Film Reference and Analysis

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by worth

While it's no great shakes as a movie, I found the blu-ray of "Navy Seals" to look very film-like.

I felt like I was watching a 35mm print.

I'll add it to the nomination list.

More thoughts on The Day The Earth Stood Still are welcome.

[robertc88]

CTHD. Got it from Amazon UK.

LG390, 40" Samsung LCD, and seating position is 6 ft away.

I'm mesmerized by this BD. I'm sure others are glad they took the plunge! Excellent the more I watch it.

[babrown92]

I'll nominate Watchmen. Looks just like it did in theaters. Nice grain throughout.

[FoxyMulder]

Added Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon to the nomination list and added Watchmen to the main list.

[dvdmike007]

Nomination for Adventureland - Main list
Stunning natural grain structure, no problems seen

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

Nomination for Adventureland - Main list
Stunning natural grain structure, no problems seen

I'll add it to the nomination list. I checked out your DNR speech on YouTube.....Maybe there is a way to get this thread onto YouTube and spread the message about keeping films looking like film.

[dvdmike007]

What did you have in mind ?

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

What did you have in mind ?

Something grand and large scale and i'd like to use the animated puppets from Team America.

If that plan is too expensive then it's back to the drawing board for a new plan.

[Whiggles]

I'd like to nominate THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT for the main list...

...but I can't, unfortunately. The grain doesn't appear to have been artificially reduced at all, and detail is excellent, but Universal in their infinite wisdom have opted to cram two versions of the film - R-rated and unrated - on to the same disc without using seamless branching. Presumably as a result of this, there are some noticeable compression artefacts. It still looks pretty damn good in motion, but every now and then you'll spot some of VC-1's patented "jellyfish" artefacts.

For images follow the link below:

http://www.landofwhimsy.com/archives...the-left-2009/

One for the "minor issues" list, maybe?

[dvdmike007]

For the main list - GO
Natural stable image, slightly darkened as per cinema showings

[Whiggles]

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

For the main list - GO
Natural stable image, slightly darkened as per cinema showings

Also slightly grain reduced in my opinion, but I'll reserve judgement before I've watched it all the way through.

[General Kenobi]

Originally Posted by Whiggles

I'd like to nominate THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT for the main list...

...but I can't, unfortunately. The grain doesn't appear to have been artificially reduced at all, and detail is excellent, but Universal in their infinite wisdom have opted to cram two versions of the film - R-rated and unrated - on to the same disc without using seamless branching. Presumably as a result of this, there are some noticeable compression artefacts. It still looks pretty damn good in motion, but every now and then you'll spot some of VC-1's patented "jellyfish" artefacts.

For images follow the link below:

http://www.landofwhimsy.com/archives...the-left-2009/

One for the "minor issues" list, maybe?

Excellent review on your site and fantastic screen caps as usual, I visit your site often for reviews and screen caps. I think the only time I saw Last House on the Left was when I was about 12 and watched it on Laser Disc at a friends house, needless to say I remember nothing of it so am looking forward to checking this out.

[wuther]

Originally Posted by Whiggles

I'd like to nominate THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT for the main list...

...but I can't, unfortunately. The grain doesn't appear to have been artificially reduced at all, and detail is excellent, but Universal in their infinite wisdom have opted to cram two versions of the film - R-rated and unrated - on to the same disc without using seamless branching. Presumably as a result of this, there are some noticeable compression artefacts. It still looks pretty damn good in motion, but every now and then you'll spot some of VC-1's patented "jellyfish" artefacts.

For images follow the link below:

No offence but it's kinda silly pointing to a jpeg image to show compression artifacts since jpegs can have the same kind of artifacts or enhance them and it's hard to know what caused them. While I understand web space is limited, using a jpeg to point out such flaws is not ideal.

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by wuther

No offence but it's kinda silly pointing to a jpeg image to show compression artifacts since jpegs can have the same kind of artifacts or enhance them and it's hard to know what caused them. While I understand web space is limited, using a jpeg to point out such flaws is not ideal.

