Why should you expect to see grain from a 65mm negative? What I used to love about seeing 70mm films in the '60s was that the picture was so sharp and clear, without noticeable grain.

Possibly because when they project the 70mm print they throw the image slightly out of focus, therefore reducing the grain, like i said above. This is an old trick and that is one of the reasons 65mm is better than 35mm, there is more room to play with the grains.

I'll quote Robert Harris

At its most basic, even a child can do it.

For those who have ever projected film or slides, the answer is simple.

You get rid of grain by throwing the image out of focus.

Not blatantly out of focus, but marginally… ever so slightly.

Then you add a bit of digital sharpening, a touch of gamma, and a bit of basil.

The final product?

Grain reduced… or gone.

Occasionally pretty, and if no one compares it to the original, quite acceptable.



But anyway, we shouldn't rely too much on anybody's memory from 40 years ago about grains....

The old timers were grain haters (enough to be compelled to intentionally defocus a 70 mm projector)? Who woulda thunk? :) What of the directorial vision?!...the horror! :p

Some people who owned 720p DLP projectors would do the same thing: slightly defocus the picture in order to reduce the SDE.

As for defocusing a 70mm film, that would definitely be a surprise to me. The grain should be fine enough in a 65mm negative to not require doing that.

It might be a Canada vs. US difference.

Anyone seen Baraka in a regular BD case in the US?


Barnes & Noble had one in a regular case today. $34.99

Fortunately, I got mine from amazon a while back.

Lee

As for defocusing a 70mm film, that would definitely be a surprise to me. The grain should be fine enough in a 65mm negative to not require doing that.

I am finding it so weird that so many people think that 65mm negatives are just grainless. You all know that granularity is related to the film "capacity" of capturing light and it is directly related to the aperture area. Since you can use an smaller aperture than needed on a 35mm to achieve the same depth of field, you will end up with a less grainy negative.

Probably 50% less grain, but it doesn't mean no grain at all. I agree that it is fine enough, but probably some people don't, otherwise they wouldn't have DNR'ed Patton so much...

BTW, i believe when you actually scan a 65mm negative in 8k, you'll end up resolving about the same amount of film grain of a 35mm 4k scan. But i am not sure...

I still think there is much less grain than it was supposed to in this Baraka transfer. But the halos are more concerning...

I am finding it so weird that so many people think that 65mm negatives are just grainless. You all know that granularity is related to the film "capacity" of capturing light and it is directly related to the aperture area. Since you can use an smaller aperture than needed on a 35mm to achieve the same depth of field, you will end up with a less grainy negative.

Probably 50% less grain, but it doesn't mean no grain at all. I agree that it is fine enough, but probably some people don't, otherwise they wouldn't have DNR'ed Patton so much...
..

I didn't say 65mm had no grain. I was simply making the point, based on numerous 70mm presenations which I have seen, mainly in the '60s, that you don't see any grain - unless maybe you're sitting in the front rows. Seeing Cheyenne Autumn, for example, was an awesome experience and please don't say it was too long ago for me to remember what it looked like because I clearly remember thinking how incredibly sharp and grainless the picture appeared.

I didn't say 65mm had no grain. I was simply making the point, based on numerous 70mm presenations which I have seen, mainly in the '60s, that you don't see any grain - unless maybe you're sitting in the front rows. Seeing Cheyenne Autumn, for example, was an awesome experience and please don't say it was too long ago for me to remember what it looked like because I clearly remember thinking how incredibly sharp and grainless the picture appeared.

The fact that you are scaling the image up by 50% less, means that you are scaling the grain up by 50% less.. and that would be quite hard to see.

Talk about some of the more challenges scenes.

SC: When you do a lot of Blu-ray encoding, you know which scenes are going to cause you problems. When you are doing things with a lot of motion, anything that has a lot of data happening on screen. Fire and smoke, rippling water, high contrast shots — they all present different challenges and have to be dealt with differently. So we did tests on those and then found there were other issues. In some cases we did some pre-filtering to make it easier to encode and keep the quality of the picture, in some cases we just upped the data rate to allow for the greater picture quality. Sometimes it just comes down to the amount of data for a shot or scene.

So, higher bit rates = greater picture quality. I hope this is what the expert was trying to convey.:cool:

Talk about some of the more challenges scenes.

SC: When you do a lot of Blu-ray encoding, you know which scenes are going to cause you problems. When you are doing things with a lot of motion, anything that has a lot of data happening on screen. Fire and smoke, rippling water, high contrast shots — they all present different challenges and have to be dealt with differently. So we did tests on those and then found there were other issues. In some cases we did some pre-filtering to make it easier to encode and keep the quality of the picture, in some cases we just upped the data rate to allow for the greater picture quality. Sometimes it just comes down to the amount of data for a shot or scene.

So, higher bit rates = greater picture quality. I hope this is what the expert was trying to convey.:cool:

But we all have been told time and time again that higher bitrate doesn't guarantee higher PQ. There are just too many variables at work to generalize like that. ;)

The fact that you are scaling the image up by 50% less, means that you are scaling the grain up by 50% less.. and that would be quite hard to see.

Do you mean downscaling??? If so, no! You don't lose details in this proportion by downscaling. You would clearly see the grain in 1080p, maybe even more than in the 8k original!

Do you mean downscaling??? If so, no! You don't lose details in this proportion by downscaling. You would clearly see the grain in 1080p, maybe even more than in the 8k original!

No I meant with the projector at the theatre. A projected 35mm image is scaled twice as many times. So grain is twice the size.

And downscaling must convert about 100 points into 1, so this gives you many different algorithms to choose from. You could take the average colour, or the most predominant colour.. or other ways. Maybe even combine frames together.

No I meant with the projector at the theatre. A projected 35mm image is scaled twice as many times. So grain is twice the size.

Yes you're right a 70mm print coming from 65mm negative would show less grain in theaters, no doubt about it.

