a better way to illustrate the issue in a forum like this, I can assure you that we wouldn't be depending on screen shots. ;)

There are many indications that detail has been properly preserved in a video transfer. I could tell you to look for the IATSE bug in the title sequence and see if you can read all the text, for example. However, facial detail is an easily observable attribute to use to check for the presence of fine image detail. If it's not there, there no fine detail is present.

Clearly this is not an important issue to you, so why aare you wasting your time here in a forum of enthusiasts who take their home theater experience seriously?

Vern
O.K. So your viewing was not an enjoyable experience because it was not like watching the original film.
I'm sure I won't have the same problem. I am a movie enthusiast and I do take my home theater experience seriously and, to be honest, I think maybe we're ALL wasting our time here. :D

Reviewers will post their observations based on their equipment and understanding of film. Some of them are right, some of them are wrong. Its not their fault.

Did it ever occur to you that you could be wrong?

Every film element is like a fingerprint, unique in its own right. That is the nature of the photochemical process. Everything affects the look of the content captured by the lens and camera and later transferred down the processing chain. The camera, the lens, film stock, the exposure, the lighting, the makeup on the actors, the equipment and techniques used in post production, and on and on and on. Sweeping statements about how a particular film element is supposed to look, particularly when it has been transferred to such a dissimilar medium as video, is dubious at best.

A lot of what you have said in this thread is accurate. Yet, the conclusion does not calculate. The conclusion being that it is possible that this is an accurate depiction of the original film elements.

I don't think saying that the original film element does not look like some type of computer animation is equivalent to a "sweeping statement about how a particular film element is supposed to look".

The point Xylon is making I think (and I do not want to put words in your mouth Xylon) is not that you cannot enjoy the picture quality. Just that it is so far removed from every other version on every format previously put out that it is the odd one out and somthing must be amiss.
If not they why are not the countless VHS LD and DVD versions the same ?

Apparently, you're not "lucky" enough to EVER watch 35 mm film to use it as a guide for your visual reference, whether it's in your home or not.
Does going to the movies every week for the past 50 years count? 65/70mm, Cinerama, 3-D, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm,....you name, I've seen it. I actually prefer the theater over my own HT.

It might behoove you to remember that he's doing us all a favor by posting these pics.
Maybe, maybe not.

There's no "maybe" about it. Xylon is doing us all a favor by taking the time and effort to capture and post these screen grabs. What others do with the pics he provides has no bearing on the fact that he's going out of his way to provide us with these direct screencaps and it would be nice if certain posters would consider that when posting in these threads.

That's the beauty of AVS. We have people here that have 35mm projectors and films in thier home theater rooms. We have projectionists, people in digital video productions, film restorers, calibrators, people that do studio TV work and many other facets of the industry. And they contribute here. This is really a great resource for home theater enthusiasts.
Couldn't agree more...

First of all, I would never tell ANYONE to keep their opinions to themselves. In fact...the opposite is more factual...[snip]
Did you or did you not post: "[snip]but let your pics do your talking for you. Really, they speak volumes. Let US decide if the Patton screen pics are "despicable." It could have been fun if you just posted the comparison and commented, "well...what do you guys think?"

To suggest that he should let everyone else post their opinions while he sits silently is ridiculous. To suggest that we're not intelligent enough to form our own opinions (and that we're operating under a herd mentality) is insulting.

There's no "maybe" about it. Xylon is doing us all a favor by taking the time and effort to capture and post these screen grabs. What others do with the pics he provides has no bearing on the fact that he's going out of his way to provide us with these direct screencaps and it would be nice if certain posters would consider that when posting in these threads.

STOP! Come on now that is BS. He is doing it by choice, but that doesn't mean he is doing us a favor. The way you state it, whether you mean it to seem that way or not, puts him on a pedestal. Then based on your belief we are supposed to act or post a certain way. That isn't right.

To me, looking at the direction this thread has taken, this is the most important question and one I have yet to hear a resonable answer to:

For those questioning the ability of HD video to accurately recreate the detail in a 35mm original, how do you explain all the HD discs out there that have done exactly that?

Vern

A lot of what you have said in this thread is accurate. Yet, the conclusion does not calculate. The conclusion being that it is possible that this is an accurate depiction of the original film elements.

I don't think saying that the original film element does not look like some type of computer animation is equivalent to a "sweeping statement about how a particular film element is supposed to look".
Agreed.

The opinion that film is a mysterious, almost magical medium where you can never tell how something should, or more often how something shouldn't look, is, I think, incorrect. But either way many of these cases are so clear-cut that no sweeping statements are necessary. If you really believe that the Longest Day very well could have looked like the last shot of John Wayne, then I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you have no business arguing the issue. Even without having seen an original 35mm theatre showing it is quite clear that something is not right, and anyone who's played around in Photoshop would have noticed the striking similarities to the paint brush filters.

Hughmc,

By "doing us a favor", it obviously means those of "us" that actually appreciate the effort. Obviously there will be others that are either indifferent or actually dislike him posting screencaps. Much like the other resources we have around here, some appreciate them more then others.

Every member should be respectful to every other member. When that respect breaks down is when we have issues around here. Just as Xylon shouldn't be "put on a pedestal" neither should it be implied that he shouldn't have the right to comment upon the screenshots he posts.

STOP! Come on now that is BS. He is doing it by choice, but that doesn't mean he is doing us a favor. The way you state it, whether you mean it to seem that way or not, puts him on a pedestal. Then based on your belief we are supposed to act or post a certain way. That isn't right.

Give me a break with your "all caps 'stop!' " nonsense. I'm not putting him on a pedestal. If you'd followed the discussion, you would know that lougi suggested that Xylon should not post his opinions about the pics he's posting, despite the fact that he starts these threads and takes the time to post the pics in the first place. It's a ridiculous and insulting notion.

BTW - he is doing us a favor, whether you're willing to admit (or appreciate) it or not. Nobody else on this site is going out of their way to give us direct screengrabs from these releases (at least not on a regular basis.) This does not mean that I'm putting him up on some sort of pedestal, nor does it mean that I take his opinion as gospel. I'm not the one suggesting that he be treated any differently, unlike louigi (who thinks Xylon should just post the pics and let everyone else post what they think.)

You don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Get it?

Agreed.

The opinion that film is a mysterious, almost magical medium where you can never tell how something should, or more often how something shouldn't look, is, I think, incorrect. But either way many of these cases are so clear-cut that no sweeping statements are necessary. If you really believe that the Longest Day very well could have looked like the last shot of John Wayne, then I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you have no business arguing the issue. Even without having seen an original 35mm theatre showing it is quite clear that something is not right, and anyone who's played around in Photoshop would have noticed the striking similarities to the paint brush filters.



Bing-f*cking-O!

:)

@Vern, I m using an HTPC; Powerdvd 8 on Vista 32
4gb Ram
ATI 4850 via HDMI to a Onkyo 605 and then a Sharp 42" LC42D62U
Energy C-200 x2
Energy c-c100
+ Harmon Kardon HKTS for remaining 4 channels and 10" sub

And I used HD DVD Essentials to configure the video

I also use Vista 32, 2GB of RAM, with an NVidia 9800GTX feeding HDMI to the Qualia at 24PsF. I currently have installed and have used PDVD 7.3, PDVD 8, and Arcsoft TMT. I use an Auzentech X-Meridian sound card feeding 8 channel via analog to my Yamaha receiver.

Interestingly enough, at least with my video card and HW acceleration enabled, Arcsoft TMT delivers a considerably more detailed image than any of the PDVD versions. That combined with the fact that Cyberlink has removed HD DVD support makes TMT my player of choice. I also used HD DVD Essentials for calibration.

Vern

Steeb, I disagree.

Here are some screen caps of Tartan Videos The Seventh Seal on Blu-ray. This is quite a grainy film but gives you the idea of what a B&W film would look like if DNR wasn t applied. It was filmed in '58 and in 35mm.