I have worked with a lot of JPEG's in my time for my own websites and at the settings Whiggles uses they are as good as PNG. I do not think using JPEG's at those file sizes which indicates very low compression will result in any issues in the pictures with regards artifacts or enhancing issues.

I'm sure Whiggles can pop in and tell you himself though.

I'll add Last House On The Left to the minor issues list and Go to the nomination list.

[42041]

Two Lovers - main list
Dirty Dozen - i'm not sure where degraded film sources and digital processing begins and ends with this one.. Some might go for major issues, but I'm inclined to put it on the minor issues list, since grain is intact for most of the movie and it doesn't look oversharpened, though there are halos present.

[42041]

Primal Fear - main list. good detail, cleanly compressed grain.

[Whiggles]

Originally Posted by wuther

No offence but it's kinda silly pointing to a jpeg image to show compression artifacts since jpegs can have the same kind of artifacts or enhance them and it's hard to know what caused them. While I understand web space is limited, using a jpeg to point out such flaws is not ideal.

I can only echo what Foxy said. If I felt that using JPG compression was adversely affecting these images, I wouldn't be using it. I've made numerous comparisons between uncompressed PNG versions of BD captures and JPG versions to satisfy my own concerns as to this issue.

Ultimately it's a simple matter of logistics: I don't have the space or bandwidth to host thousands of 1920x1980 PNG images on my web space. If it was at all possible, I would use PNGs, if only because I've lost count of the number of people who assume that any visible artefacts in a JPG image are the result of JPG compression rather than the source material. As it is, I'm using the least amount of compression possible (a quality value of "12" in Photoshop), which already results in large file sizes.

I should also point out that, when I criticise the encoding of a disc, I'm referring to artefacts I noticed when the disc was in motion, or at the very least when still-framing it. It's not as if I take a bunch of captures, save them as JPG and then say "Wait a minute! I see compression artefacts!" The captures I post are provided for illustrative purposes, to help people gain a general idea of what the image quality looks like, but they're not the be-all and end-all. There's no substitute for seeing it in motion for yourself, and I don't pretend otherwise.

[Whiggles]

Oh yeah, having watched GO, I'm convinced it's been grain reduced. As catalogue titles of this vintage go, it's pretty nice, but it looks softer than I would have liked and the grain doesn't appear to be entirely natural. One for the "minor issues" list, I think.

[dvdmike007]

Really ? it looked just like I remember it from the cinema, I may be wrong but it was always dark with fine grain

[wuther]

Originally Posted by Whiggles

I can only echo what Foxy said. If I felt that using JPG compression was adversely affecting these images, I wouldn't be using it. I've made numerous comparisons between uncompressed PNG versions of BD captures and JPG versions to satisfy my own concerns as to this issue.

Ultimately it's a simple matter of logistics: I don't have the space or bandwidth to host thousands of 1920x1980 PNG images on my web space. If it was at all possible, I would use PNGs, if only because I've lost count of the number of people who assume that any visible artefacts in a JPG image are the result of JPG compression rather than the source material. As it is, I'm using the least amount of compression possible (a quality value of "12" in Photoshop), which already results in large file sizes.

I should also point out that, when I criticise the encoding of a disc, I'm referring to artefacts I noticed when the disc was in motion, or at the very least when still-framing it. It's not as if I take a bunch of captures, save them as JPG and then say "Wait a minute! I see compression artefacts!" The captures I post are provided for illustrative purposes, to help people gain a general idea of what the image quality looks like, but they're not the be-all and end-all. There's no substitute for seeing it in motion for yourself, and I don't pretend otherwise.

I am not claiming you were doing anything horribly wrong or making any personal slight against you, just not the ideal way for that kind of issue.

I was just stating what has been known since photocopiers came out, if you photocopy a photocopy the second photocopy looks worse then the first photocopy and increases the flaws. It been known since jpeg was introduced that a poorly compressed image saved again with a lossy format like jpeg will increase the artifacts. That was my conundrum since there is no way for anyone else to tell how the jpeg did not affect the image.

I never stated or implied that you or anyone else were looking at a jpeg image and discovered artifacts, in fact I stated that pointing it out (meaning to others) with a jpeg is not ideal which is implying you did notice artifacts before creating the jpeg and not the other way around. I also stated I understand web space is limited which is in no way stating all your files should be png nor that you should do so from now on.