But i believe they are saying the amount of grain we see in the BD is correct, based on their memory of the 70mm projection.

There is no grain whatsoever, if i look really close i can see the dithering in the Kuro plasma, but i can't see no film grain in this Baraka BD.

Yes you're right a 70mm print coming from 65mm negative would show less grain in theaters, no doubt about it.

To be pedantic, it would show more grain, but that grain would be less visible. :D

To be pedantic, it would show more grain, but that grain would be less visible. :D

Actually... if we consider the 70mm print is not a blow-up and it came from a 65mm negative and the 35mm print came from a 35mm negative, the 70mm print would show 50% less grain but when projected on a screen of the same size the grain would be only 25% as visible (as detached) as in the 35mm projection. Or even a bit less...

Actually... if we consider the 70mm print is not a blow-up and it came from a 65mm negative and the 35mm print came from a 35mm negative, the 70mm print would show 50% less grain but when projected on a screen of the same size the grain would be only 25% as visible (as detached) as in the 35mm projection. Or even a bit less...

Fuzzy (grainy?) math?

If, for purposes of easy argument, we consider the 65mm frame to be exactly twice the size of the 35mm frame...

* the 70mm print displays exactly twice as much grain on the screen because it has exactly twice as much image area

* that grain appears exactly half as large because twice as much grain (image area) is being displayed on identical screen dimensions

Fuzzy (grainy?) math?

If, for purposes of easy argument, we consider the 65mm frame to be exactly twice the size of the 35mm frame...

* the 70mm print displays exactly twice as much grain on the screen because it has exactly twice as much image area

Twice? I think you need to go back and examine how area is calculated.

Fuzzy (grainy?) math?

If, for purposes of easy argument, we consider the 65mm frame to be exactly twice the size of the 35mm frame...

* the 70mm print displays exactly twice as much grain on the screen because it has exactly twice as much image area

* that grain appears exactly half as large because twice as much grain (image area) is being displayed on identical screen dimensions

Read the post bellow and do the math again:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15459469#post15459469

You'll get how i reached the 25%.

Read the post bellow and do the math again:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15459469#post15459469

You'll get how i reached the 25%.

Fair enough. I was expecting your math to be coming from an 'all else being equal' perspective. Sorry. :)

I am finding it so weird that so many people think that 65mm negatives are just grainless. You all know that granularity is related to the film "capacity" of capturing light and it is directly related to the aperture area. Since you can use an smaller aperture than needed on a 35mm to achieve the same depth of field, you will end up with a less grainy negative.

Probably 50% less grain, but it doesn't mean no grain at all. I agree that it is fine enough, but probably some people don't, otherwise they wouldn't have DNR'ed Patton so much...

BTW, i believe when you actually scan a 65mm negative in 8k, you'll end up resolving about the same amount of film grain of a 35mm 4k scan. But i am not sure...

I still think there is much less grain than it was supposed to in this Baraka transfer. But the halos are more concerning...


I find it so weird that you keep stating that others have said things that they have not said.

I never said that 65mm film had no grain, did I? Neither has anyone else.

What is strange about your response is that you go on to admit that 65mm film will probably have "50% less grain".

So....what are we arguing about again? :confused:

But i believe they are saying the amount of grain we see in the BD is correct, based on their memory of the 70mm projection.

There is no grain whatsoever, if i look really close i can see the dithering in the Kuro plasma, but i can't see no film grain in this Baraka BD.

There is light grain present in the Baraka Blu-ray transfer. If you can't see it, that's likely a display (or display size) issue. I can certainly see it on my projector.

I find it so weird that you keep stating that others have said things that they have not said.

I never said that 65mm film had no grain, did I? Neither has anyone else.

What is strange about your response is that you go on to admit that 65mm film will probably have "50% less grain".

So....what are we arguing about again? :confused:

I do admit and i DO KNOW 65mm should have less grain, and i even know why. And i didn't say you said it was grainless, i even confirmed i find it fine enough AS YOU SAID, but some people don't. "Fine enough" by the way is an abstract amount, you can stuff as much as you want in it.

But read Damato's last comment, he said GRAINLESS 70mm projection. So, don't come here and tell me nobody said this, nobody said that, and i am the one who keeps implicating things. If anybody has anything to tell me they can come and tell me by themselves, don't try to use others to force your hyperbolic views of my comments.

There is light grain present in the Baraka Blu-ray transfer. If you can't see it, that's likely a display (or display size) issue. I can certainly see it on my projector.

Ok, even if there is very light grain in it, it seems a lot less than it should. 8k scan of 65mm, should come with the same amount of grain as a 35mm 4k scan. The visibility of these grains in a 1080p BD transfer without any reduction would be much stronger than the 70mm projection.

The visibility of these grains in a 1080p BD transfer without any reduction would be much stronger than the 70mm projection.

On what basis do you premise this statement?

But read Damato's last comment, he said GRAINLESS 70mm projection. So, don't come here and tell me nobody said this, nobody said that, and i am the one who keeps implicating things. If anybody has anything to tell me they can come and tell me by themselves, don't try to use others to force your hyperbolic views of my comments.

I did not say 70mm projection was grainless. I said that in theatrical presentation (in reference to specific films) it appeared grainless. A subtle but considerable difference!

Talk about some of the more challenges scenes.

SC: When you do a lot of Blu-ray encoding, you know which scenes are going to cause you problems. When you are doing things with a lot of motion, anything that has a lot of data happening on screen. Fire and smoke, rippling water, high contrast shots — they all present different challenges and have to be dealt with differently. So we did tests on those and then found there were other issues. In some cases we did some pre-filtering to make it easier to encode and keep the quality of the picture, in some cases we just upped the data rate to allow for the greater picture quality. Sometimes it just comes down to the amount of data for a shot or scene.