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/t1803997_SeventhSeal8.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803997_SeventhSeal8.jpg)

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/t1803996_SeventhSeal7.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803996_SeventhSeal7.jpg)

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/t1803995_SeventhSeal6.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803995_SeventhSeal6.jpg)

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/t1803994_SeventhSeal4.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803994_SeventhSeal4.jpg)

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/t1803992_SeventhSeal3.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803992_SeventhSeal3.jpg)

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/t1803991_SeventhSeal1.jpg (http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803991_SeventhSeal1.jpg)

Just look at the detail in that !:)

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803995_SeventhSeal6.jpg

Art

This is a great example of the issue I have with grain/noise.


http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803997_SeventhSeal8.jpg



The details of the face are excellent due to grain, but the clouds behind him are out of focus and that is fine as that is the way it is filmed. What isn't fine with me is the clouds have that grain/noise and at the same time they are blurry. Grain/noise in that case does zero good and IMO detracts from parts just as improperly applied DNR does, not from the entire picture as I said it looks excellent with grain. My opinion is based on what I am seeing in the screen cap taking it for granted it is as accurate as one can see. I am looking at it through my HTPC on my 60in display:

If you want a real laugh, take a look at the edge enhancement around John Wayne's hat. It looks like someone photoshopped it onto his head. Look at his neck where it meets the collar, same effect.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/1b6989ac.png

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803997_SeventhSeal8.jpg

One of these has been excessively DNRed and then EEed. Guess which one. :p

Did you or did you not post: "[snip]but let your pics do your talking for you. Really, they speak volumes. Let US decide if the Patton screen pics are "despicable." It could have been fun if you just posted the comparison and commented, "well...what do you guys think?"

To suggest that he should let everyone else post their opinions while he sits silently is ridiculous. To suggest that we're not intelligent enough to form our own opinions (and that we're operating under a herd mentality) is insulting.
Steeb,
It may surprise you to know that most people ( outside this forum...anyway) would conclude that Xylon's screen shots are sheer propaganda and would be dismissed out of hand as anyone with an agenda could easily alter the screen shots to support their position. This is not to suggest Xylon is doing this...I'm sure he isn't.

This is a great example of the issue I have with grain/noise.


http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803997_SeventhSeal8.jpg



The details of the face are excellent due to grain, but the clouds behind him are out of focus and that is fine as that is the way it is filmed. What isn't fine with me is the clouds have that grain/noise and at the same time they are blurry. Grain/noise in that case does zero good and IMO detracts from parts just as improperly applied DNR does, not from the entire picture as I said it looks excellent with grain. My opinion is based on what I am seeing in the screen cap taking it for granted it is as accurate as one can see. I am looking at it through my HTPC on my 60in display:

The clouds aren't blurry though they are as you first stated simply out of focus as the cameraman is focussing on the actor's face.

It looks superb in my opinion.....You would be able to soften what you are seeing by turning down your sharpness control or turning on your televisions noise reduction control.....Leave the source untouched and use your television and projector controls to alter it.

Steeb,
It may surprise you to know that most people ( outside this forum...anyway) would conclude that Xylon's screen shots are sheer propaganda and would be dismissed out of hand as anyone with an agenda could easily alter the screen shots to support their position. This is not to suggest Xylon is doing this...I'm sure he isn't.

Of course you know this because you actually polled the entire population before making your post :rolleyes:

Steeb,
It may surprise you to know that most people ( outside this forum...anyway) would conclude that Xylon's screen shots are sheer propaganda and would be dismissed out of hand as anyone with an agenda could easily alter the screen shots to support their position.
It may surprise you to know that I couldn't care less about what "most people outside of this forum" think about the pics. Their opinions and conclusions are completely irrelevant and have no bearing on my position that your suggestion that Xylon keep his opinions out of these threads was rude and out of line.

The clouds aren't blurry though they are as you first stated simply out of focus as the cameraman is focussing on the actor's face.

It looks superb in my opinion.....You would be able to soften what you are seeing by turning down your sharpness control or turning on your televisions noise reduction control.....Leave the source untouched and use your television and projector controls to alter it.

Blurry/out of focus is what I meant and just on the clouds and applied properly is where DNR would have helped and not hurt IMO like grain does. Again, just the clouds and not the entire picture.

Worst use of DNR I have ever seen. Even the white subtitles bleed from excessive use.

This really angers me. For the record, when I stated Ken H. latest mantra I meant the latest term or as he calls it boilerplate which is in reference to the very topic of heated debate in this and other threads. It was not an attack on Ken H., but a reference point.

My point was and is that while I agree with what Ken H and many posters are saying with respect to this topic, yet I also understand, agree and support opposing points of view.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14117227#post14117227

Apparently, you're not "lucky" enough to EVER watch 35 mm film to use it as a guide for your visual reference, whether it's in your home or not.
Does going to the movies every week for the past 50 years count? 65/70mm, Cinerama, 3-D, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm,....you name, I've seen it. I actually prefer the theater over my own HT.Then your "golly, how are we supposed to know what film looks like, because we don't have film projectors at home" comment makes no sense.

sorry to off topic for a bit

is the seventh seal bluray all region?

Blurry/out of focus is what I meant and just on the clouds and applied properly is where DNR would have helped and not hurt IMO like grain does. Again, just the clouds and not the entire picture.Can't be done, at least not for any reasonable price and without a tremendous amount of human intervention. We are not talking about a single frame, but 24 frames per second. :p

Grain is native to film, accept it or turn down the sharpness on your display.

By the way, the background including the clouds are blurry because the director and the director of photography wanted them that way to focus the viewers attention on the face. The grain are the film components that captured the background. Your personal preferences are not a valid reason to change that fact, IMHO.

Vern

Do people realize that grain are the particles in film that capture the image...? Like the brush strokes in a painting. The more you get rid of grain, the more you get rid of the image that was captured on the film.

Can't be done, at least not for any reasonable price and without a tremendous amount of human intervention. We are not talking about a single frame, but 24 frames per second. :p

This is the problem I have with the grain haters. Grain is native to film, accept it or turn down the sharpness on your display.

By the way, the clouds are blurry because the director and the director of photography wanted it that way. Your personal preferences are not a valid reason to change that fact IMHO.

Vern

I don't hate grain and welcome it as you would see if you read my posts. As far as the clouds being blurry, that is what most films exhibit when they are shot that way and I understand why.

We recently had an excellent example on HDnet movies with The Outlaw Josey Wales showing how everything is in focus both foreground and background with lots of healthy grain.

IMO you cannot definitively say the director's wanted it that way anymore than I can say they leave it that way because they have other reasons for leaving it that way. I understand it is director's intent if they get that one in a million shot that has some flaws and yet they leave it that way as in they may not like it, but leave it as is.

Do people realize that grain are the particles in film that capture the image...? Like the brush strokes in a painting. The more you get rid of grain, the more you get rid of the image that was captured on the film.


I do understand Dave and you know where I stand on this issue. (in the middle):D We also recently had a forum member who works in film reproduction say applied properly DNR can be used without loss of detail. That was either in this or the Patton thread.

IMO you cannot definitively say the director's wanted it that way anymore than I can say they leave it that way because they have other reasons for leaving it that way. I understand it is director's intent if they get that one in a million shot that has some flaws and yet they leave it that way as in they may not like it, but leave it as is.Yes I can, because the DP realized exactly what his depth of field was going to be when he chose that shutter speed and f stop for that shot. He knew in advance that he had a maybe +/- 6" or 12" or whatever in measured distance to the subject from the camera that would be in sharp focus.

Vern

don't forget choice of lens, long vs. short.