And if you want to argue that jpeg even at high rates does not leave behind artifacts, well sorry but that is incorrect, jpeg is called lossy and has no lossless mode at higher settings. If that were true mid to higher end cameras would not have raw formats.

[Phantom Stranger]

Originally Posted by Whiggles

Oh yeah, having watched GO, I'm convinced it's been grain reduced. As catalogue titles of this vintage go, it's pretty nice, but it looks softer than I would have liked and the grain doesn't appear to be entirely natural. One for the "minor issues" list, I think.

I have not seen Go yet, but that makes sense. Sony has been known to use what they call "therapeutic use" of digital noise reduction on some of their catalog titles. It looks like they aim for a more consistent look over the course of a movie than tolerating varying levels of grain structure in their transfers.

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by wuther

And if you want to argue that jpeg even at high rates does not leave behind artifacts, well sorry but that is incorrect, jpeg is called lossy and has no lossless mode at higher settings. If that were true mid to higher end cameras would not have raw formats.

There is JPEG 2000 on my Paint Shop Pro which has a lossless mode but last time i checked i don't think you could use that for online images as it just will not display them due to browser recognition. The JPEG images can also have their chroma subsampling changed which does actually work well if you are trying to cut file size and finding red text backgrounds an issue.

Seriously though at very low levels of compression i do not think anyone even an expert photographer could notice the difference between a PNG file and a JPEG. Perhaps we should try some blind tests though and i'd be up for it.

Your digital camera must interpolate color, adjust for white balance, correct gamma, convert to a color profile, sharpen, and perform saturation and other adjustments before finally compressing the file into a JPEG image. A raw file is the pure data that comes from the camera's sensor. RAW is great for professional photographers because of all that but we are talking about taking an image directly off a Blu Ray disc and then compressing using JPEG at minimal settings so it's different to actually shooting an image in a camera therefore RAW is actually not relevant especially since Blu Ray is using 8 bit color so it's not even in the same class as a high end camera with regards it's color. Thats why i think using minimal compression for these Blu Ray stills and JPEG will show an image as good as PNG.

Indeed with a raw image, you can keep all of the color data, which means that you can push your edits further before you run into posterization, poor exposure, bad color depth, etc. Great for amateur and expert photographers.

Shooting RAW will capture between 10 and 14 bits of color per pixel while Blu Ray and JPEG match each other at 8 bits.

[Whiggles]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

Seriously though at very low levels of compression i do not think anyone even an expert photographer could notice the difference between a PNG file and a JPEG. Perhaps we should try some blind tests though and i'd be up for it.

Happy to oblige.

There are two images below, both PNGs of the same frame from MONSTERS INC. However, one of them was first saved as a JPG with minimum compression, then saved as a PNG again. Can anyone tell which one went through lossy compression?

Spoiler  

EDIT: And here's one from FRANKLYN, so I can show demonstrate with something that has grain in it:

Spoiler  

EDIT: And here's one more, one with compression artefacts. This is from one of the "problem" shots in THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, and is designed to demonstrate that the artefacts I was complaining about weren't introduced by the JPG compression:

Spoiler  

[dvdmike007]

The first Franklyn looks like the JPG to me

[FoxyMulder]

Ok well if i'm right then i'll edit the post.

How can you tell Mike ?

[Whiggles]

MIKE: I'm not saying whether you're right or wrong, but what's your basis for that?

FOXY: Shh! Don't tell them!!!

[dvdmike007]

Something about the grain the the left of the shot looks clumped

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by dvdmike007

Something about the grain the the left of the shot looks clumped

Looks the same to me in both images.

This is a bit of fun though which we don't usually go in for on this thread.

[dvdmike007]

I like it, its a laugh

[dvdmike007]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder

Something grand and large scale and i'd like to use the animated puppets from Team America.

If that plan is too expensive then it's back to the drawing board for a new plan.

The strings snapped, but I did a video, if you dont like it let me know and I will redo one, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4BDLZRJC1g