So, higher bit rates = greater picture quality. I hope this is what the expert was trying to convey.:cool:

Perhaps if they still needed to do pre-filtering to keep the image easier to encode despite Blu-ray's bitrate, they shouldn't have used lossless audio on this release and instead used those bits to avoid pre-filtering. :cool:

On what basis do you premise this statement?

First because of the 65mm 8k scan, you resolve the same amount of grain (or very close) to a common 35mm 4k scan. Therefore all the talk we had above about the "grain visibility" in a 70mm projection in comparison to a 35mm won't apply to this 8k scan.

Second because the downscaling is not supposed to reduce the grain, grain is "seen" as image details and a good downscaling algorithm will try to preserve as many details as possible. Now, the compression to VC-1 is something else, and it will probably result in some loss of grain texture. There are many papers addressing the loss of detail in some H.264 and MPEG-2 compression algorithms.

1080p should be enough to resolve every detail of a 35mm film, larger scan sizes like 4k are aimed at capturing more grain and reducing aliasing. Such downscaling from 4k to 1080p shouldn't be associated to significant loss of details.

I did not say 70mm projection was grainless. I said that in theatrical presentation (in reference to specific films) it appeared grainless. A subtle but considerable difference!

I know you meant it appeared grainless.

1080p should be enough to resolve every detail of a 35mm film, larger scan sizes like 4k are aimed at capturing more grain and reducing aliasing.

If aliasing can be reduced then, by definition, there is more detail to be resolved. And this isn't just theory, it's real-world practical. Compare a 4k-scanned image of a well-resolved 35mm frame to a 2k-scanned version (to say nothing of 1080p) and you will clearly see more detail (and not only grain detail) in the 4k-scanned image.

If aliasing can be reduced then, by definition, there is more detail to be resolved. And this isn't just theory, it's real-world practical. Compare a 4k-scanned image of a well-resolved 35mm frame to a 2k-scanned version (to say nothing of 1080p) and you will clearly see more detail (and not only grain detail) in the 4k-scanned image.

Scanning resolution is different than the final resolution. You should scan a Super 35mm in at least 4k, going above (6K) means reducing aliasing and and more grain detail. The incresed in detail (not grain) if any is marginal, you will see more grain detail and less aliasing in the end.

But you should keep this info in mind:

These analog image pixels must now be transferred to
the digital realm. Using a Super 35 mm image as an
example, the situation is as follows:
The maximum information depth is achieved with a line
grid 80 lp / mm. The largest spatial frequency in the fi lm
image is therefore 1/0.012 mm (line 0.006 mm + gap
0.006 mm).

According to the scanning theorem of Nyquist and
Shannon, the digital grid then has to be at least twice
as fine, that is 0.012 mm/2 = 0.006 mm. Converted to
the width of the Super 35 mm negative, this adds up to
24.92 mm / 0.006 mm = 4153 pixels for digitalization.



So, basically you scan a Super 35mm with a resolution twice as detailed as the film itself. When you downscale, you should not lose any detail, 4k is the capture resolution. But there is a whole debate about the spatial frequency among the various resolutions, 2k, 4k, 6k+. The general consesus is that even if the film resolution won't be lost in a lower resolution scan, you can achieve benefits with the higher modulation of lower spatial frequencies in large screens when you scan in a higher resolution .

This is not the case here anyway...

And i am not the one saying all this, it is Arri, you can check the paper here:

http://www.arri.de/infodown/cam/broch/2008%2003-25a%204K+%20Technology%20Brochure.pdf

Read the whole thing once you start...

You can get less grainy images working with 65mm than with 35mm, but not grainless.

Never said that. At some point when grain is too fine it is possible that it will not show up anymore at 1080p resolution, especially with added filtering and other variables. That is not to say that Baraka is entirely free of grain.

What you mean about filtering?

I suggest you do a bit of reading both in this thread and elsewhere. There are some caps from the documentation on Baraka that clearly have more detail in both the horizontal and vertical domain compared to the final product and there was also a link posted that basically confirmed that some scenes had to be pre-filtered.

Scanning resolution is different than the final resolution. You should scan a Super 35mm in at least 4k, going above (6K) means reducing aliasing and and more grain detail.

Sure, but you were suggesting that a 1080p downconverted image maintains all the detail of a 4k scan. I've yet to see any evidence that this could be possible.

So, basically you scan a Super 35mm with a resolution twice as detailed as the film itself. When you downscale, you should not lose any detail, 4k is the capture resolution.

I can't speak for Super 35 (which, for many popular applications, has a very small active image area by 35mm taking standards)... This may be the case for many uses of Super 35. Meanwhile, larger image-area 35mm formats (Academy ratio, etc.) definitely lose detail when downscaled from 4k, in my experience.

And, again, "reducing aliasing and more grain detail" means there is more (finer) information to be resolved!

Seeing Cheyenne Autumn, for example, was an awesome experience and please don't say it was too long ago for me to remember what it looked like because I clearly remember thinking how incredibly sharp and grainless the picture appeared.

I saw about half an hour of it this year (in pink unfortunately) and it had a very fine grain structure and was extremely detailed - best I have seen so far out of more than a dozen different movies shot in large format. The way it looked I'd say that most viewers would say that the grain is invisible from about one screen width away.

Warner needs to do a new print - and a Blu-Ray - of this one !

Sure, but you were suggesting that a 1080p downconverted image maintains all the detail of a 4k scan. I've yet to see any evidence that this could be possible.

The evidence is in the paper i posted and anywhere else you look for tech info, Super 35mm has about 2k of real resolution, 4K scan is aimed at solving capturing problems. Read the paper.



I can't speak for Super 35 (which, for many popular applications, has a very small active image area by 35mm taking standards)... This may be the case for many uses of Super 35. Meanwhile, larger image-area 35mm formats (Academy ratio, etc.) definitely lose detail when downscaled from 4k, in my experience.