:)

@AmishFury: Yep its all region, best $50 I ve spent on blu-ray. I don t see it being released in N.A any time soon so thats why I picked it up, definitely my favourite Bergman film. It also comes with a dvd version which you can either compare the blu to, or to lend to a friend: here's a link:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seventh-Seal-Blu-ray-Max-Sydow/dp/B000TQLJ0U******sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1214181603&sr=1-1

I do understand Dave and you know where I stand on this issue. (in the middle):D We also recently had a forum member who works in film reproduction say applied properly DNR can be used without loss of detail. That was either in this or the Patton thread.

gotcha...

The Seventh Seal looks even better than the very good broadcast HD version I saw. Excellent detail and the grain isn't screwed with. See, that's the thing: it's not that we like grain, we just don't want it tampered with because the DNR tools of today are just godawful.

If you want a real laugh, take a look at the edge enhancement around John Wayne's hat. It looks like someone photoshopped it onto his head. Look at his neck where it meets the collar, same effect.
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/The%20Longest%20Day/1b6989ac.png

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803997_SeventhSeal8.jpg

One of these has been excessively DNRed and then EEed. Guess which one. :p

Excellent example of the DNR look Vs the grainy look. Now I can actually understand why Fox may have decided to go with the non-grain look for The Longest Day. Myself, I prefer the non-grain look as that grainy screen shot looks unnatural with way to much grain for my taste. I guess I belong in the (3-D PoP), Discovery channel side of the fence. But, having said that, my next BD purchase will be How The West Was Won whether it's grainy or not.

Agreed.

The opinion that film is a mysterious, almost magical medium where you can never tell how something should, or more often how something shouldn't look, is, I think, incorrect. But either way many of these cases are so clear-cut that no sweeping statements are necessary. If you really believe that the Longest Day very well could have looked like the last shot of John Wayne, then I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you have no business arguing the issue. Even without having seen an original 35mm theatre showing it is quite clear that something is not right, and anyone who's played around in Photoshop would have noticed the striking similarities to the paint brush filters.

Best quote of the whole thread, I think. I agree 100%. Anybody who doesn't see that there is a ton of DNR on this is in denial.

And just for fun I thought I'd try to modify the above Seventh Seal screenshot with a process I think similar to that of the Longest Day. This was done in Photoshop using the accented edges filter, and then with some sharpening applied:
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/8521/31708psmod2ju9.jpg

It looks so clear and life-like and full of detail! It's like I'm actually looking through a window! ;)

try the watercolor filter now...


:)

Additionally ,anyone who has paused a black and white film like Seventh Seal the grain never ever looks that obtrusive as it moves . In other words, the detail remains while the grain visibility is reduced several fold in moving images as opposed to single paused frames. With DNRed images it looks like crap no matter what.

Art

Some here seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are not looking at film. We are looking at an electronic representation of film. It isn't the same thing and never will be the same thing.......As someone stated earlier in this or another thread, Jeff, the bland did DVD reviews here on AVS a few years back. Many were reviewed as "reference". Reference in that case would seem to mean reference for DVD quality. I think the same scenario would apply here. BD reference disks IMO would mean reference for BD and not reference in comparing to the actual film. IMO and based on the stringent requirements many have for film reproduction, while some BD's maybe close to reproducing film, none ever really will be.We already know different.

Many existing BD releases are faithful to the film. Those not faithful are the problem. We know that an accurate BD transfer can replicate the specific look of a film.

http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803997_SeventhSeal8.jpg

This frame is still awe inspiring to me and demonstrates so well what we know can exist if the people doing the transfers care.

Art

This frame is still awe inspiring to me and demonstrates so well what we know can exist if the people doing the transfers care.

And that is only a lossy .jpg of the movie frame compressed down to 192k.

The sad thing is that a lot of people will look at the DNRed image on their 720p tv from across the room and say it looks great.

My attempt at selective grain removal:

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9439/seventhsealdnrgx6.jpg

The sad thing is that a lot of people will look at the DNRed image on their 720p tv from across the room and say it looks great.

My attempt at selective grain removal:

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/9439/seventhsealdnrgx6.jpg

Ohhhhhhh......nice job. Looks much better to me. Maybe you ought to send your resume to Fox.:D

And just for fun I thought I'd try to modify the above Seventh Seal screenshot with a process I think similar to that of the Longest Day. This was done in Photoshop using the accented edges filter, and then with some sharpening applied:
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/8521/31708psmod2ju9.jpg

It looks so clear and life-like and full of detail! It's like I'm actually looking through a window! ;)

Nice work as this actually looks pretty much like what they're doing to The Longest Day. And just as in The Longest Day, the effect is hideous. I mean, gross!

Ohhhhhhh......nice job. Looks much better to me. Maybe you ought to send your resume to Fox.:D
Of course that's using selective DNR, manually doing one frame at a time. At 24fps that would be a total of 172,800 frames for a 2-hour movie, a.k.a. good luck unless you're Lowry.

What did you think of my attempt compared to the original? A far more realistic expectation and closer to what we got for the Longest Day. Would you still be willing to accept "better than DVD" as an argument to get it, knowing what it could have looked like?

Of course that's using selective DNR, manually doing one frame at a time. At 24fps that would be a total of 172,800 frames for a 2-hour movie, a.k.a. good luck unless you're Lowry.

It actually wouldn't that be difficult as you don't have to do it frame by frame. There are already DNR tools which allow you to select areas of the frame to filter and how much to apply. It's really not that different from color correcting.

The big problem is that it seems for titles like Patton, The Longest Day, Tremors, Scary Movie, etc the whole film was processed with the same settings all the way thru. That means even non-grainy shots were filtered.

I'm not saying that DNR has any positive apllications but it sure isn't being used in an even remotely effective way if all they wanted to do was get rid of some noise.

Agreed.

The opinion that film is a mysterious, almost magical medium where you can never tell how something should, or more often how something shouldn't look, is, I think, incorrect. But either way many of these cases are so clear-cut that no sweeping statements are necessary. If you really believe that the Longest Day very well could have looked like the last shot of John Wayne, then I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you have no business arguing the issue. Even without having seen an original 35mm theatre showing it is quite clear that something is not right, and anyone who's played around in Photoshop would have noticed the striking similarities to the paint brush filters.

Thanks paku, you took what I said and expounded on it more articulately than I.

Great job on the PS work on the Seventh Seal capture. Thank God there is no DNR on that title.

Which reminds me, I have to order The Seventh Seal. Those caps look great! It's not cheap, but its worth it to have such a great movie, done right, in HD.

What did you think of my attempt compared to the original? A far more realistic expectation and closer to what we got for the Longest Day. Would you still be willing to accept "better than DVD" as an argument to get it, knowing what it could have looked like?
Of course and I have ordered the title. The BD is so much better than the SD DVD and that's good enough for me. I'm certainly not going to boycott this title because of what could have been.

Of course and I have ordered the title. The BD is so much better than the SD DVD and that's good enough for me. I'm certainly not going to boycott this title because of what could have been.Fine for now, because you'll probably end up buying it again when a better BD version comes out, and believe me, it will. The studios must love you.

Maybe you should see if others at www.goodenoughforme.com are doing a group purchase......

Hi,

I see a tendency in these screenshot threads that keeps them going on for pages and pages of IMO needless bickering. Personally I find it to be very tiring to go through the same old same old every thread to get to the more constructive posts that really contain useful thoughts or information.


The problems areas that I see are:



1. The "it's better than the DVD" argument

Very helpful also as a retort to hyperbole as per point number 4, things can go on for pages like that

Let us just say that the DVD screenshots are meant as a frame of reference to compare to because the DVD is the only other medium a movie is released in.
Do we want to discuss if a Blu-Ray does look better overall than the DVD ? I would say no, as it does so probably 99% of the time, so let's please not debate this.
The idea is to be faithful to the source, grain or not, digital or film, so we do not want HD to just look better than the DVD version of a movie but as good as it can be within that context and within the limits of the medium. So please, to those who come her only to point out that a particular title is better than the DVD version please get your own thread, where you can praise almost everything ever released on Blu-Ray.