Look, i don't want to be pendantic, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Super 35mm is the LARGER 35mm negative format, the Academy 35mm is 33% smaller! And that is why i used the Super 35mm in the example above, because it presents the largest area.

And, again, "reducing aliasing and more grain detail" means there is more (finer) information to be resolved!

Wrong, you don't seem to know what aliasing is. This is a signal processing problem when sampling images. Bigger resolutions help dealing with this. Try wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliasing

The grain is more prominent because it is upsampled, not because there is a smaller-than-a-pixel grain hidden somewhere.

That is a really nice cover, but when I went to download it, it was not very large 800px × 448px, and therefore low quality. You should really make Covers that are much bigger than this.

Yeah, I realized imageshack doesn't allow jpgs < 1.53mb, so they downsized it automatically.

Anyway, here's the new link to the High Res cover for Baraka (Blu-ray):
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/7705/barakabluraycoverjr1.jpg

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/5687/minibarakade5.jpg

Here's the printed cover (I think it looks great):
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/4575/covernb7.jpg

Never said that. At some point when grain is too fine it is possible that it will not show up anymore at 1080p resolution, especially with added filtering and other variables. That is not to say that Baraka is entirely free of grain.

What filtering?? It might be a simple thing to you, but filtering to me is wide range of possibilities. Noise filtering won't reduce grain, and it may introduce aliasing. So, what filtering are you talking about?



I suggest you do a bit of reading both in this thread and elsewhere. There are some caps from the documentation on Baraka that clearly have more detail in both the horizontal and vertical domain compared to the final product and there was also a link posted that basically confirmed that some scenes had to be pre-filtered.

Although there is some weird info there, if there is more detail in the original, then i am right, that is what i am talking about this Baraka BD. So what is your point?

Look, i don't want to be pendantic, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Super 35mm is the LARGER 35mm negative format, the Academy 35mm is 33% smaller!

That depends on the Super 35 application. 3-perf for 1.33:1 television broadcast? That's a large taking area. Shooting for 2.39:1 theatrical prints? That's a very small taking area (relative to other 35mm formats). It's a little bit moot because the scan is going to cover most of the image area, intended for viewing or not.


Wrong, you don't seem to know what aliasing is. This is a signal processing problem when sampling images.

Aliasing is a product of insufficient capturing resolution. Hence the benefit of higher-resolution scanning rates and the visible difference between scanning rates.

Bigger resolutions help dealing with this.

My point exactly- there is more information to be resolved!

That depends on the Super 35 application. 3-perf for 1.33:1 television broadcast? That's a large taking area. Shooting for 2.39:1 theatrical prints? That's a very small taking area (relative to other 35mm formats).

Your reply doesn't make any sense. 3-perf use of Super 35mm is used for broadcast to save film time and the area is reduced to the same size of a normal 35mm film. 4-perf Super 35mm is the largest frame and it is CLEARLY noted in my post above, with the specifics of the area size.

You are just trying to save face with post like this and you just can't fool anybody who actually know about this.




Aliasing is a product of insufficient capturing resolution. Hence the benefit of higher-resolution scanning rates and the visible difference between scanning rates.

Completely wrong definition of aliasing...

My point exactly- there is more information to be resolved!

Whatever makes you happy...

This is a very argumentative thread...

This is a very argumentative thread...

No, it's not.



<bud-a-bump-bump-ching> Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the fish and don't forget to tip your waitress.

Completely wrong definition of aliasing...

Aliasing is the result of sampling at an insufficient sampling rate given the source's frequency content. If the max frequency in the source is x you must sample with >(=) 2x frequency.
2K does not capture all detail of full frame 35mm. Not with today's emulsions anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Aliasing is the result of sampling at an insufficient sampling rate given the source's frequency content. If the max frequency in the source is x you must sample with >(=) 2x frequency.
2K does not capture all detail of full frame 35mm. Not with today's emulsions anyway.

No it doesn't and i never said it does, you can read above and i even quoted the Nyquist–Shannon theorem which you have just resumed above as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

Man, I love that bit. :D

Another favorite. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE)

Although there is some weird info there, if there is more detail in the original, then i am right, that is what i am talking about this Baraka BD. So what is your point?

We are going around in circles here, I've said what I wanted to say and I'm done with this.

bought this and was hoping for a stellar transefer but as this thread shows its something very wrong with it.
the short clips from the film shown in the extra material looks to me clearly sharper and cleaner and how the movie should have looked!

Man, I love that bit. :D



No you don't.

No you don't.

Sorry, I'm not allowed to argue anymore. If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Sorry, I'm not allowed to argue anymore. If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

Yes you do.

some members are going to be asked to leave the thread if the bickering continues

Aliasing is difference frequencies due to unmatched frequencies sent and actually received. If the input has excessive bandwidth aliasing will occur. If the scanning rate is inadequate aliasing will occur.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9633/aliasingik2.png

a) Adequate Sampling
b) Aliasing

Do not make a confusion between what causes aliasing and how to avoid it with WHAT aliasing IS.

You don't have to double the resolution to avoid aliasing, this is ONE method. You can avoid aliasing with a lower resolution by using a low-pass filter (OLPF, an optical filter, commonly used in digital cameras for instance). The Low Pas Filter will block all frequencies higher than half of the sampling rate.

The real resolution of a Super 35mm 4-perf will be about 2077 pixels, about 2k (2048). The scan should be around 4k due to the reasons already exposed. The downscaling to 2k should not delete any details, this is the original resoluton. A normal (Academy format) 35mm spatial frequency will be even smaller. In the end 1920 lines are more than enough for a normal 35mm film. NOT THE SCAN RESOLUTION, the downscaled resolution.

The difference in quality and therefore the argument supporting the use of large resolutions is related to higher modulation of lower spatial frequencies in BIG screen projections, by the projector.

The real resolution of a Super 35mm 4-perf will be about 2077 pixels, about 2k (2048). The scan should be around 4k due to the reasons already exposed. The downscaling to 2k should not delete any details, this is the original resoluton.

I understand your theory. All I'm saying is that in my practical experience, it is not the case. I have seen 35mm material containing information which exceeds the final (not capture) resolution number you (via Arri) proscribe. That's all I'm trying to say and I'm done trying to say it. If you want to say more to me via PM, you are welcome to, but I probably won't respond.

All I'm saying is that in my practical experience, it is not the case. I have seen 35mm material containing information which exceeds the final (not capture) resolution number you (via Arri) proscribe. That's all I'm trying to say and I'm done trying to say it. If you want to say

Write a paper about it, i would be delighted to read the final publication.

2K does not capture all detail of full frame 35mm. Not with today's emulsions anyway.

Interesting discussion. Similar discussions were raging on photography forums whether 6MP was visually equivalent to 35mm film [about twice the size of 35mm movie format]. A parallel discussion was going on too whether 6MP Bayer pattern was equivalent to 3.4MP three-color images from Foveon sensors. There were some elaborate arguments [read DPREVIEW archives for that]. The consensus was that even though some extra detail were visible on film, those details were not as acute [low MTF] as on the 6MP Bayer sensor. Thus, the impact of [B]6MP Bayer = 3.4 MP three color = 35mm film. Regarding our discussion here, we are obviously talking about three-color pixels here, thus the movie 35mm should be equivalent to about 1.7 MP in 4:4:4 encoding [given the size differencial between 35mm photo and movie frames].

Again, there would somewhat more detail on film, but with lower MTF, it would be weak detail.

Another discussion was what resolution was actually visible in the theaters. Some studies have shown that the horizontal resolution seen in the movies was about 700 lines [due to degradation that occurs through editing/transfer process, see, e.g., http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf ]. Which is not much higher than the DVD. This can explain why some owners of good quality home theater could claim that their DVD experience rivals that of the movie theater.

Almost forgot to comment on the center of interest here. Ebert wrote: Baraka is the "reason to acquire a Blu-ray player" ( http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1941 ). Agree completely, it's that good.

Almost forgot to comment on the center of interest here. Ebert wrote: Baraka is the "reason to acquire a Blu-ray player" ( http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1941 ). Agree completely, it's that good.
It's A possible reason. THE reason is hyperbole. There were arguably better BDs released before Baraka concerning image and sound quality. And what film makes your day is totally subjective anyway.

I tried contacting MPI about getting a BD case insert assuming they're now shipping this in a normal case, and haven't received a response yet.

Anyone else?

I tried contacting MPI about getting a BD case insert assuming they're now shipping this in a normal case, and haven't received a response yet.

Anyone else?

Did not know they have a different version of the case. Mine was lousy.

It might be a Canada vs. US difference.

Anyone seen Baraka in a regular BD case in the US?

Yes, I've seen it [regular BD plastic case] at Best Buy.

Yes, I've seen it [regular BD plastic case] at Best Buy.


Same here. Looks like the complaints were heard.

Finally rented and watched it. 47 inch HDTV, so it's not large enough to see the kinds of flaws that I noticed on old 95 inch projection setup.

That being said, it looked insanely good. The best image I have ever seen. But I would love to see it on a large large screen.

Like, in 70mm. :)

But I would love to see it on a large large screen.

Like, in 70mm. :)

70mm! That is a large screen. :D

That being said, it looked insanely good. The best image I have ever seen.

Maybe some people in this forum watched a different Baraka;)

I also rented it after it was "long long long wait" in Netflix. I didn't find whatever EE they used to be distracting at all. There were scenes where I suspected they sharpened it but without an A/B comparison, I never would have known.

And why would they sharpen it? I'm guessing they watched the original 65mm projected next to the HD transfer, they saw how much softer the HD transfer looked and desperately wanted to recreate some of the sharpness they saw in the original. In still photography it's a common practice to lightly sharpen an image after downscaling it.

Also notice that the two examples of alleged DNR were backlit with the faces in the darker foreground? They look to me like scenes that were underexposed and printed brighter to compensate so the faces would be more visible. That will give you exactly that soft flat and somewhat unnatural look, especially with skin tones. Metering candid shots like that are very difficult and prone to error and I'm sure they weren't able to spot-meter the girls' faces in that scene.

Maybe some people in this forum watched a different Baraka;)

Well of course if you say so.

Well of course if you say so.

right

That being said, it looked insanely good. The best image I have ever seen.

looks like there is a reason for that:) [8K DI from 70mm]
http://www.dvdtown.com/news/baraka--the-first-ever-8k-hd-restoration-on-blu-ray-and-dvd-oct-28/6048
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/baraka_restored/index.htm
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2140
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/Blu-ray-Encoding-At-Its-Best-for-Baraka_10332.html

I finally saw it a couple of weeks ago. No where near the best picture I have ever seen.

right



looks like there is a reason for that:) [8K DI from 70mm]
http://www.dvdtown.com/news/baraka--the-first-ever-8k-hd-restoration-on-blu-ray-and-dvd-oct-28/6048
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/baraka_restored/index.htm
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2140
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/Blu-ray-Encoding-At-Its-Best-for-Baraka_10332.html

Are you seriously trying to prove a point a using those reviews?

Seriously?

Anyone?

Another 8K scan film with no PQ "anomalies" or any BS excuses fed to you by the BD marketing department and ignorant fanboys. (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1128543)

I finally saw it a couple of weeks ago. No where near the best picture I have ever seen.

What has been the best picture quality you have ever seen?

Are you seriously trying to prove a point a using those reviews?

Seriously?

Anyone?

Do you seriously believe I should prefer your opinion over theirs? Seriously?