2. The criticism of screen captures as a tool for illustrating problems with transfers.

If somebody thinks screen captures have no use as a tool to assess picture quality he generally would not be well served to post in screenshot threads - fair enough ?



3. The argument that Film as a medium is mysterious and unapproachable, nobody can know what it should look like on HD home media.

Again, if this is your stance please do not post in these threads as obviously all discussions will be futile anyway and your time would be better spent doing something else.



4. Hyperbole from people who don't like how a transfer looks.

Examples would be:

"the DVD looks much better than the crappy Blu-Ray" (Very hard to justify taking into account all aspects that define image quality)
"I am gonna puke right onto my keyboard now that I am exposed to these disgusting screen captures"
"those gangsters/morons/imbeciles (insert a barrage of insults at your liking) at studio X did it again"
"Do not buy anything else ever again from studio X, they might have made a mistake on only one or two transfers but our wrath should be with them for eternity" (In the case of these two hotly debated Fox transfers that went wrong at the same time they released another classic release that is prefectly fine, as have been many other releases from Fox. So asking to not buy anything from Fox is downright ridiculous)

I am exaggerating a bit but reading this a member or two might get what I am talking about.



Now I might be stating the obvious for most members but it seems not for all when I say that the above mentioned patterns of posting are not helping our cause which last I looked was striving for audiovisual excellence and not bickering endlessly for page after page. We need to try and work together with the studios and not insult them continuously, nor can we take the stance of "better than DVD is good enough" - this is AVScience and not "gee, it's good enough for me".

I have just gone through the thread and excluding the posts that are mostly or entirely like what I outlined above we would be left with less than half the post that we have now, which would make it much eaiser to follow this thread and also it would help to point out the issues with The Longest Day.

OK, this might have been also my longest post here on AVS ;) but I am very interested in getting the studios to make the best out of every transfer and I think we could make better progress on the issue than with threads progressing like this one or the Patton thread.

Obviously I think SOMETHING should change so I am throwing this out here for discussion, please post your comments. Maybe I am dead wrong and most here enjoy to go back and forth for pages and pages or maybe the moderators should keep a closer eye on these threads ?

Oliver

Look...I'm not the one posting screen shots labeled "despicable." Did you think they were despicable as we understand the word?
Yes. As despicable as the Mona Lisa with neon colors and a broad grin. :D

But THEY MUST be incompetent right?

They are utterly unfit to guide my buying decisions. That's for sure. They don't see what I see.

Again, I'm not saying some of the HD transfers being discussed are not over-processed, or could not have been done differently (better?). All I'm saying is we are dealing with a relatively new technology for which the vast majority of us have no previous frame of reference. I think it's time to step back a bit and dispense with some of the overreaction and hysteria.

Film is inherently high def and we have decades of reference of how it looks. We also have something between 5 and 10 years of reference of how film looks on HD. I don't need more references to calibrate my judgement.

For all anyone here really knows, this HD transfer of The Longest Day may well be the absolute closest representation of the source film element that this technology allows.
That tells me you are absoutely clueless about the look of film in general and the look of film on high definition when not digitally manipulated to the extent as seen on Patton and Longest Day.
Why do you figure Robert Harris who restores film for a living (such as Lawrence of Arabia or The Godfather trilogy) and by all means should know what film elements look like was unable to recognize it as film? Because he lacks imagination? Because the HD process itself miraculously failed on this film while having no such problems with other 35mm films?

This is a great example of the issue I have with grain/noise.
http://www.imagehosting.com/out.php/i1803997_SeventhSeal8.jpg
The details of the face are excellent due to grain, but the clouds behind him are out of focus and that is fine as that is the way it is filmed. What isn't fine with me is the clouds have that grain/noise and at the same time they are blurry. Grain/noise in that case does zero good and IMO detracts from parts just as improperly applied DNR does, not from the entire picture as I said it looks excellent with grain. My opinion is based on what I am seeing in the screen cap taking it for granted it is as accurate as one can see. I am looking at it through my HTPC on my 60in display:
What you suggest can not be achieved with film. And it would look very weird anyway. As focus can change all the time you would get these popping in and out of the picture clean areas clashing with focused grainy areas. The grain is like the canvas of a painter. Whether he paints something soft or pin sharp, it's there, and gives the picture coherence and a unified texture.

Excellent example of the DNR look Vs the grainy look. Now I can actually understand why Fox may have decided to go with the non-grain look for The Longest Day. Myself, I prefer the non-grain look as that grainy screen shot looks unnatural with way to much grain for my taste. I guess I belong in the (3-D PoP), Discovery channel side of the fence. But, having said that, my next BD purchase will be How The West Was Won whether it's grainy or not.

Louigi i really have to ask this question.....Are you being honest or just trying to wind people up....I could understand if your arguments made sense but you seem to come onto all these threads lately and try to actually say silly things like The Seventh Seal screen shot looks unnatural when it's the most natural looking screen shot i have seen in a long time.

At times i wonder and this isn't a personal pop at you or anyone else for having the opinions you do but it just feels you love a good argument for arguments sake rather than you actually believe what you are writing on these threads.

If i am wrong i apologise but the above statement by you is very strange.

The Blu-ray version of The Seventh Seal looks almost exactly like the 35 mm print I was fortunate enough to see in theaters last year! The Longest Day, on the other hand, looks horrible - it could have looked excellent without all the fine detail removed by DNR.

While I could understand that someone might having problems noticing the DNR on "Patton", even tough it's obvious to me and a lot of other people. I can't for the life of me believe that anyone could NOT see the DNR on "The Longest Day", or even argue that it's "propbably close to the source" It's fifty times worse than Patton!, it's actually some of the most extreme DNR'ing I've seen on a Blu-Ray to date. Even if you've never seen the movie in any format or a film print, it's blatently obvious. It looks totally photoshopped, like they've run some sort of median cut filter. Look at Wayne's eyebrowes or thin lines, they look "oily", totally unreal and overprocessed.

I don't think the previously posted manipulated seventh seal screenshots, quite get the seriousness of the Longest Day DNR. So here's my take on it. I used a Noise-Reduction Median Filter to mimic the 'Fox treatment' ;)

original
http://home.lyse.net/kishiro/images/Seventh%20Seal%204.png
'fox DNRtreatment' ;)
http://home.lyse.net/kishiro/images/Seventh%20Seal%204_median.png

http://home.lyse.net/kishiro/images/John20Wayne_median.pnghttp://home.lyse.net/kishiro/images/John20Wayne.jpg

LOL! Classic!

The sad thing is that a lot of people will look at the DNRed image on their 720p tv from across the room and say it looks great
As an owner of both 1080p and 720p displays, I think display resolution has nothing to do with spotting EE and DNR. Knowing what one is seeing is what really counts. I can easily spot both problems if present on both of my displays, even on DVD.

Fine for now, because you'll probably end up buying it again when a better BD version comes out, and believe me, it will. The studios must love you.

Maybe......maybe not. When and if the "better BD version" comes out years from now, I hope I still have my vision.:) Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying the absolute best version of this film since it was released almost 40 years ago.
Besides...this won't be a new experience. Haven't we all bought SD DVD titles of our favorite titles only to re-buy them years later because of better transfers. Same thing....

Hi,

I see a tendency in these screenshot threads that keeps them going on for pages and pages of IMO needless bickering. Personally I find it to be very tiring to go through the same old same old every thread to get to the more constructive posts that really contain useful thoughts or information.