Do you seriously believe I should prefer your opinion over theirs? Seriously?
If you or reviewers don't see the problem, you either don't know the difference between EE and genuine clarity, don't know what EE and DNR do or how to spot it, and/or you're viewing from a distance that doesn't meet the recommended standard for 1080p.

Reviewers aren't all-knowing... Take Blu-ray.com's Ben Williams' The Truman Show review as an example. "I didn't detect a trace of edge enhancement," he declared.

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ee/09.jpg (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_9_1080p.jpg)

It seems almost anyone can meet the qualifications to become a reviewer as long as their writing skills are good.

Fortunately for us, there are plenty of screenshot sites and threads like these to allow us to judge the PQ of movies ourselves.

I lost faith in Xylon when he showed two stills from Baraka that he claimed were softened by DNR when they clearly looked like underexposed shots that had been brightened in the print. Anyone who has shot negative film has underexposed shots and salvaged them by giving them a little extra exposure in the print. Once you try to get details out of the lower knee of the exposure curve, you often get these kinds of flat soft pasticky details, especially in skin tones. No digital manipulation is required here, just old-fashioned chemical photography.

I have no doubt there is too much DNR happening in many releases (there is certainly no way Dark City could have no visible grain without it) but blaming every soft shot on DNR without considering it may look that way on the negative is crying "wolf" to me.

Weren't there some comparison screens from the less-tampered-with footage on the making-of, or was I thinking of a different movie...

Ah ok, here's (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15221816&postcount=445) one:

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9170/barakasb4.jpg

More grain, more clarity. HMMMMM.

(slightly less EE too)

90% of the scenes are very soft. The night scenes were TERRIBLE and very grainy..

Gotta agree with Rob, I didn't see many instances of softness. Almost the opposite. TOO sharp. A ton of 70mm detail that just a bit digitally tweaked IMHO.

If you or reviewers don't see the problem, you either don't know the difference between EE and genuine clarity, don't know what EE and DNR do or how to spot it, and/or you're viewing from a distance that doesn't meet the recommended standard for 1080p.

I love the variety of opinions in this thread:)

I lost faith in Xylon when he showed two stills from Baraka that he claimed were softened by DNR when they clearly looked like underexposed shots that had been brightened in the print. Anyone who has shot negative film has underexposed shots and salvaged them by giving them a little extra exposure in the print. Once you try to get details out of the lower knee of the exposure curve, you often get these kinds of flat soft pasticky details, especially in skin tones. No digital manipulation is required here, just old-fashioned chemical photography.

I have no doubt there is too much DNR happening in many releases (there is certainly no way Dark City could have no visible grain without it) but blaming every soft shot on DNR without considering it may look that way on the negative is crying "wolf" to me.

That is a new one :)

right



looks like there is a reason for that:) [8K DI from 70mm]
http://www.dvdtown.com/news/baraka--the-first-ever-8k-hd-restoration-on-blu-ray-and-dvd-oct-28/6048
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/baraka_restored/index.htm
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2140
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/Blu-ray-Encoding-At-Its-Best-for-Baraka_10332.html

I love those interviews- they sound so professional and serious :)
And so what...

They say a lot about preprocessing- hmm...maybe this is the problem with Baraka.


Andrew

I love those interviews- they sound so professional and serious :)


any professional review you know of and you care to tell us about?:)

any professional review you know of and you care to tell us about?:)

No:)


Andrew

What's a professional review?

No:)


Andrew

I thought so:)

Nice quotes.... all i know is in my post nyu film school days is that film, even super detailed 65mm film, does NOT have EE inherent in it. There is clearly EE in baraka, no matter how amazing and detailed the PQ might be otherwise... Why is it there? Why was it added? If not puposefully added, is it an artifact of the downcoversion from the 6 billion K scan they touted in the specs to humble old 1920X1080...? either way, it's there....

Nice quotes.... all i know is in my post nyu film school days is that film, even super detailed 65mm film, does NOT have EE inherent in it. There is clearly EE in baraka, no matter how amazing and detailed the PQ might be otherwise... Why is it there? Why was it added? If not puposefully added, is it an artifact of the downcoversion from the 6 billion K scan they touted in the specs to humble old 1920X1080...? either way, it's there....

It is completely amazing to me how so many can deny that it is there. :confused:

What has been the best picture quality you have ever seen?

Right now I need to give the nod to How The West Was Won

What's a professional review?

A review someone makes for money.

... from another review ... [ http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/baraka_blu-ray.htm ]
"The Blu-ray is advertised as "FULLY RESTORED - THE FIRST MOVIE EVER TRANSFERRED IN 8K ULTRADIGITAL HD!" Rendered from restored 70mm elements this Blu-ray makes a bold statement when it claims to be the 'most visually stunning' ever. But I'd be hard-pressed to argue. Technically it does have the best images I have ever captured on this new format. Detail, contrast, color - everything is in the extreme high-end. I was certainly 'wow'ed' and I believe I've now found the perfect demo disc for when guests head over. It works out well as they can still hold conversation and eventually when their eyes drift to the screen - I'm sure they will be as hypnotized as a I. I can't elucidate much further on the visual expertise than simply pointing you to the full resolution screen caps (obtainable by clicking the reduced image below). I suggest the first and last as possibly the strongest testament to this zenith extreme of this Blu-rays clarity and dimensionality."

What's a professional review?

I'm not talking about reviews, but interviews- especially one with company which has made Baraka Blu-ray dics.