The problems areas that I see are:



1. The "it's better than the DVD" argument

Very helpful also as a retort to hyperbole as per point number 4, things can go on for pages like that

Let us just say that the DVD screenshots are meant as a frame of reference to compare to because the DVD is the only other medium a movie is released in.
Do we want to discuss if a Blu-Ray does look better overall than the DVD ? I would say no, as it does so probably 99% of the time, so let's please not debate this.
The idea is to be faithful to the source, grain or not, digital or film, so we do not want HD to just look better than the DVD version of a movie but as good as it can be within that context and within the limits of the medium. So please, to those who come her only to point out that a particular title is better than the DVD version please get your own thread, where you can praise almost everything ever released on Blu-Ray.

There's a line of thought here that I think deserves to be addressed in greater detail....the "it's better than DVD" argument. You know it wasn't that long ago that Blu-ray used this fact as part of their promotional approach to sell hardware/software. Now you guys make it sound like getting the clap is better. BD IS A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN SD DVD (mostly) There I said it! It's something we should never forget or become blasé about or trivialize.


2. The criticism of screen captures as a tool for illustrating problems with transfers.

If somebody thinks screen captures have no use as a tool to assess picture quality he generally would not be well served to post in screenshot threads - fair enough ?

Actually I think the screen shots serve as a terrific tool to compare BD/SD DVD titles for those undecided about moving up to the BD version and especially for SD DVD movie enthusiasts to consider buying into Blu-ray for the first time.

3. Film as a medium is mysterious and unapproachable, nobody can know what it should look like on HD home media for the home.

Again, if this is your stance please do not post in these threads as obviously all discussions will be futile anyway and your time would be better spent doing something else.

I think something got lost in the translation. Your time would have been better spent eliminating point #3 from your post.:D

4. Hyperbole from people who don't like how a transfer looks.

Examples would be:

"the DVD looks much better than the crappy Blu-Ray" (Very hard to justify taking into account all aspects that define image quality)
"I am gonna puke right onto my keyboard now that I am exposed to these disgusting screen captures"
"those gangsters/morons/imbeciles (insert a barrage of insults at your liking) at studio X did it again"
"Do not buy anything else ever again from studio X, they might have made a mistake on only one or two transfers but our wrath should be with them for eternity" (In the case of these two hotly debated Fox transfers that went wrong at the same time they released another classic release that is prefectly fine, as have been many other releases from Fox. So asking to not buy anything from Fox is downright ridiculous)

I am exaggerating a bit but reading this a member or two might get what I am talking about.

I understand. Your exaggerating to make a point about excessive exaggeration.;)

My pet peeve is posters that post lists of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" topics of discussion.

Yes. As despicable as the Mona Lisa with neon colors and a broad grin. :D
:eek: Now that image is going to haunt me for the rest of my life!

Excellent example of the DNR look Vs the grainy look. Now I can actually understand why Fox may have decided to go with the non-grain look for The Longest Day. Myself, I prefer the non-grain look as that grainy screen shot looks unnatural with way to much grain for my taste. I guess I belong in the (3-D PoP), Discovery channel side of the fence.

Fair enough as long as you you realise that
a) the degrained John Wayne looks nothing like he looks in this film
(-> I don't care what films look like, I want them modified to my personal tastes!)

b) the degrained John Wayne looks nothing like he looks in real life as well
(-> I don't care what John Wayne looks like in real life. I want him modified to my personal tastes. Oops. Did I just say that?)

c) You are not getting just a no grain Wayne, you are getting no Wayne Wayne. A phantom from some surreal toon town.
(-> I don't care what John Wayne looks like. I... Ah forget it!)

Is that really what you want? I don't think so. What you want is the film shot on some of todays grain and noiseless digital cameras with superior fine detail, a genuine out of the window look. Sorry, you are not getting this with such stoneage DNR processing as on this title.

Actually I think the screen shots serve as a terrific tool to compare BD/SD DVD titles for those undecided about moving up to the BD version and especially for SD DVD movie enthusiasts to consider buying into Blu-ray for the first time.

And you can even just use them to complain about how bad the Blu-Ray is although it does look better than the DVD version ;)


I think something got lost in the translation. Your time would have been better spent eliminating point #3 from your post.:D


Point taken, but as I already spent such a long time writing this incomprehensible mishmash I chose to reword it instead :D



My pet peeve is posters that post lists of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" topics of discussion.

I actually I do NOT like the BR versions of The Longest Day and Patton and I would prefer to see the issue treated without having to read all these posts with redundant discussions on the topics outlined in my last post.

But I see that after I posted there were another half dozen posts dealing with the same topics so I guess most members enjoy these discussions :)

I actually I do NOT like the BR versions of The Longest Day and Patton and I would prefer to see the issue treated without having to read all these posts with redundant discussions on the topics outlined in my last post.



Oliver, I agree with you. I am certainly not trying to upset anyone with this comment, nor am I trying to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't post.

But I am suggesting that these threads serve a purpose for those of us who want to disect the image, discuss PQ artifacts, optimizations, etc... And unfortunately, the utility of these threads is compromised by the endless regurgitation of the same arguments with those who feel such discussion has no merit.


But I see that after I posted there were another half dozen posts dealing with the same topics so I guess most members enjoy these discussions :)

You can count me among those who do not enjoy these types of arguments, which is why I stopped responding to them. It took me a few weeks to learn how to live peacefully in the BRD forum, but I think I finally get it.

We cannot stop the detractors from posting, but we can stop entertaining the discussion and thereby dragging it on for countless pages.

I bought a copy of the BD because I gave my brother my Longest..... DVD about 5 years ago. It's bad for BD but IMO, it's not as bad as Patton. Patton I preordered. Hot dam I wish I hadn't! Atleast Longest... has retained some detail, well, atleast compared to Patton.... :rolleyes:

Fox has always pushed for HD at 720P....I quess they've found a way to implement their desires....

Fox is on triple-quadruple, secret probation with me. I'll be spending my monies with the several studios that do purr-dy good. I've had about enough of DTS Master audio that goes "boom" too. Fox hasn't got an ounce of integrity or quality control. The ironic thang is that they did purr-dy good at D-Theater. They're takin' two steps back for every forward one as of late. disgrunted doesn't quite cover it for me.



$$$$$$$$......dream about it Fox.....it's called opportunity costs.... :D

Louigi i really have to ask this question.....Are you being honest or just trying to wind people up....I could understand if your arguments made sense but you seem to come onto all these threads lately and try to actually say silly things like The Seventh Seal screen shot looks unnatural when it's the most natural looking screen shot i have seen in a long time.

Let me explain. I watch a lot of sports. (Go Fresno St) Anyway, the HD PQ on ESPN-HD is gorgious...like looking through a widow. I also watch quite a bit of OTA and Satellite HD channels and some HDM----same look as above. For want of a better word, I'll simply call that a "natural" look or 3-D PoP, if you will.
So it should come as no surprise that I describe that grainy B/W image from Seventh Seal as unnatural to me. I'm talking "looks" and your talking...something else and that's fine. Call that silly if you want but I'm being honest.
Hey - how much is a gallon of gas over there in US dollars?

Let me explain. I watch a lot of sports. (Go Fresno St) Anyway, the HD PQ on ESPN-HD is gorgious...like looking through a widow. I also watch quite a bit of OTA and Satellite HD channels and some HDM----same look as above. For want of a better word, I'll simply call that a "natural" look or 3-D PoP, if you will.
So it should come as no surprise that I describe that grainy B/W image from Seventh Seal as unnatural to me. I'm talking "looks" and your talking...something else and that's fine. Call that silly if you want but I'm being honest.
Hey - how much is a gallon of gas over there in US dollars?

At least on newer titles don't let anyone tell you we can't have both a clear, 3d pop picture and no loss of detail, because we can and do. There are examples of such and that is why I have no problem with grain, but also enjoy the look of Apocalypto.

Heavy grain regardless of whether it is supposed to be there or director's intent, looks just as unnatural as heavy wax looking DNR.

Heavy grain regardless of whether it is supposed to be there or director's intent, looks just as unnatural as heavy wax looking DNR.

That's just the point. Who says movies are supposed to look natural! They're supposed to look like movies not the NFL! Maybe they should do a few NFL games with unsaturated colour or silver-keyed just to show folks what HD can be.....?...... ;)

The NFL maight be all the same but movies are individuals and all look different. I like it that way even if I'm not koo-koo for Coco Puffs about some of the stylistic trends in the current era.....

You didn't bring up ESPN, thank you Louigi.....I've had fun rationalizing the rediculous....the NFL in gritty, crime film grain...yeah, that's the look for me..... I'm tired of actually getting the replay call right 98% of the time.... ;)

That's just the point. Who says movies are supposed to look natural! They're supposed to look like movies not the NFL! Maybe they should do a few NFL games with unsaturated colour or silver-keyed just to show folks what HD can be.....?...... ;)

The NFL maight be all the same but movies are individuals and all look different. I like it that way even if I'm not koo-koo for Coco Puffs about some of the stylistic trends in the current era.....

You didn't bring up ESPN, thank you Louigi.....I've had fun rationalizing the rediculous....the NFL in gritty, crime film grain...yeah, that's the look for me..... I'm tired of actually getting the replay call right 98% of the time.... ;)

This is one of these topics that there is too much to say and discuss properly in simple posts to have a decent discussion without having our words read into. Not blaming you at all Rachel. I got my first infraction yesterday as a member of 4 years when something I posted was taken the wrong way and not the way I INTENDED! :(

I understand what you are saying and I agree, but there are so many variables. Intent vs. acceptance of shots by the Director when he may not have intended them to look a certain way, but accepted it because overall it was a one of a kind shot, so he didn't throw out the whole shot. There is no way any can really know the true Director's intent except the Director, anyone he works with or whom he told.

I brought up an example yesterday of one of the screen shots from the Seventh Seal. It was a poor example to make my point. Vern Dias mentioned that the Director and Director of Photography intended the shot to look as it did, because of the way it looked was intentional use of lenses. I understood his point, but again my example was poor and that wasn't what I was trying to say. Anyway, my point is that on the set, on the cutting room floor, etc., the Director, editor, and whom ever is involved with making the film may intend things to look a certain way and at the same time settle for something they had no intention of doing in the first place. There is no way anyone outside of those film makers could know that unless they were told. If we want to still call that intent than so be it, but I don't agree as there are too many unknowns.

....I even got my first infraction as a member yesterday after 4 years when something I posted was taken the wrong way and not the way I INTENDED! :(

Congratulations! You got your red badge of courage too! I even got a demerit lately for comparing the Tier system to something unflattering that was substituting for the word stereotype. I didn't even see the reaction. I was out doing some gardening. Hey, I don't even feel guilty. Atleast Ii didn't get lashes like the British Navy or my rum ration cut!

We're branded and now the scorge of the west.... ;)

I kind'a thought we really agreed about all this more or less as is apparent. Since day one of HD-DVD and BD it has just freaked me how many folks have been so-ooo very resistent to anything but 'window pane" HD.

I've shot enough video shooting weddings and making Community TV to appreciate what you're saying. Things don't always come out like you want. Stille, it's too late to fix stuff now for my cheesey video work and oh, so many cheesey films. To quote my favourite Zappa, "you are what you is".

What we got here is an operation that's more lethal than the disease, know what I mean vern..... :)

Oliver, I agree with you. I am certainly not trying to upset anyone with this comment, nor am I trying to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't post.

But I am suggesting that these threads serve a purpose for those of us who want to disect the image, discuss PQ artifacts, optimizations, etc... And unfortunately, the utility of these threads is compromised by the endless regurgitation of the same arguments with those who feel such discussion has no merit.

Exactly, we end up with a bloated thread that contains about 20% useful information :(




We cannot stop the detractors from posting, but we can stop entertaining the discussion and thereby dragging it on for countless pages.

Took me some time, too but it is really the only way to stop this going back and forth for pages and pages.

Let me explain. I watch a lot of sports. (Go Fresno St) Anyway, the HD PQ on ESPN-HD is gorgious...like looking through a widow. I also watch quite a bit of OTA and Satellite HD channels and some HDM----same look as above. For want of a better word, I'll simply call that a "natural" look or 3-D PoP, if you will.
So it should come as no surprise that I describe that grainy B/W image from Seventh Seal as unnatural to me. I'm talking "looks" and your talking...something else and that's fine. Call that silly if you want but I'm being honest.
Hey - how much is a gallon of gas over there in US dollars?

I finally understand you now.....You want the movies to look like your HD sports channels....They just don't shoot movies to look like that.

$11 to $17 dollars per gallon for petrol ( gas ) over here at the moment depending on what garage you go to and where in the UK you are. (Scottish Highlands and Islands pay the most ) There are only 3.78 litres per Gallon in America though and 4.54 litres per Gallon in the UK. Most of the cost is simply pure tax. ( We sell our North Sea Oil on the open market and don't even think to give our citizens cheaper fuel unlike USA which gives to it's citizens first then sells the surplus to requirement stocks on the open market hence you get cheaper prices because of this )

Anyways thats going way off topic.

Regarding The Longest Day and Patton and the DNR look......It's not a natural look and it doesn't have "3d Pop" so it surprises me that those that like HD sports channels or eye candy are thinking these sort of titles now look great after some DNR.....Remove the DNR and put back all the detail and maybe you would be surprised just how good it can be and you will maybe even say wow that film has 3d pop.....Not an expression i actually like to use.

I do think debate is good though and disagreement is fine as long as it's understood that DNR on this film has removed all the fine details.

Originally Posted by louigi222 View Post
Let me explain. I watch a lot of sports. (Go Fresno St) Anyway, the HD PQ on ESPN-HD is gorgious...like looking through a widow. I also watch quite a bit of OTA and Satellite HD channels and some HDM----same look as above. For want of a better word, I'll simply call that a "natural" look or 3-D PoP, if you will.
So it should come as no surprise that I describe that grainy B/W image from Seventh Seal as unnatural to me.Very typical, except that the usual "reference" is Discovery HD. Also somewhat surprising, given your claim that you watch film all the time (unlike the typical "I want everything to look like HD video" person).

Guys, this debate is going nowhere. The few folks who post that they like the DNRed versions of TLD and Patton aren't going to alter that stance by logic or guilt. Continued posting in hopes of influencing them is a waste of time.

Art

I finally understand you now.....You want the movies to look like your HD sports channels....They just don't shoot movies to look like that.

$11 to $17 dollars per gallon for petrol ( gas ) over here at the moment depending on what garage you go to and where in the UK you are. (Scottish Highlands and Islands pay the most ) There are only 3.78 litres per Gallon in America though and 4.54 litres per Gallon in the UK. Most of the cost is simply pure tax. ( We sell our North Sea Oil on the open market and don't even think to give our citizens cheaper fuel unlike USA which gives to it's citizens first then sells the surplus to requirement stocks on the open market hence you get cheaper prices because of this )

Anyways thats going way off topic.

Regarding The Longest Day and Patton and the DNR look......It's not a natural look and it doesn't have "3d Pop" so it surprises me that those that like HD sports channels or eye candy are thinking these sort of titles now look great after some DNR.....Remove the DNR and put back all the detail and maybe you would be surprised just how good it can be and you will maybe even say wow that film has 3d pop.....Not an expression i actually like to use.