Andrew

... from another review ... [ http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/baraka_blu-ray.htm ]
"The Blu-ray is advertised as "FULLY RESTORED - THE FIRST MOVIE EVER TRANSFERRED IN 8K ULTRADIGITAL HD!" Rendered from restored 70mm elements this Blu-ray makes a bold statement when it claims to be the 'most visually stunning' ever. But I'd be hard-pressed to argue. Technically it does have the best images I have ever captured on this new format. Detail, contrast, color - everything is in the extreme high-end. I was certainly 'wow'ed' and I believe I've now found the perfect demo disc for when guests head over. It works out well as they can still hold conversation and eventually when their eyes drift to the screen - I'm sure they will be as hypnotized as a I. I can't elucidate much further on the visual expertise than simply pointing you to the full resolution screen caps (obtainable by clicking the reduced image below). I suggest the first and last as possibly the strongest testament to this zenith extreme of this Blu-rays clarity and dimensionality."
Because the opinion of a Blu-ray reviewer is always more valid than our own... You couldquote Roger Ebert, for all I care.

I thought I made that perfectly clear yesterday?

If you or reviewers don't see the problem, you either don't know the difference between EE and genuine clarity, don't know what EE and DNR do or how to spot it, and/or you're viewing from a distance that doesn't meet the recommended standard for 1080p.

Reviewers aren't all-knowing... Take Blu-ray.com's Ben Williams' The Truman Show review as an example. "I didn't detect a trace of edge enhancement," he declared.

http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m366/n-jaws-yo/Movies/BDvsHD/trumanshow/ee/09.jpg (http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/842_9_1080p.jpg)

It seems almost anyone can meet the qualifications to become a reviewer as long as their writing skills are good.

Fortunately for us, there are plenty of screenshot sites and threads like these to allow us to judge the PQ of movies ourselves.

I'm not talking about reviews, but interviews- especially one with company which has made Baraka Blu-ray dics.

You mean press releases or the info that is included on the box? :D

I'm not talking about reviews, but interviews- especially one with company which has made Baraka Blu-ray dics.


Andrew

You mean by these guys?
http://www.fotokem.com/

You mean by these guys?
http://www.fotokem.com/

No, these ones:

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/Blu-ray-Encoding-At-Its-Best-for-Baraka_10332.html

They're part of the Ascent Media- big company. I don't like big companies and their's workflow :)


Andrew

It is completely amazing to me how so many can deny that it is there. :confused:

Truth is subjective. There is a selection of people whose eye-brain combination simply will not see the problems with this title, even though said problems present themselves instantly and glaringly to others.

What is even more curious is how those responsible went to so much apparent trouble to produce this transfer which is flagrantly lacking in those very qualities the producers are boasting.

... from another review ... [ http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews42/baraka_blu-ray.htm ]
"The Blu-ray is advertised as "FULLY RESTORED - THE FIRST MOVIE EVER TRANSFERRED IN 8K ULTRADIGITAL HD!" Rendered from restored 70mm elements this Blu-ray makes a bold statement when it claims to be the 'most visually stunning' ever. But I'd be hard-pressed to argue. Technically it does have the best images I have ever captured on this new format. Detail, contrast, color - everything is in the extreme high-end. I was certainly 'wow'ed' and I believe I've now found the perfect demo disc for when guests head over. It works out well as they can still hold conversation and eventually when their eyes drift to the screen - I'm sure they will be as hypnotized as a I. I can't elucidate much further on the visual expertise than simply pointing you to the full resolution screen caps (obtainable by clicking the reduced image below). I suggest the first and last as possibly the strongest testament to this zenith extreme of this Blu-rays clarity and dimensionality."

Damn.

I lost faith in Xylon when he showed two stills from Baraka that he claimed were softened by DNR when they clearly looked like underexposed shots that had been brightened in the print.
That is a new one :)
No. This practice is as old as photography itself. Why do you think some scenes have more grain than others? It's because they were underexposed and brightened in the print if not push-processed in development. In fact under the old studio system, many films were routinely underexposed like this just to save on the studio's electric bill.

Have you done any film photography, Xylon? These are very fundamental practices and they're usually easy to recognize. I don't think you can accurately judge film picture quality without knowing what happens after the film comes out of the camera.

I don't like having to repeat myself, but there's no denying that the feature has been softened:

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/9170/barakasb4.jpg

cakefoo its not like we are ignoring you. I was just waiting for the usual suspects to chime in and explain that one.

Oh, I posted it for scowl, but he seems to have made up his mind a while ago regardless of the evidence.

Yep, a little more DNR and EE was used in the movie release. However, at 200% it doesn't look too severe.

That is an awesome comparison that shows how needlessly destructive both DNR and EE tricks really are.

I recently upgraded to a Blu-ray player that can now decode DTS-HD Master Audio. I swear in some scenes I am getting 7.1 sound I am using multichannel pcm to my receiver. Is there undocumented 7.1 sound? I have tried other DTS-HD MA blu-rays that are 5.1 and there is no sound coming out from the rear middle speakers at all- I know it is not my blu-ray player adding sound to the extra speakers-it has to be the Baraka bd.

Oh, I posted it for scowl, but he seems to have made up his mind a while ago regardless of the evidence.

In fact I haven't made up my mind because in most cases without seeing the original print or reading an article on the film, I have no evidence as to what actually happened. All we're doing here is looking at screen shots, speculating about what we see, jumping to damning conclusions and pointing fingers at who ruined the release.

I can say that the DoP may have used a Schneider or Pro-Mist filter to make an actress look nicer in a close-up. You may say that particular scene was destroyed by DNR because it looks soft. There's no way to know for sure.

Not every frame in a film is perfectly sharp and perfectly exposed or intended to be that way.

Should I post it a third time? :p

Jeez, folks, if it looks so crappy, there is a simple solution.

Don't watch it anymore. Problem solved.

So we have two choices: either a) learn to enjoy EE and DNR, or b) shut up about it and quietly sell it on eBay, without so much as hinting why to the experts lurking.

So we have two choices: either a) learn to enjoy EE and DNR, or b) shut up about it and quietly sell it on eBay, without so much as hinting why to the experts lurking.

Pretending that there is nothing wrong here is certainly not an approach that is likely to lead to less EE on future efforts.