I do think debate is good though and disagreement is fine as long as it's understood that DNR on this film has removed all the fine details.
I like my films to have that 3D PoP quality....urrrr, WOW $11 to $17 for a gallon of gas. In my neck of the woods, New Mexico (USA), it's $3.75 to $3.95 PG and people are ready to take up arms! LOL. I had a neighbor drive to Mexico ...gas was $2.15 PG.
And, yes debate (discussion) is good. I hate arguments as I think the goal there is to try to change someone's mind. Discussion to me is just that...and open respectful airing of opinions.:)

Very typical, except that the usual "reference" is Discovery HD. Also somewhat surprising, given your claim that you watch film all the time (unlike the typical "I want everything to look like HD video" person).
I do watch film at the local cinema. I watch video (DBS,SD DVD, HDM at home. Nope...I take that back. At the local cinema I'm always on the watch for DLP presentations of opening "blockbuster" movies. Better over all PQ.

The big problem is that there is no middle ground because the current methods studios employ to do DNR do not produce anything that could be considered a compromise. You either get something that has no DNR and resembles film or you get an overly processed image that is totally lacking in fine detail and texture. If the DNR methods really did produce an image that retained all fine detail while only removing removing grain, there might be more people willing to say "I can live with these results". As it is now people are either fine with the DNR results or they consider the outcome a disgusting mess.

Guys, this debate is going nowhere. The few folks who post that they like the DNRed versions of TLD and Patton aren't going to alter that stance by logic or guilt. Continued posting in hopes of influencing them is a waste of time.

Art

Exactly. That's the case with 99.9% of all of these online debates.

True. These issues have now migrated to the Gangs of New York BD thread...

True. These issues have now migrated to the Gangs of New York BD thread...

This might be incredibly naive of me to suggest, but maybe it would be possible for the mods to create a "One and Only DNR Debate thread" and restrict any pro-DNR comments (and their many rebuttals) to that thread.

These distracting arguments aren't really about the movies discussed in these individual threads, but rather about DNR in general, so a "One and Only" would be a good way to clean things up, IMHO.

The mods have already mentioned that there is an assumption that this forum is for those who seek the highest level of faithfulness to the master, and it's pretty clear that any comment to the contrary is going to start a flame war.

So why not put all the fire in one place? Any pro-DNR comment made outside of that thread could be mercilessly deleted.

I dunno. It's just a thought. Although I'm sure it's a controversial one. I'm not trying to stir anything up with this suggestion -- I just thought it was an idea worth mentioning.

Great idea. It seems that almost every new release thread here, "patton, Longest Day, Gangs of New York..." is being hijacked into this now pointless never ending debate. It's like the black bar threads all over again.

Which is why forums should take a stand and have a policy. AVS is not the Joe Six Pack forum, so to hell with freedom on this issue. Seriosuly. It's just insane.

You know Matt, maybe we SHOULD start a J6P forum. It would probably do VERY well...

:)

I'm personally hoping there won't be any more of these DNRed and EEed movies for us to even have to discuss the issue. We've just hit a really rough stretch for whatever reason. Hopefully all of these are just old masters and we can look forward to corrected versions sometime in the future.

Wow, the longest day looks like crap. What the F were they thinking?

What amazes me about luigi is that the guy is a senior citizen. You'd think he would want BD releases of these classics to best represent how they looked when he was younger. I think Luigi is one of the oldest members here and honestly, you'd think HE would be someone preaching for accuracy not wanting live action movies like this to look like some cheap ass CGI work but NOPE, he's the total opposite. Odd to me...

Oh and if HD on tv/hd sports looked like these longest day caps (I noticed the talk of HD on tv being brought up) I'd throw up watching them just like I'd want to puke watching this film on blu-ray. How anyone can see those other shots from Seventh Seal and not see how they DESTROY the Longest Day caps is beyond me.

But hey, to each their own. I will continue to shake my head at this junk and hope that studios do not decide to go on a DNR-fest with future releases especially since some people actually think this **** looks good. Seeing as my opinion is that almost everything in the world is going downhill, I will not hold my breath for proper releases and we'll be able to chuck blu-ray into the massive pile of great ideas/products that humans funked up for no reason.

You know Matt, maybe we SHOULD start a J6P forum. It would probably do VERY well...

:)Too late...www.blu-ray.com already beat you to it.

;)

Guys, this debate is going nowhere. The few folks who post that they like the DNRed versions of TLD and Patton aren't going to alter that stance by logic or guilt. Continued posting in hopes of influencing them is a waste of time.

Art

I do not concur. Folks might not change their minds today or tomorrow but givng them info can't hurt and their stance may evolve...??? When folks see some well done discs full of detail they'll hopefully understand why and realize how some other discs got their wings clipped.

Change happens.....even if it isn't instant.

Too late...www.blu-ray.com already beat you to it.

;)

Is Robert Harris a J6P?

:confused:

I do not concur. Folks might not change their minds today or tomorrow but givng them info can't hurt and their stance may evolve...??? When folks see some well done discs full of detail they'll hopefully understand why and realize how some other discs got their wings clipped.

Change happens.....even if it isn't instant.

I agree completely.

I do not concur. Folks might not change their minds today or tomorrow but givng them info can't hurt and their stance may evolve...??? When folks see some well done discs full of detail they'll hopefully understand why and realize how some other discs got their wings clipped.

Change happens.....even if it isn't instant.

Rachael,
One guy in particular accounts for about 20% of the posts in the Patton and this thread (not me :D) and despite twenty people trying to "teach " him he ain't budging and in fact just keeps coming back for more with no intent, obviously, of seeing the transparent to the source position.

I'm not talking about the debate generally but this particularly.

Of course ,I think that although our goals are admirable, the PQ tier thread indicates rather dramatically the magnitude of our battle.

If you think you can change that please be my guest.

Art

Rachael,
One guy in particular accounts for about 20% of the posts in the Patton and this thread (not me :D) and despite twenty people trying to "teach " him he ain't budging and in fact just keeps coming back for more with no intent, obviously, of seeing the transparent to the source position.

I'm not talking about the debate generally but this particularly.

Don't think of it just in terms of one particular member. Remember that there are many others who are lurking, and considering the discussion as well.

Of course ,I think that although our goals are admirable, the PQ tier thread indicates rather dramatically the magnitude of our battle.

How so? It's just a "eye candy" list, or Demo list etc.

I don't see how merely having that type of thread is a "dramatic" indicator of "the magnitude of our battle".

If you think you can change that please be my guest.

Art

Don't give up so easy Art! ;)

Rachael,
One guy in particular accounts for about 20% of the posts in the Patton and this thread (not me :D) and despite twenty people trying to "teach " him he ain't budging and in fact just keeps coming back for more with no intent, obviously, of seeing the transparent to the source position.

I'm not talking about the debate generally but this particularly.

Of course ,I think that although our goals are admirable, the PQ tier thread indicates rather dramatically the magnitude of our battle.

If you think you can change that please be my guest.

ArtWell you convinced me to keep my mouth shut and not stand in the way of those demanding better quality. Surely there are others.

Seems to me you guys might actually get something done if you keep at it. Just do what Patton would do. :D

Don't think of it just in terms of one particular member. Remember that there are many others who are lurking, and considering the discussion as well.Right! C'mon, Art, don't let the obtuseness of one person make you think that raising awareness of this issue does no good.

Listen guys, I have no doubt that there are lurkers who may be more open to an education than the one person we all know and love, but do we really have to undertake such education upon ourselves in every transfer thread?

Seems like this debate belongs in its own thread, if only we could keep it there.

Too late...www.blu-ray.com already beat you to it.

;)

Too funny. When I was banned from that site it was because I didn't like the Bram Stoker's Dracula transfer, everyone piled on me and kept mentioning that Mr. Harris gave it a thumbs up so I was wrong and must be some troublemaker who was anti-blue. Now that Mr. Harris has given some BDs bad reviews many are now saying, "who cares what SOME GUY thinks..." etc...

Man, you go against "teh bloo" in any way at that site and 1/2 of the members act like you insulted their moms.

Listen guys, I have no doubt that there are lurkers who may be more open to an education than the one person we all know and love, but do we really have to undertake such education upon ourselves in every transfer thread?

Seems like this debate belongs in its own thread, if only we could keep it there.

Why is that exactly?

What else is there to discuss anyway? DNR = bad. End of discussion.

The debate really only goes forward if there are others that have an opposing view, even if they are a distinct minority.

Otherwise this thread merely consists of posts saying "wow, that's horrible, it looks like animation" (a post that I made myself in this thread, and I simply quoted someone else who said it first).

Where do we go from there? We can blast the studio for doing it, and that's about it.

What is the point of the thread? Isn't it to discuss the PQ of The Longest Day? I don't see why opposing views wouldn't be allowed, even as much as I completely disagree with them.

Art, ya can win the war without winning every battle. Right now it may seem like Hell In Tthe Pacific...;) :)

As a frequent lurker, I'd like to say that this thread and the Patton one I have found to be very educational.

Contrary to what some of you perceive, I don't see these discussions as all that argumentative. Personally, I think it's great for folks to be honest about what their expectations of films on Blu-ray are, even if that is contrary to what a purist would like to see. That is an opportunity to educate people like me who read these threads with great interest.

I think a lot of "regular" folks don't fully appreciate that film is often meant to be a slight abstraction of reality. (on the flip side, I don't think that is *always* the case though. A documentary or concert film may very well be made with the intent of capturing reality.) But many times a film that is telling a story is created to exist in another reality that is a bit removed from our own.

What I'm starting to appreciate is that losing that with too much digital processing is like losing some of that movie magic.

Seeing the film and watching it is a whole lot different that fricking screen shots. But I do agree with Xylon they need to do a better job, but seeing the movie and watching the action they don't look as bad as some of those screen shots. Sure they cleaned them up, almost too much.. ;)

I think a lot of "regular" folks don't fully appreciate that film is often meant to be a slight abstraction of reality. (on the flip side, I don't think that is *always* the case though. A documentary or concert film may very well be made with the intent of capturing reality.) But many times a film that is telling a story is created to exist in another reality that is a bit removed from our own.

What I'm starting to appreciate is that losing that with too much digital processing is like losing some of that movie magic.

Exactly. I never understood this "looking out of the window" analogy. When you look out the window, does the image suddenly jump back and forth between longshots, closeups? are there wild movements similar to cameramoves?
If so, I want some of what they're on. To me, looking out the window 1/2 the time is a very dull experience. Just like a painting doesn't look like "reality" to me film is very similar. The filmmakers and DPs paint with light on the film much like a painter uses paint on a canvas.

:)

Which is why forums should take a stand and have a policy. AVS is not the Joe Six Pack forum, so to hell with freedom on this issue. Seriosuly. It's just insane.

:eek:

It seems you are being serious. If that is the case and the way you truly feel, why not have an "elitist" forum. :rolleyes:

I just finished watching the BD The Other Boleyn Girl for the second time. I am more than thankful we don't have aristocracy running the world anymore. Several hundred years ago their power ended. We certainly don't need a Lords of AVS and all others are peons situation.

While I understand some may believe themselves to be better, those of us who know better, know that it is simply a tool for those to elevate themselves above others without recourse.

Even as a "peon" member of AVS I will do everything within my power and reason to make sure the above never happens. :)

AVS is not the Joe Six Pack forum

Sorry. I am an above average J6P trying to learn from people out here.

I'm going to just throw something out there...(like meat to the wolves)

I have seen the mantra of "DNR bad, DNR bad" being tossed around this and other forums for several months now, reaching something of a fever pitch lately. All from a lot of people with no bona fides in the video post production business, or at least no one willing to say they are, most of whom I'm sure know virtually nothing about film. So, here's my thought.

Blu-ray (and HD DVD for that matter) is unique in the consumer market. No one outside of the film/video post production industry have ever seen film the way we now routinely see it on our home video systems. Not only is the source that is available to us better than anything we have seen before, the resolving ability of our display systems has reached levels that only a very few years ago was unheard of. Before Blu-ray and HD DVD, the closest most of us got to a filmmaker's intent was a high speed polyester film print at the local cineplex (crap). Even those lucky enough to see a premium print in a first run palace in LA or NYC are still seeing a PRINT, several generations removed from the original camera negative. How many consumers, ie, people on a forum like this, have any idea what a fine grain interpositive or internegative is supposed to look like transferred in 2K resolution on a relatively small screen. How does anyone here know what type of film element was used for the 2K transfer of The Longest Day and what that transfer is supposed to look like on a good video display or modest size video projection screen at full 1080p resolution? My question is rhetorical of course. I already know the answer. Hopefully some others here will give the concept some thought.

Now, I'm not saying there was not some form of digital processing done on The Longest Day and Patton, and other titles widely ASSUMED to be over-processed. I can't say that because unlike so many other "experts" on this forum, I don't know the details of the transfers done for these films or from what sort of film elements. I do know this. Not all film elements exhibit a coarse enough grain structure to be readily visible at 2K resolution on small screens.

I also know this. The statement, "grain is good" is just as sweeping a statement as "grain is bad" and can be just as wrong without the proper context.

Well, I do work in post-production. And I would like the BRDs to be as faithful as possible to a high quality film print as possible. And I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes a little DNR has to be applied to not blow the compression to hell, adding more noise which might even look like film grain, making some AVSers mistakenly think the BRD is perfect (even though it could have too much noise). I understand how difficult it is to judge a BRD screenshot without an uncompressed scan of a still of the same frame (And even then could be difficult.)

But damn, this is way too much DNR. Isn't it obvious? For a TV show I was color correcting, I had to add about this much DNR once to make a 2 second shot match the rest of the scene. It looked like these screenshots; and it made me wince doing it.

And before you say, well don't you see, you created a show that had that DNR built in. That was a TV show. Not a classic decades old movie. They didn't have the technology. These screenshots look nothing like film.

Its just frustration from some few posters who still don't "get" the issue. So I understand what Matt is trying to say. There is no malice intended. We welcome J6P especially Jane 6P :)

Sorry. I am an above average J6P trying to learn from people out here.

I know a bit about Japan and their apologetic culture as they live and practice humility. I know things aren't perfect their either. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but you do not need to say sorry. You have said and done nothing wrong. The post you are referring to is a disgrace IMO and that type of post and mentality more so than any J6P comments should never be tolerated on AVS. Aren't we all learning together to enjoy a better experience?

No offense to Matt and thanks Hughmc. Hope your teen daughters spend a good time out here. Btw I am a GAIJIN (Alien/Foreigner) living in Japan.:D


I kind of thought so, as you seemed a bit Americanized.

I will never forget that term from Black Rain. :D

No offense to Matt and thanks Hughmc. Hope your teen daughters spend a good time out here. Btw I am a GAIJIN (Alien/Foreigner) living in Japan.:D

Where are you from?

:eek:

It seems you are being serious. If that is the case and the way you truly feel, why not have an "elitist" forum. :rolleyes:

I just finished watching the BD The Other Boleyn Girl for the second time. I am more than thankful we don't have aristocracy running the world anymore. Several hundred years ago their power ended. We certainly don't need a Lords of AVS and all others are peons situation.

While I understand some may believe themselves to be better, those of us who know better, know that it is simply a tool for those to elevate themselves above others without recourse.

Even as a "peon" member of AVS I will do everything within my power and reason to make sure the above never happens. :)

I think what Matt wanted to say is that this forum was intended to be about audiovisual excellence. It could be argued that members who just want to watch movies and who prefer DNR and EE applied to their movies and maybe even want to fill their screen with every movie are better off in another forum with other likeminded people. Everybody has the right to prefer cropping or DNR or whatever applied to his movies but going to AVS and posting that in thread after thread is a bit like going to a baseball club to play football ;)

If elitist means having your private little club that nobody can join I am against it but if it means to demand that transfers on Blu-Ray come out as true to the source as possible I am all for it and I think that as a forum we should try to go in that direction.