Not every frame in a film is perfectly sharp and perfectly exposed or intended to be that way.
The issue with this title is far from optimal filtering (sharpening, downsampling) leaving haloes behind. As the first 8K title coming to market some teething problems are normal. The second title (Grand Canyon) has already solved this issue.

I can say that the DoP may have used a Schneider or Pro-Mist filter to make an actress look nicer in a close-up. You may say that particular scene was destroyed by DNR because it looks soft. There's no way to know for sure.


It's usually very easy to tell the difference between a soft focus close up of an actress and DNR. They just look totally different so i don't accept your argument.

The issue with this title is far from optimal filtering (sharpening, downsampling) leaving haloes behind. As the first 8K title coming to market some teething problems are normal. The second title (Grand Canyon) has already solved this issue.

All very true.

I would hope that the talk about DNR would stop as anomalies that can be seen are sufficiently explained by the filtering applied and the way the movie was shot

South Pacific is supposedly the third 8k title, and also does seem improved in the areas that you mentioned. I look forward to receiving my copy.

In fact I haven't made up my mind because in most cases without seeing the original print or reading an article on the film, I have no evidence as to what actually happened. All we're doing here is looking at screen shots, speculating about what we see, jumping to damning conclusions and pointing fingers at who ruined the release.

I can say that the DoP may have used a Schneider or Pro-Mist filter to make an actress look nicer in a close-up. You may say that particular scene was destroyed by DNR because it looks soft. There's no way to know for sure.

Not every frame in a film is perfectly sharp and perfectly exposed or intended to be that way.
Today I saw a freshly struck 70mm print of Baraka expertly projected onto a 50 foot screen. I specifically looked for moments that could be mistaken for DNR or edge enhancement/ringing. I saw none. However, I did notice that edges were sometimes very sharply defined, particularly during the early scenes of the film.

Just watched this on blu ray on my TH-42PZ700u and my audio system and I do say I was impressed. I really enjoyed the audio track of DTS-HD without a decent sound setup I would have not been as immersed.

The PQ though to me was phenomenal, many scenes did have very distinct edges but overall this one is a keeper. This movie is great to show what the world really is like outside mainstream.

well, after 20 minutes of looking around for it, I cannot believe that the question of Baraka bluray remaster vs Baraka bluray hasn't come up anywhere.

Amazon shows released dates within a couple months of eachother. Is there any difference between these two bluray releases, other than packaging differences?

Amazon shows released dates within a couple months of eachother. Is there any difference between these two bluray releases, other than packaging differences?

It's just a packaging change from the cardboard box to a plastic keepcase.

ok, thanks for confirming!

Just spent two weeks vacation with my folks in Phoenix. They bought an $80 Magnavox Blu-ray player on Black Friday to go with their 2008 model 52" Samsung LCD with 120Hz refresh rate that only had an HD-DVD player and HD cable connected to it. Anywho, they hadn't hooked the player up yet when I showed up before Christmas with an HDMI cable and a small pouch of high-def and DVD discs to (a) watch on my own time or (b) share with my dad and stepmom if they were in the mood. So, a couple of days into my vacation I talked them into hooking their Magnavox BD player with my (now their) HDMI cable and debut their new machine with this movie they'd never heard of called "Baraka." In the two weeks I stayed there we watched lots of new-to-them BD's ("400 Blows," "The Descent," "Snow White," etc.), HD-DVD's ("Full Metal Jacket," "Blazing Saddles," "2001: A Space Odyssey," etc.) and even one DVD (Truffaut's "Jules and Jim") that literally blew my father/stepmom's minds and expanded their idea of what a movie could be. But they said they will always remember how "Baraka" looked/sounded as the first BD title they ever saw because not only was it extremely pretty high-def pictures with cool music/voices, but because it was unlike anything they said they had ever even considered as something that could be a movie: pictures without words. :)

well, after 20 minutes of looking around for it, I cannot believe that the question of Baraka bluray remaster vs Baraka bluray hasn't come up anywhere.

Amazon shows released dates within a couple months of eachother. Is there any difference between these two bluray releases, other than packaging differences?

Yes, Baraka is nice eye candy...

...but I am completely puzzled as to why it scored 38th best PQ in the BD-PQ Tier list: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342

My BD copy of Baraka is a bit on the soft side - there are thick edges around fine detail, eg the monkey's hair (screen shots earlier in this thread).

My BD copy of Baraka (viewed on a Panny plasma, no sharpening) is definitely soft, as compared to recent releases, and my own CANON DSLR footage is much sharper.

Yes, Baraka is nice eye candy...

...but I am completely puzzled as to why it scored 38th best PQ in the BD-PQ Tier list: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342

My BD copy of Baraka is a bit on the soft side - there are thick edges around fine detail, eg the monkey's hair (screen shots earlier in this thread).


"Baraka"'s Tier ranking spks more too the Tier ranking than too the transfer itself.
I'll say no more.
Last time I called out the "T" it crashed & burned w/the OP running away in flames.

My BD copy of Baraka (viewed on a Panny plasma, no sharpening) is definitely soft, as compared to recent releases, and my own CANON DSLR footage is much sharper.
It better be. Your Canon DSLR pulls the video images off the sensor with no anti-aliasing. That's as sharp as HD video can get at the cost of color moire and aliasing.

Hi,

Baraka (and a dozen other 70mm movies) coming to the Seattle cinerama together with two Cinerama classics:

3-Strip Cinerama films:
This Is Cinerama
How The West Was Won

70mm films:
The Sound Of Music
Lawrence of Arabia
Cleopatra
2001: A Space Odyssey
My Fair Lady
West Side Story
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Playtime
Baraka
South Pacific
Tron
Lord Jim

Several of these have already been released on Blu-Ray and I think it will also be interesting to compare their look to the Blu-Ray versions.

http://seattlecinerama.com/coming-soon/
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2011/festival/index.htm